Bonds vs. Williams

[Hammerin Hank]

Who was the better ballplayer between Teddy Ballgame and Battered Fried Barry?

Bonds: 18 yrs, 2579 hits, 653 HR, 1734 RBI, .297 BA, 1.034 OPS, 500 SB, .984 FP

Williams: 19 yrs, 2654 hits, 521 HR, 1839 RBI, .344 BA, 1.116 OPS, 24 SB, .974 FP

[tearforamariner]

Bonds because he is a more complete player.

[Hammerin Hank]

You have to admit that Bonds is the better fielder and baserunner. One could make an argument for Teddy's hitting over Bonds but does batting outweigh baserunning and fielding?

[tearforamariner]

I would also make the argument that Bonds scores more runs. Runs as we all know, win ball games.

[cubbieinexile]

Originally posted by Hammerin Hank
You have to admit that Bonds is the better fielder and baserunner. One could make an argument for Teddy's hitting over Bonds but does batting outweigh baserunning and fielding?

Yes

[2Chance]

Here's a dissenting vote. Not to say that Ted was hands down the better ballplayer, as Bonds' running and fielding stats show superiority here. Let me be the first to trot out Williams' war record. He missed five prime years, three in WWII and two in Korea. Sure, he wasn't playing ball then, but who can say what kind of numbers he would have put up in the HR and RBI departments without hurting his batting average? (Yes, there is a thread on that in here somewhere.)

Back on track: On defense, Barry has Ted in the glove department, but Ted had a stronger arm. Offensively, Ted was one of the first "scientific" hitters, who broke down pitches, at-bats, etc. to the point where he could write a book about it. Many other players did this kind of thing in their heads before, but Ted had to be different. Nowadays this scientific approach is popular, especially with the better hitters. But this was new in the 1940s, so I give Ted the nod there, and for always asking the more experienced guys questions and talking baseball with the veterans. That also made him a better player.

Average and OPS go to Williams, power numbers to Barry (barely. He put a lot of time in in the 1990s.) Base stealing to Barry, but with the game on the line, I would stick with Williams.

[bluezebra]

It's obvious that those who voted for Bonds are enamored by home runs. And never saw Williams bat.

No comparison. Ted was the purest hitter I ever saw. And he wasn't a Punch-and-Judy hitter, either. He hit home runs in an era where 140lb. infielders didn't hit 40 HRs a year.

Bonds, .295, 8 (complete) seasons under .300.
Williams, .344 (7th all-time), NO complete seasons under .300. Led AL six times in hitting. Led in OBP EVERY year after rookie season. Led 10 times in slugging, 9 consecutively. In runs 6 times, 5 in-a-row. Total bases 6 times. Home runs and RBIs 4 times each. Triple crown in 1947. Nine straight seasons with walks. In fact, the rule was changed for batting qualifying because of his walks.

Bob

[DaleC76]

Williams has an almost 50 point lead in OBP (.482 to .433) and a 30+ point lead in SLG (.634 to .601).

Barry has better numbers on the basepaths and with the glove, but there's no way fielding and running are equal in importance to hitting. Batting is at least 80% of the game for an outfielder, I'd say.

I'd have to take Ted Williams over Bonds, perhaps over anyone.

[Brad Harris]

BA vs. league average
+32% Williams
+14% Bonds*

OBP vs. league average
+42% Williams
+31% Bonds

SLG vs. league average
+65% Williams
+50% Bonds

ISO vs. league average
+138% Williams
+116% Bonds

SEC vs. league average
+134% Williams
+130% Bonds



* Bonds' percentages are thru 2002 only.

None of the above numbers have been adjusted for park effects. Doing so would of course would decrease the margin of difference in most cases given that Fenway is a wonderful hitters' park while Bonds has played most of his career in pitcher-friendly stadiums.

[TrueDodgerFan]

IMO, I'd have to put Teddy in a list of the top 5 hitters of all time, and one could only imagine how the numbers would have looked had he not lost several of his prime years because of military service.

Not taking ANYTHING away from Barry and his accomplishments, I believe Ted's accomplishments are even more impressive when you consider that today's game gives Barry the following advantages (available to all current ballplayers):

* No fear of the inside pitch. In Ted's time, pitchers used the brush-back pitch as a strategic weapon, and batters wore no protective equipment. Today, umpires routinely warn pitchers for pitching inside and will eject them for inadvertantly hitting a batter, while batters come to the plate wearing protective helmets and padding on the arms and legs.

* Better instruction. In Ted's day, players and coaches had very crude methods for analyzing and correcting a players swing. Today's player has videotape and computer analysis available to dissect and perfect every part of his swing.

* Better physical training techniques. Regardless of whether or not Barry uses performance enhancing drugs, he has a year round training program that includes personal trainers and cutting edge training equipment and techniques. Obviously, players in Ted's time used fairly traditional training techniques.

Just my thoughts...

[Hammerin Hank]

I've always thought that Williams was the best hitter of all-time. I believe that Williams was a better hitter than that fat Babe guy. Of course, I receive a lot criticism for that.

[bluezebra]

Originally posted by Hammerin Hank
I've always thought that Williams was the best hitter of all-time. I believe that Williams was a better hitter than that fat Babe guy. Of course, I receive a lot criticism for that.

Calling Ruth, "that fat Babe guy" shows your ignorance. Ruth didn't put weight on until his last few years. 6'2", 215# is NOT fat.

From 1930-34, when he played in at least 125 games (the fewest in those five seasons), he hit .359, 49 HR, 153 RBI; .373, 46, 163; 341, 41, 137; .301, 34, 103; .288, 22, 84. He was 39 that final year.

Not too bad for a "Fat Guy".

Bob

[Appling]

Originally posted by tearforamariner
I would also make the argument that Bonds scores more runs. Runs as we all know, win ball games.

Ted scored 1798 runs in 2292 regular-season games.
Barry scored more runs (1830) but over 2439 games (thru 2002).

Ted not only missed five key seasons due to Military Service, but he also played in 154-game seasons, not 162. I give Ted the nod here, for his average of 0.784 runs per game (versus 0.750 runs per game for Barry).

Ted led his league in Runs Scored six times, with more than 130 runs in six seasons. Barry led the NL in runs ONCE, and his career best was 129 runs in 1993.

Runs are scored by getting on base. Despite Barry's record OBP year in 2002 Ted still holds the MLB record for highest career OBP with .482. Barry ranks #11 with a .428 career OBP thru 2002.

Anyway, Teddy was my boyhood idol. He has to win this vote!

[Hammerin Hank]

Originally posted by bluezebra
Calling Ruth, "that fat Babe guy" shows your ignorance. Ruth didn't put weight on until his last few years. 6'2", 215# is NOT fat.

From 1930-34, when he played in at least 125 games (the fewest in those five seasons), he hit .359, 49 HR, 153 RBI; .373, 46, 163; 341, 41, 137; .301, 34, 103; .288, 22, 84. He was 39 that final year.

Not too bad for a "Fat Guy".

Bob

Take a joke. Now you're making me refrain from making an uncivil post. Shame on you.

[J W]

Barry right now is having seasons on par or better than anyone in history, but we'll see how long that pace can be kept up. Ted Williams had an OBP above .450 for 15 straight seasons; 10 of those seasons yeilded a .490 or better.

Barry's Gold Glove ability and speed really sway me, but for right now I stick with Ted.

[Eddie Collins]

Ted by far, look at the period in which bonds is hitting all these homers

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Surprised this thread didn't go further than 15 responses. Let's give Teddy his war years back, throw him into the 90's, and add 25 pounds of muscle to go along with his unique baseball mind. What then. :D

[History Of Baseball Fan]

Ted Williams never had to take steroids to hit .400

Bond played in a league where pitching was terrible except for a few good pitchers. Bonds has almost a .300 avg for his career, but walking 100 times a year will do that.

[Wee Willie]

Bonds has almost a .300 avg for his career, but walking 100 times a year will do that.That doesn't make much sense. High BB totals and high BA's don't necessarily go hand-in-hand. Many players have walked over 100 times a year and have low to medium averages (Harmon Killebrew, for example?)

[Dravecky43]

Who was the better ballplayer between Teddy Ballgame and Battered Fried Barry?

Bonds: 18 yrs, 2579 hits, 653 HR, 1734 RBI, .297 BA, 1.034 OPS, 500 SB, .984 FP

Williams: 19 yrs, 2654 hits, 521 HR, 1839 RBI, .344 BA, 1.116 OPS, 24 SB, .974 FP
The Splendid Splinter only had 24 CAREER steals? That seems sort of hard to believe. And let me update Barry's stats another year or two (because I don't know why you only have him at .297 and 653 HR. If there is a reason for that, though, I'm sorry):

19 yrs, 2,730 hits, 703 HR, 1,843 RBI, .300 BA, 506 SB.

I don't have the time right now to calculate the OPS. I know this probably won't change anyone's mind, but I just wanted to make sure the facts were close to correct. I also left out Barry's 2005 stats because I do not feel that 14 games makes a year.

Oh and Hammerin, where did you come up with that, um, interesting nickname for the best player in history?

[538280]

Bonds has almost a .300 avg for his career, but walking 100 times a year will do that.

Yeah, this is just completely crazy. First, you speak as if walking 100 times a year is a bad thing. You don't like that .442 OBP?

Second, walking doesn't make a high BA at all. Actually, many players who walk have very low BAs (my man JIm Wynn). Of course, people seem to get an idea those guys can't hit.

[538280]

The Splendid Splinter only had 24 CAREER steals? That seems sort of hard to believe.

He did indeed only have 24 steals.

[Bill Burgess]

Bonds. Was a rounded player, not merely a hitter.

Bill Burgess

[Captain Cold Nose]

Bonds. Was a rounded player, not merely a hitter.

Is that Eddie Collins, my old ally, Sean Meagher? Welcome home, my brother!

Could I persuade you to sign my Guest Book thread, "Who Are We? I'd Really Like To Know", and also, "Official Member's Opinions"?

Bill Burgess
Unfortunately, Bill, that post of ECs was back in September of 2003. This is yet another long dead thread (a good one, nonetheless, and one that certainly has room for discussion.) brought back to life.
A lot of people posting now weren't around for this, so this is one that I don't mind seeing dug up again. Good work, Sultan.

[csh19792001]

I would also make the argument that Bonds scores more runs. Runs as we all know, win ball games.

This is untrue. First, look at Ted's first 8 years! In 1950 Williams shattered his elbow at the all star game trying to catch a Kiner fly ball, and he was never the same. Prior to 1950, Williams averaged 135 runs/year.

Translated to a 162 game schedule that's 146 runs per season, which is simply incredible, especially for a guy who was never fast at all.

Ted Williams scored 1798 runs in 2292 games. That's .78/game.

Bonds is at .76 per game.

Of course, this is slightly misleading due to the fact that Williams missed 3 years right in his prime, and the majority of 2 other years in his mid 30's due to military service. Williams missed well over 700 games in 43'-45' and 52'-53' combined. Just based on averages, had he been given the opportunity to play most of those games, he would have ended up with at least 2300 career runs scored, perhaps more.

[csh19792001]

Is that Eddie Collins, my old ally, Sean Meagher? Welcome home, my brother!


This thread is 3 years old, Bill :) (I know, I just realized it too). Unfortunately many of these guys have been replaced by other newer members.

[Bill Burgess]

Unfortunately, Bill, that post of ECs was back in September of 2003. This is yet another long dead thread (a good one, nonetheless, and one that certainly has room for discussion.) brought back to life.
A lot of people posting now weren't around for this, so this is one that I don't mind seeing dug up again. Good work, Sultan.

That was sneaky, if you asked me. Made me look like the horse's butt. Again. Oh well. Such is my fate on Fever.

BB

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Sorry guys, I was bored. Clicked on page #115 for the hell of it, and this thread popped up. Couldn't believe it died so quick.

[History Of Baseball Fan]

bonds only had more than 160 hits 2 times in his career...

[Sultan_1895-1948]

bonds only had more than 160 hits 2 times in his career...

Hit over .312 only once before 2001.

Never slugged higher than .677 until 2000.

[History Of Baseball Fan]

i never got to see Ted Williams play, but everyone doesn't call him one of the best, or the best hitters of all time.

i never heard alot about Bonds before he broke the single season HR mark. now i see everyone saying hes one of the top 10 hitters of all time, which is rediculous.

its funny how everyone ranks him ahead of Hank Aaron, yet Aaron is #1 all time in HRs, RBI, and 3rd in Hits... thats pretty damn good. but for the # 1 and #2 hitters of all time has to be Cobb and Ruth.

[538280]

i never got to see Ted Williams play, but everyone doesn't call him one of the best, or the best hitters of all time.

i never heard alot about Bonds before he broke the single season HR mark. now i see everyone saying hes one of the top 10 hitters of all time, which is rediculous.

Ted Williams is constantly called one of the best hitters ever. Eveyone does call him one of the best.

If you hadn't heard of Bonds prior to 2001, then, well, there's just nothing for me to say. He was BY FAR the best player in baseball during the 1990s. Not even any close rivals. You won't find many arguing with that either, except maybe a few Griffey zealots who think A)Plate discipline is not a real skill, and B)Statistical analysis has no place in baseball.

its funny how everyone ranks him ahead of Hank Aaron, yet Aaron is #1 all time in HRs, RBI, and 3rd in Hits... thats pretty damn good. but for the # 1 and #2 hitters of all time has to be Cobb and Ruth.

I could see Aaron over Bonds, if you value longevity over peak. But, I think peak is very important and put Bonds ahead. Even his pre-2001 peak was better than Aaron's. I rank Bonds 4th and Aaron 6th as of right now. My top 10:

1.Mays
2.Ruth
3.Charleston
4.Bonds
5.T.Williams
6.Aaron
7.Schmidt
8.Wagner
9.Mantle
10.Cobb

[Blackout]

Oh and Hammerin, where did you come up with that, um, interesting nickname for the best player in history?


"That Fat Babe Guy" doesn't count as a legit "nickname" in my opinion

[Bill Burgess]

Ted Williams is constantly called one of the best hitters ever. Everyone does call him one of the best.

If you hadn't heard of Bonds prior to 2001, then, well, there's just nothing for me to say. He was BY FAR the best player in baseball during the 1990s. Not even any close rivals. You won't find many arguing with that either, except maybe a few Griffey zealots who think A)Plate discipline is not a real skill, and B)Statistical analysis has no place in baseball.



I could see Aaron over Bonds, if you value longevity over peak. But, I think peak is very important and put Bonds ahead. Even his pre-2001 peak was better than Aaron's. I rank Bonds 4th and Aaron 6th as of right now. My top 10:

1.Mays
2.Ruth
3.Charleston
4.Bonds
5.T.Williams
6.Aaron
7.Schmidt
8.Wagner
9.Mantle
10.Cobb

Hey Chris: If you want to regain your lost credibility, you're close. Try this one.

1.Mays
2.Ruth
3.Charleston
4.Bonds
5.Cobb
6.Wagner
7.Gehrig
8.Hornsby
9.Speaker
10.Mantle

It wouldn't be perfect, of course, but it would definitely put you back in the game. And it would closely resemble Bill James Top 10. It must be cold & lonely to always be in the minority, looking in.

Bill

PS. There were quite a few Griffey zealots, by the way. They were wrong, of course.

[Wee Willie]

i never got to see Ted Williams play, but everyone doesn't call him one of the best, or the best hitters of all time.Of COURSE Ted is one of the best hitters of all time - no one can make a legitimate argument that he is not.

[History Of Baseball Fan]

Of COURSE Ted is one of the best hitters of all time - no one can make a legitimate argument that he is not.

oops, in my quote i meant to that Ted Williams isn't called one of the best hitters for nothing. *

[csh19792001]

Hey Chris: If you want to regain your lost credibility, you're close.


LOL. Nice phrasing, Bill. ;)

For a guy who keeps moving Cobb down, and now has him 10th alltime, saying he's close is pretty pollyannish.

[538280]

Hey Chris: If you want to regain your lost credibility, you're close. Try this one.

1.Mays
2.Ruth
3.Charleston
4.Bonds
5.Cobb
6.Wagner
7.Gehrig
8.Hornsby
9.Speaker
10.Mantle

It wouldn't be perfect, of course, but it would definitely put you back in the game. And it would closely resemble Bill James Top 10. It must be cold & lonely to always be in the minority, looking in.


Bill, you really think I'm going to put Hornsby 8th all time, and leave Aaron and Schmidt out of the top 10? Whatever happened to Joe Morgan? Putting Rogers there would just contradict a whole lot of posts I've made.

[Nomtoc]

Bonds-Steroids
Williams-All Natural

Please, ain't no comparison here.

[Dravecky43]

"That Fat Babe Guy" doesn't count as a legit "nickname" in my opinion
Haha. Funny. But seriously, Hammerin (if you are still on BBF, considering how long this thread was dormant), where did you get the nickname for the soon-to-be most prolific left-handed HR hitter in history?

[Blackout]

Haha. Funny. But seriously, Hammerin (if you are still on BBF, considering how long this thread was dormant), where did you get the nickname for the soon-to-be most prolific left-handed HR hitter in history?

you mean

where did he get the nickname for the steroid-abuser-who-wasnt-in-the-top-10-LH-hitters-of-all-time-before-steroids?

[History Of Baseball Fan]

Bonds-Steroids
Williams-All Natural

Please, ain't no comparison here.


i agree 100 %

[Bill Burgess]

Bill, you really think I'm going to put Hornsby 8th all time, and leave Aaron and Schmidt out of the top 10? Whatever happened to Joe Morgan? Putting Rogers there would just contradict a whole lot of posts I've made.

OK. That might be too ambitious a stretch for you. Switch Horsby for Aaron, and put Schmidt 11th, Josh Gibson 12. And Hornsby in the top 20 somewhere, after Joe Morgan.

That would still get you tons more credibility than you have now. If you notice, Chris, I also did some difficult revisions on my own list. And if an older guy, with more set ways can do it, so can younger fans.

Here is how I see your list with just a little tweaking, strengthening it immensely, immunizing you from criticism, and ushering you back into the mainstream. Check how close you are to Bill James Top 20. Much closer.

1.Willie Mays
2.Babe Ruth
3.Oscar Charleston
4.Barry Bonds
5.Ty Cobb
6.Honus Wagner
7.Lou Gehrig
8.Hank Aaron
9.Ted Williams
10.Mickey Mantle
11.Josh Gibson
12.Tris Speaker
13.Mike Schmidt
14.Joe Morgan
15.Eddie Collins
16.Rogers Hornsby
17.Pop Lloyd
18.Rickey Henderson
19.Stan Musial
20.Frank Robinson

[Sultan_1895-1948]

1.Willie Mays
2.Babe Ruth
3.Oscar Charleston
4.Barry Bonds
5.Ty Cobb
6.Honus Wagner
7.Lou Gehrig
8.Hank Aaron
9.Ted Williams
10.Mickey Mantle
11.Josh Gibson
12.Tris Speaker
13.Mike Schmidt
14.Joe Morgan
15.Eddie Collins
16.Rogers Hornsby
17.Pop Lloyd
18.Rickey Henderson
19.Stan Musial
20.Frank Robinson

Speaker too low, Bonds too high. Still don't see how you have enough evidence to put Charleston in the top 3. It's all good though.

[Blackout]

Speaker too low, Bonds too high. Still don't see how you have enough evidence to put Charleston in the top 3. It's all good though.


or how he could put charleston ahead of Gibson ;)

[Bill Burgess]

Guys,

I was merely trying to assist Chris, (538280) with HIS Top 20.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Guys,

I was merely trying to assist Chris, (538280) with HIS Top 20.

In that case, why not throw the peach at the top of the heap :D Or was #5 already pushin' it for him.

[Bill Burgess]

In that case, why not throw the peach at the top of the heap :D Or was #5 already pushin' it for him.
Cuz Chrisboy isn't ready for an assault up Mt. Cobb. Too rugged. But for him to move him up half-way, would be an ambitious plunge into the mainstream, for him.

Bill

[History Of Baseball Fan]

i don't think bonds should even be in these top hitters of all time thing, because we don't know if he took steroids. ( i think he did though )

i really can't see how bonds can make half of your top 5 lists. the guy doesn't get alot of hits, just alot of homeruns. not to mention hitting against crap pitching really helps.

[538280]

1.Willie Mays
2.Babe Ruth
3.Oscar Charleston
4.Barry Bonds
5.Ty Cobb
6.Honus Wagner
7.Lou Gehrig
8.Hank Aaron
9.Ted Williams
10.Mickey Mantle
11.Josh Gibson
12.Tris Speaker
13.Mike Schmidt
14.Joe Morgan
15.Eddie Collins
16.Rogers Hornsby
17.Pop Lloyd
18.Rickey Henderson
19.Stan Musial
20.Frank Robinson

Bill, I still just don't see it. This list isn't horrible, but I just don't think Cobb is better than Aaron, Williams, or Mantle. I don't see how Wagner's better than those guys either. There's no way in hell I"m putting my #1 3B (Schmidt) behind my #5 CF (Speaker). Yeah, Schmidt still needs to be much higher. Past Schmidt it's pretty good except I don't see Lloyd and the Rajah ahead of Rickey, Frank, and Stan.

[Nomtoc]

Personally I hate the fact that they let Babo wear a suit-of-armor that enables him to stand over the plate and not worry as much about getting beamed. Armor should be limited to maybe just a small pad on the elbow; if that.

There should be two separate lists; one for real ballplayers and then one for these modern day fools that go to the plate looking like a knight from King Arthurs court.

[digglahhh]

It must be so easy to write off the accomplishments of those who you wish weren't so accomplished.

Much love to the rest of you who don't see intellectual indolence as personal utopia and therefore don't conform to myopic generalizations to evade the toughest questions, like where does Barry Bonds stand amongst the greats?

[leecemark]

--Well that IS a tough question. The Barry Bonds of the 90s was a marvelous all around player. A consistently outstanding performer, but one more in the lines of Hank Aaron than Babe Ruth. Balco Barry is a completely different player. A monster at the plate to rival or even exceed the best seasons of the Babe or Teddy Ballgame, but no longer the superior fielder or baserunner he once was. His unprecedented and almost certainly chemically enhanced run this decade is hard to put into perspective.
--I don't think its unreasonable for people to discount Bond's late career numbers to some extent. I don't think its reasonable to totally disregard them though. How to balance that is a difficult issue and one where there isn't one clearly correct answer.
--One thing to remember in comparing Bonds and Williams though is that it is not accurate to call Bonds as great a hitter AND a much better fielder and baserunner. The Bonds that outshone Williams in the field and on the basepaths could not come close to matching him with the bat. The Bonds that hits like (or better) than Williams could no longer claim to have huge advantages in the other aspects of the game (and he has not had nearly as long a period of historic dominance with the bat). This would be true even if you completely ignored the steroids.

[Nomtoc]

It must be so easy to write off the accomplishments of those who you wish weren't so accomplished.

Much love to the rest of you who don't see intellectual indolence as personal utopia and therefore don't conform to myopic generalizations to evade the toughest questions, like where does Barry Bonds stand amongst the greats?


I didn't say write him off, I insinuated he, and others whom wear such outragous outfits at the plate, be put into a different catagory. If they are going to allow players to dress up like Mid-Evil knights they should have to wear that armor while on defense.

:radio

[Honus Wagner Rules]

--Well that IS a tough question. The Barry Bonds of the 90s was a marvelous all around player. A consistently outstanding performer, but one more in the lines of Hank Aaron than Babe Ruth. Balco Barry is a completely different player. A monster at the plate to rival or even exceed the best seasons of the Babe or Teddy Ballgame, but no longer the superior fielder or baserunner he once was. His unprecedented and almost certainly chemically enhanced run this decade is hard to put into perspective.
--I don't think its unreasonable for people to discount Bond's late career numbers to some extent. I don't think its reasonable to totally disregard them though. How to balance that is a difficult issue and one where there isn't one clearly correct answer.
--One thing to remember in comparing Bonds and Williams though is that it is not accurate to call Bonds as great a hitter AND a much better fielder and baserunner. The Bonds that outshone Williams in the field and on the basepaths could not come close to matching him with the bat. The Bonds that hits like (or better) than Williams could no longer claim to have huge advantages in the other aspects of the game (and he has not had nearly as long a period of historic dominance with the bat). This would be true even if you completely ignored the steroids.

Grerat post leecemark!! Thought provoking and well thought out. Bonds and Williams are two completely type of players. I think it's pretty much impossible to compare them directly. For what it's worth Bill James once said the Williams was never the player Bonds is." When did he say that? He said that in his 1994 Baseball Player Ratings book.

[538280]

--One thing to remember in comparing Bonds and Williams though is that it is not accurate to call Bonds as great a hitter AND a much better fielder and baserunner. The Bonds that outshone Williams in the field and on the basepaths could not come close to matching him with the bat. The Bonds that hits like (or better) than Williams could no longer claim to have huge advantages in the other aspects of the game (and he has not had nearly as long a period of historic dominance with the bat). This would be true even if you completely ignored the steroids.

That was a great post, Mark.

I think Bonds 1992-1993 was a better player than Williams ever was, though. I don't think he "couldn't come close to matching him with the bat". Williams' best OPS+ full seasons were 235 and 215, respectively. Bonds those two years was 206 and 205. It's still very hard to make up that difference, but Bonds did play in a tougher league that was harder to dominate. In my own rating system I introduced a while ago I would give a player from Barry's time a 10 point OPS+ boost over players from TEd's era. That still have Bonds behind, but Barry at that point in his career was one of the best fielding LFers of all time, and a very good baserunner who can steal 30 or so bases consistently. I think a player like Bonds those years who was only a slightly worse hitter and had significant fielding/baserunning advantages is better.

But, Barry only really stayed at that level for three years. Ted was consistently at that level for about five. I agree Ted was better overall before 2001.

Then came 2001, when as we all know Barry went on probably the best run of any player, any time. Even myself (a huge Bonds supporter) has to admit he probably did use steroids those years and it probably did help him significantly. But, I think he still deserves lots of credit for that. Instead of 50-55 Win Shares a year, I think it's appropriate to give him 35-40. That is still enough to put him about equal in career value with Ted though, even with war credit, and along with Bonds' superior peak 1992-1994 I rank him ahead.

I've taken heat in the past for not decrediting Bonds enough for his issues. What people don't realize is by rating him 4th all time I am giving him a significant drop in the rankings. Based on my rating system I introduced, Bonds comes out #1 all time, by a pretty good margin. The top 3 go like this:

1.Barry Bonds 553.23
2.Willie Mays 521.17
3.Babe Ruth 515.04

Bonds is ahead by more than 30 points. I'm not obligated to follow my system, and Bonds' peak is largely shaky in my mind. But, you have to realize that rating him anything lower than #1 for me is making a large penalty.

[leecemark]

--Williams retired with an OPS+ of 190 while playing into his 40s. Through the 2000 season Bonds was about 30 points below that. That is a huge gap and there was every reason to believe it would go down some before he was finished - like it had for virtually every other player in the history of the game. Instead he put up significantly better numbers in his late 30s than he had at any earlier point in his career. We all know that is not normal and that is what makes him so hard to compare to anybody else.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

1.Barry Bonds 553.23
2.Willie Mays 521.17
3.Babe Ruth 515.04

Bonds is ahead by more than 30 points. I'm not obligated to follow my system, and Bonds' peak is largely shaky in my mind. But, you have to realize that rating him anything lower than #1 for me is making a large penalty.


Have you posted your rating system on here before?

How much does this system discredit Babe for his era? Does this system realize that while it's harder to stand out today, the reason for that is because the game is so easy offensively for everyone? Just curious.

[leecemark]

--What do you base "the game being so much easier for everyone" on? That is just rediculous. Pitchers throw harder and throw new pitches that didn't exist in Ruth's day. Tired or ineffective pitchers are quickly removed rather than sticking around to take a beating as they often did in Ruth's day. Fielders are much faster and more athletic and have better equipment than they did in Ruth's day.
--True, the strike zone is a little tighter and the parks a little smaller (on average anyway, none are as small as the smallest old parks), but on balance I can't see it being easier to hit today. If that were true why are batting averages 30 points lower than in Ruth's day?

[History Of Baseball Fan]

bonds had to hit against alot of crappy pitching. not to mention the nifty steroid use help too :clapping :clapping

[leecemark]

--There has always been a fair share of crappy(or at least sub-optimal) pitchers. Teams have never be satisified with the number of pitchers they could find.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

--What do you base "the game being so much easier for everyone" on? That is just rediculous. Pitchers throw harder and throw new pitches that didn't exist in Ruth's day. Tired or ineffective pitchers are quickly removed rather than sticking around to take a beating as they often did in Ruth's day. Fielders are much faster and more athletic and have better equipment than they did in Ruth's day.
--True, the strike zone is a little tighter and the parks a little smaller (on average anyway, none are as small as the smallest old parks), but on balance I can't see it being easier to hit today. If that were true why are batting averages 30 points lower than in Ruth's day?


a LITTLE TIGHTER? a LITTLE SMALLER? lol

It's harder to dominate or stand out among your peers today, because even the average players are made to look very good by the conditions of the game. The conditions which favor offense, and force players to tailor their game to one of power. Which is why averages are down. Doesn't that make sense Mark?

Pitchers throwing harder does does not mean they are better "pitchers." In fact, it plays right into the hands of todays sluggers. It would serve them well to focus on the art of pitching more than trying to blow it by guys who are stronger than ever, using lighter and harder bats than ever, hitting in smaller ballparks than ever, with a smaller zone than ever. "Throwing" does not equal "pitching."

[leecemark]

--I think the average player looks better today for the simple reason that he is better. The average player today is better than the average player of 50 years ago, just as that player was better than the average player 50 years before him. It got consistently more difficult to separate from the pack with each generation from the beginnings of the game through the 1980s.
-- I do agree that there has been somewhat of a dilution of the game over the past two decades allowing the best hitters AND pitchers to stand out in a way that had seldom been seen in many years. Even still, extreme performances are less common now than they were in the Babe's day.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

--I think the average player looks better today for the simple reason that he is better. The average player today is better than the average player of 50 years ago

Take each average player in relation to their peers. An average player is an average player. It's not about comparing one average guy from that era, to an average guy from this era.

Elite
Upper tier

Great
Very good
Average
Below Average

Back in Babe's day, because the game wasn't geared as much for offense like it is now, that average player could maybe have occasional moments of very good, and maybe one or two times in a career do something "great."

The average player today routinely performs at very good to great levels because of how the game makes him look. The margin of error for ALL hitters has gone way up. The elite's and upper tiers have a ceiling and can only do so much. They can't stand out as much as they should be able to. How often is 30 HR hit now. The Elite's and a few of the greats might have that or close to it by the All-Star break. You have average guys though, with 15-20 by then. Things tend to even out over the long haul, and they might end up with 32-35, but still, that used to be a great players' yearly numbers just not that long ago. And we know average isn't important, neither are strikeouts, so it's a HR fest that baseball has built.

[Dravecky43]

Ok, I'm just curious but, well, how did the great Babe Ruth come up in a discussion of Ted Williams and Barry Bonds? Maybe I missed it a few pages back. And for all of you who are asking why Barry is in others' top-5, at least take a glance at Elliot Kalb's "Who's Better, Who's Best in Baseball." I think I've implored people to search that out more than a few times on this site. I really think you'll find his reasoning for putting Barry number one all time (even with the POSSIBLE steroid use, which he mentions) very thought provoking. Now if I could just find in one of my moving boxes and post excerpts...

[Sultan_1895-1948]

at least take a glance at Elliot Kalb's "Who's Better, Who's Best in Baseball." I think I've implored people to search that out more than a few times on this site.

There's a supporter for every cause, no matter how absurd. I will check it out though, if you have a link

[538280]

Have you posted your rating system on here before?

How much does this system discredit Babe for his era? Does this system realize that while it's harder to stand out today, the reason for that is because the game is so easy offensively for everyone? Just curious.

I posted the system here:

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=37391

It does discredit Babe for his era somewhat, but I tried hard to make it so that everyone still has a fair shot of coming out very well.

[leecemark]

--Sultan, you just can't accept anything that dampens the glory of your hero even a tiny bit can you? The average player describes MOST players in any era and has improved over time. There is no logical arguent against that.
--Your scale shows a bunch of categories above average and only one below. That is just wrong. This is more like it;
Elite - 1%
Hall of Famer - 2%
All Star - 7%
Above average - 10%
Average - 50%
Below Average - 15%
Marginal - 15%
--I wouldn't claim the exact numbers are exact or even close to exact, but the point is average players (or players very close to average) make up the bulk of majors leaguers at any given time. There are also more player below average or even clearly not belonging than there are players clearly above average. Every team has a few guys just filling rosters spots - minor leaguers getting a shot who aren't going to make it, guys hanging on, journeyman backup catchers who hit like old ladies, etc. Not every team has a great player - or even a legitimate All Star. True now and true when the Babe was playing.
--A closing note; most players who stick around for any length of time will fit into several of these categories at one time or another. The Babe was an Elite most of his career, but was clearly a Marginal player in is swan song with the Braves. A more typical player might look more like this over 15 years;
Marginal
Below Average
Average
Above Average
Above Average
All Star
Above Average
Average
All Star
Above Average
Average
Average
Below Average
Below Average
Marginal
--Actually even a average player might have a career year where plays like a Hall of Famer. Also true in any era.

[Bill Burgess]

The average player describes MOST players in any era and has improved over time. There is no logical arguent against that.
--Your scale shows a bunch of categories above average and only one below. That is just wrong. This is more like it;
Elite - 1%
Hall of Famer - 2%
All Star - 7%
Above average - 10%
Average - 50%
Below Average - 15%
Marginal - 15%
--I wouldn't claim the exact numbers are exact or even close to exact, but the point is average players (or players very close to average) make up the bulk of majors leaguers at any given time. There are also more player below average or even clearly not belonging than there are players clearly above average. Every team has a few guys just filling rosters spots - minor leaguers getting a shot who aren't going to make it, guys hanging on, journeyman backup catchers who hit like old ladies, etc. Not every team has a great player - or even a legitimate All Star. True now and true when the Babe was playing.
--A closing note; most players who stick around for any length of time will fit into several of these categories at one time or another. The Babe was an Elite most of his career, but was clearly a Marginal player in is swan song with the Braves. A more typical player might look more like this over 15 years;
Marginal
Below Average
Average
Above Average
Above Average
All Star
Above Average
Average
All Star
Above Average
Average
Average
Below Average
Below Average
Marginal
--Actually even a average player might have a career year where plays like a Hall of Famer. (Yeah, and then they get supporters for the Hall!!!) Also true in any era.
Most excellent, excellent post, Mark. Kudos.:clapping :clapping :clapping

[csh19792001]

Most excellent, excellent post, Mark. Kudos.:clapping :clapping :clapping

Agreed. Very nice work, Mark.

I tend to agree very often with Mark on the ebb and flow of of the game (league strength inclusive), and generalities. He and I value (or rather, more aptly, "prefer") different types of baseball players, however, so we tend to view the specifics very differently. Since most of the threads here are rankings and/or comparisons, it seems like we rarely agree on anything as a result.

While I used to feel certain about the 50's-70's being the strongest baseball ever got, HWR's thread "The Myth of the Missing Black Athlete in Baseball" got me thinking that this very well might not be the case.

It seems like nobody else changed their opinion, though. 538280 still consistently asserts that the 60's-70's period was the strongest, and I don't think Mark's beliefs were altered heardly at all, either, Mark.

Am I correct?

Bill, have your feelings changed on the subject? I don't know if you've opined as to which era you feel was the strongest/hardest to dominate, but I think they're very similar to when I first met you. I could be way off, of course.

I've been perusing Schell's books- which are really the only available mathematically based approximation of league strength/quality of baseball that has any validity or reliability, as far as I can tell. His park and era adjustments are vastly more precise and intricate than commonly available (usually misleading) blanket stats. When things calm down with work/school I hope to share it with everyone.

[leecemark]

--You are correct Chris. I remain convinced that expansion, reduced Afro-American (and to a lesser extent Anglo-American) interest and the excessive specialization (and resultant demand for more than the available) in pitching have created a situation in the last 15 years where the average talent has failed to increase, and has in fact, decreased from its peak.
--Not to say that there aren't lots of marvelous players active today or that the average player is not bigger and stronger than ever before. Just that the game is no longer claiming as high a percentage of the potentially best baseball players as it did in the first decades after integration.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

--Sultan, you just can't accept anything that dampens the glory of your hero even a tiny bit can you?

It's not even about that. Forget that. We're talking about why THIS ERA is difficult to stand out in. And the reason is because the game has become SO OFFENSIVE, that even average players put up what used to be great numbers. Schmidt or Dale Murphy type great seasons are being put up by guys who aren't half the players they were. And it's not because today's "average" player is that much better than in years past. It's because the game factors have changed.

[west coast orange and black]

i have seen that book on the shelves, giantsalltheway, but have not snagged it.

meanwhile, here is a link (http://www.thesportscritics.com/listingsentry.asp?id=307840&fc=&ic=02) to an article where kalb, a dutiful statistician, speaks of bonds, sans stats.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

i have seen that book on the shelves, giantsalltheway, but have not snagged it.

meanwhile, here is a link (http://www.thesportscritics.com/listingsentry.asp?id=307840&fc=&ic=02) to an article where kalb, a dutiful statistician, speaks of bonds, sans stats.

Typical article, many excuses and a whole lotta spin.

[Bill Burgess]

Bill, have your feelings changed on the subject? I don't know if you've opined as to which era you feel was the strongest/hardest to dominate, but I think they're very similar to when I first met you. I could be way off, of course.
I have tried to express my beliefs often, but I will do so once more. I agree that the general level of play improves with each succeeding decade. I believe this is due to accumulated wisdom being studied, passed along, and the general tendency towards bigger, stronger, faster.

However, I also happen to believe in a wrinkle to the general trend. I believe that the general level of play of the top end elite players does NOT improve with time, but remains somewhat constant/stable.

I believe this is true because I feel that when the best players reach their peaks, they stop improving at the same rate as when they were striving to get there. I believe Wagner/Cobb/Ruth hit their top levels, plateaued, and then stagnated for a few years at the pinnacle, and then spent their declines trying to not decline.

As a former competitive runner, I strongly believe in the theory that in order to improve one's times, it REQUIRES one to compete against equal or better runners. In chess, in order to improve one's strength, you MUST compete against those of equal or better strength.

Why would this not hold true for baseball. In other words, I think that Wagner/Cobb/Ruth hit their peaks, and then had their improvement curve go off the cliff. Not having better players to hone against, they DID NOT get better, but stagnated at the same level. Crushing opponents is NOT IMPROVING.

If a 100m sprinter sets a World Record of 9.81, and then never improves on it, yet goes undefeated for 10 yrs., they did not get better. If they had had someone of their own level to contend with, they could have theoretically continued on their improvement curve unabated. Happens in track all the time.

Back to baseball. I don't think the top end elite players continued to improve, once they hit the top of their games. Look at any position. Look at 2nd base. Lajoie, Collins, were tops for their times. Hornsby was great too. Where is the evidence that their successors exceeded their best efforts. Same for 3rd. Collins/Traynor were tops for the longest time before others arrived to improve on their best. Same at 1B in the 30's. So the theory that the general level of play continued to improve with every decade, while obvious from the worst to the near top, is not so apparent at the very best levels. At least that's how it appears to me, and I attribute it mostly to the psychology of sports competition.

I hope I haven't confused the subject.

Bill Burgess

[Sultan_1895-1948]

The elites and the upper greats will do well no matter what the circumstances. No matter how big the zone they will put up great numbers, no matter how big the parks they will put up great numbers, no matter how hard the ball or how watered down the pitching, they will put up great numbers. Now, when they are given all these advantages, they do better, but there is a ceiling, even for the very best. What these factors do, is allow the rest of the pack to come closer toward them, thus making it harder to dominate or stand out.

[west coast orange and black]

i have read your position before, bill. most of it made perfectly good sense to me then, as well as now.

the only thing that i can offer as small rebuttle happens to be in the world of track & field.

you no doubt remember sergey bubka (sp?). he had no serious competitor save france's vigneron as he incrementally bettered his own vault record numerous times over a decade or so.

not too many bubkas in the world, true, but sometimes someone figures out how to do something that's just different.

it has been declared that there are no original ideas anymore.
my world of design tells me that that is not true.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

--You are correct Chris. I remain convinced that expansion, reduced Afro-American (and to a lesser extent Anglo-American) interest and the excessive specialization (and resultant demand for more than the available) in pitching have created a situation in the last 15 years where the average talent has failed to increase, and has in fact, decreased from its peak.
--Not to say that there aren't lots of marvelous players active today or that the average player is not bigger and stronger than ever before. Just that the game is no longer claiming as high a percentage of the potentially best baseball players as it did in the first decades after integration.

Until recently, I hadn't taken this possiblity into account. One of these days I'm gong to research and catalog every black major leaguer since 1947 to see and determine the best I can what kind of potential did they have in say football and basketball. It's probably take me years but it's one of interests.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I have tried to express my beliefs often, but I will do so once more. I agree that the general level of play improves with each succeeding decade. I believe this is due to accumulated wisdom being studied, passed along, and the general tendency towards bigger, stronger, faster.

However, I also happen to believe in a wrinkle to the general trend. I believe that the general level of play of the top end elite players does NOT improve with time, but remains somewhat constant/stable.

I believe this is true because I feel that when the best players reach their peaks, they stop improving at the same rate as when they were striving to get there. I believe Wagner/Cobb/Ruth hit their top levels, plateaued, and then stagnated for a few years at the pinnacle, and then spent their declines trying to not decline.

As a former competitive runner, I strongly believe in the theory that in order to improve one's times, it REQUIRES one to compete against equal or better runners. In chess, in order to improve one's strength, you MUST compete against those of equal or better strength.

Why would this not hold true for baseball. In other words, I think that Wagner/Cobb/Ruth hit their peaks, and then had their improvement curve go off the cliff. Not having better players to hone against, they DID NOT get better, but stagnated at the same level. Crushing opponents is NOT IMPROVING.

If a 100m sprinter sets a World Record of 9.81, and then never improves on it, yet goes undefeated for 10 yrs., they did not get better. If they had had someone of their own level to contend with, they could have theoretically continued on their improvement curve unabated. Happens in track all the time.

Back to baseball. I don't think the top end elite players continued to improve, once they hit the top of their games. Look at any position. Look at 2nd base. Lajoie, Collins, were tops for their times. Hornsby was great too. Where is the evidence that their successors exceeded their best efforts. Same for 3rd. Collins/Traynor were tops for the longest time before others arrived to improve on their best. Same at 1B in the 30's. So the theory that the general level of play continued to improve with every decade, while obvious from the worst to the near top, is not so apparent at the very best levels. At least that's how it appears to me, and I attribute it mostly to the psychology of sports competition.

I hope I haven't confused the subject.

Bill Burgess

Yes, you have confused the subject, Bill. :laugh Just kidding.

The one thing about comparing players form different eras is looking at the competition they played against. I generally agree that an athlete get's better when facing the best competition. Runners don't set 100 WRs in practice, rght?

[Honus Wagner Rules]

i have read your position before, bill. most of it made perfectly good sense to me then, as well as now.

the only thing that i can offer as small rebuttle happens to be in the world of track & field.

you no doubt remember sergey bubka (sp?). he had no serious competitor save france's vigneron as he incrementally bettered his own vault record numerous times over a decade or so.

not too many bubkas in the world, true, but sometimes someone figures out how to do something that's just different.

it has been declared that there are no original ideas anymore.
my world of design tells me that that is not true.

Some athletes are just motivated by themselves. Paavo Nurmi comes to mind. Tiger Woods, when he was blowing away the entire field by 12 shots at majors, is another.

[Edgartohof]

Bonds-Steroids
Williams-All Natural

Please, ain't no comparison here.

Thank You!


Bonds was great, but it took steriods to get him into Williams' league. If you take out the steroids, no amount of fielding and running is going to make up for it.

[Bill Burgess]

Yes, you have confused the subject, Bill. :laugh Just kidding.

The one thing about comparing players form different eras is looking at the competition they played against. I generally agree that an athlete get's better when facing the best competition. Runners don't set 100 WRs in practice, Right?
I agree. Take for example the Negro Leagues. They were never able to attract/milk their total talent pool for lack of better financial incentives.

So a lot of their best athletes never played baseball. And the ones who did, never developed their FULL potentials, due to poor competition.

If they had been allowed into the MLs, they would have suddenly been able to attract/milk their full talent pools, which is what happened in the 1950's.

And by being allowed to hone/compete with the best possible competition, their stars would have risen MUCH higher than if they had remained trapped in their own universe, and their worst to their journeymen players would have been filtered/screened out, and found their own level in the white minors, semi-pro's, or remained in the depleted Negro Leagues or dropped out of baseball completely, which would have been a true market supply/demand outcome.

Bill Burgess

[csh19792001]

I have tried to express my beliefs often, but I will do so once more.

Bill Burgess

Very nice work, Bill.

So let me ask you, then.... What would you estimate Cobb's career line/rate stats be playing, let's say, during the 1969-1992 time period? Would he resemble anyone else who has played since?

[west coast orange and black]

"some athletes are just motivated by themselves." how true, wags.

and then there are those who not only motivate themselves to do great things, but do so in a different way.
tom waddel revolutionized walking. dick fosbury, the high jump. both were premier athletes. both were champions

[csh19792001]

The elites and the upper greats will do well no matter what the circumstances.

Same question for you, Sultan, as the resident Ruth aficionado. :o

Put Babe Ruth in the modern era, but not the steroid/expansion era (in a balanced era like the 70's/80's).

What would you project his career line would be, all things considered?

[west coast orange and black]

nodding over here about #82, bill.

[Bill Burgess]

nodding over here about #82, bill.Thanks, Tony.

[Bill Burgess]

Very nice work, Bill.

So let me ask you, then.... What would you estimate Cobb's career line/rate stats be playing, let's say, during the 1969-1992 time period? Would he resemble anyone else who has played since?

Chris:

I don't compare Ty/Babe with other players, but below is a past post I did. I feel it's my best attempt to bring them to later days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ty/Babe in Modern Times:

I'd like another crack at estimating how Ty/Babe might do if they'd been born later, with their same skill sets, but applied them to a later era.

1st Ty. In later eras I assign him a Relative BA in his best yrs. of 150%. He exceeded that around 9 times, so I top him out around 150% as his best in later times, due to improved competition. He would normally come in first in his league.

I also assign a Relative SLG. ave. of 1.60%. His leading ratios in his career were: 1.72, 1.65, 1.64, 1.64, 1.58, 1.57, 1.54, 1.50, 1.49, 1.44, 1.44, 1.43, 1.42, 142. So, from these ratios, I assign him a 1.60 in his best yr. and from 1.55-1.60 in his best seasons. Again bowing to improved competition.

So, I assign TC a BA of 1.50%, and a SLG. of 1.55-1.60. And those ratios are not subject to fluctuation due to deadball/liveball. All of his peers would be subject to the same conditions, and would be equalized evenly together. Ty would come in the top 5 in HRs. He came in the top 5 in HRs 7 times in his career & was in the top 5 in HRs up to 1919.

And inserting blacks into the equation should be balanced by black pitchers/hitters evenly. But the improved competition would be comprised of black, Hispanic, Asian and better prospects due to scouting covering the entire nation, west coast, Latin America, etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now Babe. I assign him a Relative BA around 1.30. I got that figure in a most non-scientific manner. Here's what I did. I scoured his away BA for his career from Total BB, 1st ed. I selected his 1924 season as his representative season. In 1924, Babe hit .375 away/.381 home.

Beginning with 1920, Babe ripped off BA. at away ballparks of .358, .354, .332, .377, .375. He dipped in '25, and came back with .378 in '26. So I feel his '24 .375 is representative. And it comes out to 1.30%

I assign Babe a .721 SLG. ave. due to his 1924 figure. It comes to 1.81%. Beginning with 1920, Babe ripped off away SLG. figures of .736, .772, .739, .728, .721. I chose his 1924 figure for a solid reason. His 1920-21 seasons, he went for HRs more than he did in '23-24. So, I wanted to select a Babe season which showed what he could do when he wasn't going all out to hit HRs.

Babe would normally lead his league in HRs/SLG./Walks
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So here we have Ty/Babe in later eras. Who would you take?

Cobb: 1.50% BA, leads league. 1.60 SLG. comes in top 3 after Ruth, Williams.
Ruth: 1.30% BA, top 5 league. 1.81 SLG. leads league. Leads L. in HRs also.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instead of my original .400/40 HRs, I now project estimates of 150% of league BA. and 3rd to 5th in league HRs. More realistic and reasonable. Allows for ebb/flow of league highs & lows. Greater flexibility.

Babe, with leading his league in HRs, with an estimated 160% of league slugging ave., and 130% of league BA.

If they'd both played in 2003, in the AL, their figures might have looked something like this, according to my estimates.

-----------------------BA---------SLG--------HRs
Cobb-----------------.400--------.684--------38
Ruth-----------------.347--------.774---------55

The only variants which I feel could vary is Babe's SLG. He might come in with a lower SLG. ratio if he was surrounded by a league of other rival sluggers. Babe would probably lead, but his 1.81 figure might well be whittled down a notch or two.

I also did Wagner's Relative SLG. His leading ratios were: 1.70 (1908), 1.59 (1907), 1.54 (1904), 1.50 (1900), 1.45 (1909), 1.44 (1905), 1.41 (1903), 1.39 (1906), 1,38 (1902), 1.35 (1901), 1.34 (1911), 1.31 (1899), 1.31 (1912).

So I feel that Honus Wagner would be able to post a Relative SLG. ave. of 1.50 in later eras, due to improved competition. He exceeded that 3 times with poor competition. He'd probably come in the top 10 in HRs.

Bill Burgess

[csh19792001]

Chris:

I don't compare Ty/Babe with other players, but below is a past post I did. I feel it's my best attempt to bring them to later days.

If they'd both played in 2003, in the AL, their figures might have looked something like this, according to my estimates.

-----------------------BA---------SLG--------HRs
Cobb-----------------.400--------.684--------38
Ruth-----------------.347--------.774---------55

Bill Burgess

Bill-
Is this each player's best season? I'm a bit confused.

[Bill Burgess]

Bill-
Is this each player's best season? I'm a bit confused.

No. It represents their best seasons. Say top 5-6 seasons. Their peak seasons.

Bill

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Same question for you, Sultan, as the resident Ruth aficionado. :o

Put Babe Ruth in the modern era, but not the steroid/expansion era (in a balanced era like the 70's/80's).

What would you project his career line would be, all things considered?

Good question. Haven't thought about him traveling to that era too much. If he were born in the 50's, and assuming that he was born with the same unique gifts, I'd guess at .325/.425/.640 for a career average line. Pretty hard to speculate though, so many variables.

[538280]

I've been perusing Schell's books- which are really the only available mathematically based approximation of league strength/quality of baseball that has any validity or reliability, as far as I can tell. His park and era adjustments are vastly more precise and intricate than commonly available (usually misleading) blanket stats. When things calm down with work/school I hope to share it with everyone.

I have never really changed my mind that the 1960s-1970s were the best time for baseball. I think HWR in his posts was minimizing the dominace of the African American in professional sports. Blacks have always in this country (whether you like it or not, it seems many crazy whites never can realize this), generally of course, a much higher rate of success in sports.

One point HWR made that I thought was somewhat moot was when he talked about the increased number of Latinos in baseball improving league quality. I thought it was moot because:

1.Part of the reason why there are so many Latinos is really because of America's waning interest in baseball, and

2.I think the lack of international draft in modern baseball has really become a problem, and it's encouraging MLB teams to sign tons of Latinos.

Also, if you study relative stats you'll find there have been WAY more players separating themselves from league in the last few years than did in the 1960s and 1970s.

I also have a question for you, Chris, about Schell's books. I don't really know much about them, I've only heard about them sparingly from a few posts other members have made on here. Are they the books that showed Tony Gwynn as being the best contact hitter of all time, or am I mistaken? What exactly makes you think his park and era adustments are so much better than everyone else's? What eras do he find to be the strongest and weakest?

[538280]

Thank You!


Bonds was great, but it took steriods to get him into Williams' league. If you take out the steroids, no amount of fielding and running is going to make up for it.

Look at Bonds 1992-1993 and try to tell me he wasn't better or at least as good as Williams ever was. His OPS+ is behind about 10-15 points, but half that difference is because of league strength. So we have a player who's about 7 points behind in OPS+, and is a WAY better fielder and baserunner. So, tell me, how was Barry's pre steroid peak not as good as Williams' peak?

[Blackout]

Look at Bonds 1992-1993 and try to tell me he wasn't better or at least as good as Williams ever was. His OPS+ is behind about 10-15 points, but half that difference is because of league strength. So we have a player who's about 7 points behind in OPS+, and is a WAY better fielder and baserunner. So, tell me, how was Barry's pre steroid peak not as good as Williams' peak?

William's career highs in OPS+ are 235 and 233

Bonds's 1993 was 206 I believe


not even damn close

[538280]

William's career highs in OPS+ are 235 and 233

Bonds's 1993 was 206 I believe


not even damn close

235 was his best year (1941). But, the 233 in 1957 was in a shortened season. His real two best years of OPS+ were 235 and 215. Bonds in 1992-1993 was at 205 and 206. Making LQ adjustments, Bonds gets pretty close, certainly close enough that his huge fielding as baserunning advantages can make up the difference.

[leecemark]

--Chris, those 2 years might have been as good or better as Williams best - but Williams had 9 200 OPS+ seasons (two full seasons over 230), despite missing 3 mid-prime seasons to WWII (the 9 include both seasons shorted by Korea - wher ehe actually had OPS+ over 260 both years in small sample sizes).
--Bill, thanks for the compliment on my model of talent distribution. Its a pleasure to find some common ground with you. I'd like to build on that if I may.
--The Elite group comprise the 99th percentile of all baseball players ever. The guys who have support for best ever are all in the 99.9 percentile. When we are arguing whether Ty or Babe or Willie is the best ever its really trying to decide who scores 99.99 vs 99.98. Trival really, but it would be pretty boring if we just declared them co-greatest.
--The problem with relative stats is that some of the 99th percentile guys are being compared to a group of average players who were maybe 40s on the all time scale (say Wagner or Cobb's contemporaries) while another was cometing against an average group of 60s (say Mays' contemporaries). It is going to be impossible for Mays to separate as much from that group as Cobb from his group.
--Sultan, the problem with your hypothesis that it is harder to separtate from the offensive pack now because conditions are easier for hitters is that is NOT harder to separate. There have been as many players with 200 OPS+ seasons since 1994 as there were in the previous 50 years.

[538280]

--Chris, those 2 years might have been as good or better as Williams best - but Williams had 9 200 OPS+ seasons (two full seasons over 230), despite missing 3 mid-prime seasons to WWII (the 9 include both seasons shorted by Korea - wher ehe actually had OPS+ over 260 both years in small sample sizes).


Mark, I'm talking about Bonds' pre steroid peak vs. Ted's overall peak. Ted was a better player than Bonds pre 2001, but Bonds had a better peak.

[csh19792001]

1. Are they the books that showed Tony Gwynn as being the best contact hitter of all time, or am I mistaken?

2. What exactly makes you think his park and era adustments are so much better than everyone else's?

3. What eras do he find to be the strongest and weakest?

Well, first, I'll preface it by saying I just recently bought the second book (the first was "Baseball's Alltime Greatest Hitters"). That book outlines the methodology (nuts and bolts) in much more depth- this one is much more product oriented.

Anyway, to answer your questions...

1. Yes, Schell ranks Gwynn as the greatest average hitter of all time. He bests Cobb .338 to .336.

Why? Well, mostly due to the fact that good old fashioned arithmetic mean adjusted statistics ARE a component of Schell's methodology. The obvious caveat there is that guys like Ruth and Gwynn are going to be more separate from the pack simply because of the trends of the time, and not due to their endemic skill. Both were iconoclasts. We addressed that in these two posts.

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=277687&postcount=14

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=278102&postcount=17

Babe Ruth is going to come out #1 in value vis-à-vis any statistic in large part simply because of what he was doing, and when he did it.

In any case, I suppose when Gwynn isn't "double credited" for going for singles in an era of homeruns, we get this result:



Std Devs
Above
Player H AB Avg League
=================================================
Ty Cobb 4189 11434 0.366 2.54
Joe Jackson 1772 4981 0.356 2.27
Ted Williams 2654 7706 0.344 2.19
Tony Gwynn 3141 9288 0.338 2.13
Ichiro Suzuki 924 2722 0.339 2.04
Rod Carew 3053 9315 0.328 2.01
Todd Helton 1372 4051 0.339 1.92
Nap Lajoie 3242 9589 0.338 1.88
Rogers Hornsby 2930 8173 0.358 1.88
Stan Musial 3630 10972 0.331 1.83
Albert Pujols 787 2363 0.333 1.81
Wade Boggs 3010 9180 0.328 1.81
Mike Donlin 1282 3854 0.333 1.80
Tris Speaker 3514 10195 0.345 1.76
Roberto Clemente 3000 9454 0.317 1.63
Honus Wagner 3415 10430 0.327 1.60
Kirby Puckett 2304 7244 0.318 1.48
Eddie Collins 3315 9949 0.333 1.47
Vladimir Guerrero 1421 4375 0.325 1.42
Lefty O'Doul 1140 3264 0.349 1.41
Harry Heilmann 2660 7787 0.342 1.37
Lyman Bostock 624 2004 0.311 1.36
George Sisler 2812 8267 0.340 1.35
Nomar Garciaparra 1330 4133 0.322 1.32
Babe Ruth 2873 8399 0.342 1.32
Matty Alou 1777 5789 0.307 1.32
Joe DiMaggio 2214 6821 0.325 1.31
Lou Gehrig 2721 8001 0.340 1.26
Bill Terry 2193 6428 0.341 1.23
Benny Kauff 961 3094 0.311 1.23
Manny Mota 1149 3779 0.304 1.23
Tony Oliva 1917 6301 0.304 1.22
Joe Medwick 2471 7635 0.324 1.21
George Stone 984 3271 0.301 1.17
Sam Crawford 2961 9570 0.309 1.17
Ginger Beaumont 1759 5660 0.311 1.17
Paul Waner 3152 9459 0.333 1.16
Ralph Garr 1562 5108 0.306 1.15
Dale Mitchell 1244 3984 0.312 1.14
Hank Aaron 3771 12364 0.305 1.14
Jackie Robinson 1518 4877 0.311 1.13
Larry Walker 2069 6592 0.314 1.12
Don Mattingly 2153 7003 0.307 1.12
Vin Campbell 642 2069 0.310 1.11
Pete Rose 4256 14053 0.303 1.10
George Brett 3154 10349 0.305 1.07
Al Oliver 2743 9049 0.303 1.07
Cy Seymour 1723 5682 0.303 1.07
Manny Ramirez 1760 5572 0.316 1.06
Al Simmons 2927 8759 0.334 1.05
Bill Madlock 2008 6594 0.305 1.04
Derek Jeter 1734 5513 0.315 1.04
Riggs Stephenson 1515 4508 0.336 1.03
Mike Piazza 1829 5805 0.315 1.02
Barney McCosky 1301 4172 0.312 1.02
Richie Ashburn 2574 8365 0.308 1.02
Edgar Martinez 2247 7213 0.312 1.01
Paul Molitor 3319 10835 0.306 1.00
Jimmie Foxx 2646 8134 0.325 1.00


2. Because he adjusts in so much more depth than anything else I've seen. He looks at not only handedness (by park and era), but also how parks affected the production of certain kinds of hits, as well as walks and strikeouts. This is a kind of intricacy horribly lacking in the other metrics I've seen. He outlines (whenever data is available) exactly how each park affected various offensive events in question.

He also contrasts/compares it rigorously to metrics like Win Shares, TPR, and others to look for validity, which is very interesting and thought provoking.

3. This is information that I believe is more ingrained in the previous book, but he speaks of what Steven Jay Gould noted regarding standard deviations and approximation of league quality in Gould's book Full House. Schell posits that: "Although I believe the standard deviation for a given event only imperfectly measures the talent pool for all, it is still an appropriate (and the best) adjustment under a percentile equivalence".

Again, I've just scratched the surface here (haven't had time to get into it), and I'm not endorsing this as necessarily the "right" answer (or even the best answer, perhaps) in cross-era comparisons. I like what I see at the moment (in terms of the final product) much more than the other statistical estimates available.

"Metal Ed" (who originally brought up Schell's work) presented things in a much more concise and articulate manner than I have below:

http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=277002&postcount=1

[538280]

I said earlier how more players have been separating themselves from the league in modern baseball than did in the 1970s. To me, this does indicate that the 1970s were probably a stronger league. I thought I'd just add a little proof to that point.

I've taken the top 100 single seasons of all time in ERA+, and OPS+, and I'll show you how many players from the 1990s have made the top 100, and how many from the 1970s have made it:

ERA+
1970s:5
1990s:13

OPS+
1970s:2
1990s:8

This obviously is not a perfect way to look at the issue, but I do believe it suggests something. Many of you might say there have just been more truly great players in the 1990s, and I might agree with you that the 1990s may have had a bit more of those players. But, that doesn't account for the very large difference.

If anyone else has the data, I'd like to see the same sort of comparisons for other relative stats.

[csh19792001]

I said earlier how more players have been separating themselves from the league in modern baseball than did in the 1970s. To me, this does indicate that the 1970s were probably a stronger league. I thought I'd just add a little proof to that point..


Good starting point, however the problem with that analysis is that judging a population by the outliers alone supplies conclusions that may be misleading. I might very well agree with you, but you'd have to get much, MUCH more data to make your case a compelling one.

Also, you're looking at mean-adjusted measures. They're a pretty cursory glance, when taken in isolation.

[csh19792001]

ERA+
1970s:5
1990s:13

OPS+
1970s:2
1990s:8


Another thing that popped into my head- there are 30 teams today and the rosters are also larger now in comparison to the 70's. In terms of actual numbers, how much larger is the league now? That would probably make it more likely that there would be more top seasons, and mitigate the differential to some extent.

[leecemark]

--I don't know if having more teams actually leads to more elite players. There are only a handfull in any generation and creating more roster spots doesn't affect that. It does make it easier to separate though as weaker players fill some of those extra spots dragging down the average.
--Expansion always weakens the league at least temporarily. The AL was weaker (and liberally sprinkled with monster seasons) in 1961 than 1960, although it was almost certainly better than it was in 1950. In think the increase in population, completion of integration and intensified Latin American scouting also limited the weakining efects of the 1969 (also a season with some very big years) expansion to the short term. By 1977 new sources of talent had been pretty throughly tapped and Afro-American interest was starting to wane. The dual rounds of expansion in the 90s were simply insupportable and have not been fully recovered from.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Just picked some random years to look up.

2005 AL

20+ HR - 40 players
30+ HR - 12 players
40+ HR - 5 players

2005 NL

20+ HR - 37 players
30+ HR - 15 players
40+ HR - 4 players

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

2004 AL

20+ HR - 47 players
30+ HR - 13 players
40+ HR - 3 players

2004 NL

20+ HR - 46 players
30+ HR - 23 players
40+ HR - 6 players

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

2001 AL

20+ HR - 42 players
30+ HR - 15 players
40+ HR - 5 players

2001 NL

20+ HR - 47 players
30+ HR - 25 players
40+ HR - 7 players

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

1988 AL

20+ HR - 29 players
30+ HR - 3 players
40+ HR - 1 players

1988 NL

20+ HR - 16 players
30+ HR - 2 players
40+ HR - 0 players

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

1979 AL

20+ HR - 34 players
30+ HR - 6 players
40+ HR - 1 players

1979 NL

20+ HR - 24 players
30+ HR - 7 players
40+ HR - 2 players

[538280]

Just picked some random years to look up.


Sultan, I'm confused. What is this supposed to prove other than that there are more home runs hit in modern baseball than in the 1980s and 1970s?

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I have never really changed my mind that the 1960s-1970s were the best time for baseball. I think HWR in his posts was minimizing the dominace of the African American in professional sports. Blacks have always in this country (whether you like it or not, it seems many crazy whites never can realize this), generally of course, a much higher rate of success in sports.

One point HWR made that I thought was somewhat moot was when he talked about the increased number of Latinos in baseball improving league quality. I thought it was moot because:

1.Part of the reason why there are so many Latinos is really because of America's waning interest in baseball, and

2.I think the lack of international draft in modern baseball has really become a problem, and it's encouraging MLB teams to sign tons of Latinos.

Here we go again, Chris. You logic doesn't follow. I agree with part one some what. Yes, there would not be as many latinos if more blacks did play baseball. But my counter point is that the sheer quality and quanitity of latinos has more than made up the lost of any great black players. Today we have the following great latin players:

Albert Pujols
Manny Ramirez
A-Rod
Miguel Tejeda
Davis Ortiz
Carlos Beltran
Carlos Delgado
Ivan Rodriguez
Andruw Jones
Vladimir Guerrero
Arimas Ramirez
Alfonso Soriano
Nomar Garciaparra
Sammy Sosa
Miguel Cabrera
Juan Gonzales
Bobby Abreu
Magglio Ordonez

The 1960s and 1970s did not have this many great latin players, not even close. Who was the Albert Pujols of the 1960s? How was the Vlad Guerrero of the 1970s? The Manny Ramirez of the 1970s?

As for point 2 my question is "so what?" Since latin players do not go through the June draft this gives American born prospects MORE OPPORTUNITY TO BE DRAFTED! If the latin players had to go through the June draft then they would obviously take draft spots that normally would have gone to American born prospects, right? :rolleyes: Yes, teams sign lots of latin players but the vast majority of these free agent signees washout and never come close to making it to the majors. You seems to be inplying that the current great latin players are only great because fewer black are playing baseball and that simply is not true.


Also, if you study relative stats you'll find there have been WAY more players separating themselves from league in the last few years than did in the 1960s and 1970s.
So? You point is...? :confused:

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Sultan, I'm confused. What is this supposed to prove other than that there are more home runs hit in modern baseball than in the 1980s and 1970s?

Nothin' really. I just know there are many mediocre hitters today who routinely hit 20+ HR simply because of how the game is setup. Jose Valentin is a good example.

[538280]

Nothin' really. I just know there are many mediocre hitters today who routinely hit 20+ HR simply because of how the game is setup. Jose Valentin is a good example.

Just like there were a lot of mediocre players in the game in the 20s and 30s who hit .300 simply because of the way the game was set up. The offensive levels of an era don't indicate the league quality in those eras.

[538280]

The 1960s and 1970s did not have this many great latin players, not even close. Who was the Albert Pujols of the 1960s? How was the Vlad Guerrero of the 1970s? The Manny Ramirez of the 1970s?

This still doesn't prove a thing. There are more Latino stars. But there were just as good black players in the 1970s as are missing today. Just like there are a few good blacks in the majors today, there were a few good Latin players in the 1970s. They pretty much cancel each other out.

Then there's the fact that even interest in baseball in this country has waned among whites as well. Have you seen the number of people playing the game in this country today? Percentage wise, it's just not as high as it has been. I'm not quite sure why. Maybe it's because people have become more interested in other sports, maybe it's something else. But it doesn't matter. The fact is not as many whites are playing baseball nowadays either.

As for point 2 my question is "so what?" Since latin players do not go through the June draft this gives American born prospects MORE OPPORTUNITY TO BE DRAFTED! If the latin players had to go through the June draft then they would obviously take draft spots that normally would have gone to American born prospects, right? :rolleyes:

Yes, teams sign lots of latin players but the vast majority of these free agent signees washout and never come close to making it to the majors. You seems to be inplying that the current great latin players are only great because fewer black are playing baseball and that simply is not true.

My point is that the fact they don't have to go through a draft makes teams able to sign more Latinos. And usually the Latin players are willing to sign for a lower price because this is their only shot to make serious money, while the whites could probably do something else if baseball doesn't work out.


So? You point is...? :confused:

My point is that when players are able to separate themselves from league more that indicates the league is weaker. The fact that players have separated more from league averages in modern baseball in the 1970s would seem to suggest that baseball back then was stronger.

[sschirmer]

I'm not really sure if elite athletes improve or not over time. I do know this: I would be terrified if I were standing 60' 6" from Ted Williams, and he was all juiced up. Heck, I might be terrified without the juice, but I know if ol' Teddy Ballgame had a tube of the Clear and a tube of the Cream, I wouldn't have gone anywhere near the pitchers mound at Fenway Park. The man would have killed someone.

[Bill Burgess]

I'm not really sure if elite athletes improve or not over time. I do know this: I would be terrified if I were standing 60' 6" from Ted Williams, and he was all juiced up. Heck, I might be terrified without the juice, but I know if ol' Teddy Ballgame had a tube of the Clear and a tube of the Cream, I wouldn't have gone anywhere near the pitchers mound at Fenway Park. The man would have killed someone.

If Teddy inspires that kind of healthy apprehension in you, imagine facing a juiced-up Babe, Foxx or Mantle? Ball goes down 90 something mph, comes back WAY faster. That kind of artillery fire could hurt someone in the way.

[sschirmer]

I was already terrified, now I'm sleeping with the lights on.

Thanks Bill!

[Sultan_1895-1948]

, imagine facing a juiced-up Babe, Foxx or Mantle?

Funny you mention that. Here's a piece from "Launching the Legend".

Indeed, his bat had become so potent that Damon Runyon wondered, in light of the Mays incident, if pitchers were in danger of being struck by a Ruthian line drive.

"Ball players say it is a blessing that Babe Ruth does not commonly hit the ball through the infield," he wrote on September 9 in the American. "He would kill or dangerously injure any man who got in front of one of his powerful punches at short distance"

"Players who know the King of Swat say that he has always had a secret dread of smashing a ball back at a pitcher, or an infielder," Runyon wrote. "It is probably a dread which causes him to pull his punches high, and to right, clearing the infield. No man ever lived who hit a ball as hard as Ruth."

[Honus Wagner Rules]

This still doesn't prove a thing. There are more Latino stars. But there were just as good black players in the 1970s as are missing today. Just like there are a few good blacks in the majors today, there were a few good Latin players in the 1970s. They pretty much cancel each other out.

Ok, chris, lets continue our dance...

OK, give me a name of a black player of the 1970s who was comparible to the following current Latin players:

Albert Pujols
Manny Ramirez
A-Rod (good luck :D)
Miguel Tejeda
Davis Ortiz
Carlos Beltran
Carlos Delgado
Ivan Rodriguez
Andruw Jones
Vladimir Guerrero
Arimas Ramirez
Alfonso Soriano
Nomar Garciaparra
Sammy Sosa
Miguel Cabrera
Juan Gonzales
Bobby Abreu
Magglio Ordonez


[/quote]
Then there's the fact that even interest in baseball in this country has waned among whites as well. Have you seen the number of people playing the game in this country today? Percentage wise, it's just not as high as it has been. I'm not quite sure why. Maybe it's because people have become more interested in other sports, maybe it's something else. But it doesn't matter. The fact is not as many whites are playing baseball nowadays either. [/quote]
Can you give some actual numbers not just qualitative statements? I'm not sure how this affects major league quality. The majority of college baseball players are white.


[/quote]
My point is that the fact they don't have to go through a draft makes teams able to sign more Latinos. And usually the Latin players are willing to sign for a lower price because this is their only shot to make serious money, while the whites could probably do something else if baseball doesn't work out.[/quote]
I don't see what your point is here. Have you seen some of the huge signing bonuses that some of the 16 year old latin free agents signees get? It's comparable to the money offered to first round draft picks. I'll say again, the fact that latin prospects do not go through the June INCREASES THE NUMBER OF AMERICAN BORN PLAYERS DRAFTED. I really don't understand why this idea evades you, Chris. The latin players, by not being drafted, causes MORE American born prospects to be drafted.


My point is that when players are able to separate themselves from league more that indicates the league is weaker. The fact that players have separated more from league averages in modern baseball in the 1970s would seem to suggest that baseball back then was stronger.
This is one possible explain for the current players separating themselves from "the pack". The problem here is that your interpreting the data to mean one thing without sufficiently studying other possible reasons for the increase in separation. You even use the phrase "seems to suggest". The evidence in itself, the top players separating more form the pack, is not sufficient evidence to claim the baseball in the 1970s was "stronger". Another possible explanation is that the top players of the 1970s simply were not as good relative to the "average player" as the top players are today.


Competitive vs Strength of League
I've mentioned this before. Just because the top players league A cannot separate for mthe pack as much as the top players form group B doesn't logically force the conclusion that league A is "stronger" than league. It's may be more competitve but not necessarily "stronger" I take the work "stronger" to mean higher level of play. By this I mean if league A is stronger than league B then teams from league A would consistently beat teams from league B. Christ, are you claiming that 1970s teams would consistently beat modern teams? Here is an analogy I used in a previous post:


...You are confusing the term "competitive" with "quality". It assumes that the "average player" or baseline are the same for different eras. You have not provided evidence for this.

Let me explain. Let's say we two groups of weightlifters. In Group A the "average" lifter can lift 400 pounds. The strongest in group A can lift 500 pounds. In Group B, the "average" lifter can lift 500 pounds. The strongest of Group B can lift 650 pounds. Group A is more competive that Group B since the strongest of Group A hasn't distanced himself as much as the strongest from Group B. But Group B is of higher quality because they can lift more absolute weight than Group A. Just because the ballplayers from the 1960s-70s couldn't separate themselves for the "average player" than they can today is NOT evidence that their league was of "higher quality", only that it is more "competitive". It's quite possible that the skills of the best players from the 1960s-70s was not as much above the average player than the skills of the current best players above the "average" of today. Also, you have not established that the "average" player of the 1960s-70s was equal or better than the "average" player of today.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Albert Pujols
Manny Ramirez
A-Rod (good luck :D)
Miguel Tejeda
Davis Ortiz
Carlos Beltran
Carlos Delgado
Ivan Rodriguez
Andruw Jones
Vladimir Guerrero
Arimas Ramirez
Alfonso Soriano
Nomar Garciaparra
Sammy Sosa
Miguel Cabrera
Juan Gonzales
Bobby Abreu
Magglio Ordonez


Interesting how many of these guys are "allegedly" chemically enhanced.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Interesting how many of these guys are "allegedly" chemically enhanced.

So "allegedly" makes them guilty? :confused:

[Sultan_1895-1948]

So "allegedly" makes them guilty? :confused:

No, not at all, just interesting is all. Dominicans seem to be heavily involved with it. It starts young over there because they literally have nothing to lose; they need to make it.

[west coast orange and black]

not the first time that you have slighted 9,000,000 people with your sweeping "because they literally have nothing to lose." it is hyperbole. there is simply no need for it, sultan. let's not go there, k?

[sschirmer]

So "allegedly" makes them guilty? :confused:

Nope, just makes them accused by one party or another.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

not the first time that you have slighted 9,000,000 people with your sweeping "because they literally have nothing to lose." it is hyperbole. there is simply no need for it, sultan. let's not go there, k?

Is truth that difficult for you to deal with? There is no hype involved, it's known that's what goes on, and there are reasons it goes on. Imo, the majority of the blame isn't on the players, it's on the shady characters who get their meathooks into them at an early age and promise them the world if they take certain stuff. I'm not slighting anyone, get off your sensitivity kick.

[west coast orange and black]

i read #116 as you stating matter of fact, not an opinion.
my apology if that was not the case.

[538280]

Ok, chris, lets continue our dance...

OK, give me a name of a black player of the 1970s who was comparible to the following current Latin players:

Albert Pujols
Manny Ramirez
A-Rod (good luck :D)
Miguel Tejeda
Davis Ortiz
Carlos Beltran
Carlos Delgado
Ivan Rodriguez
Andruw Jones
Vladimir Guerrero
Arimas Ramirez
Alfonso Soriano
Nomar Garciaparra
Sammy Sosa
Miguel Cabrera
Juan Gonzales
Bobby Abreu
Magglio Ordonez

Here are some black stars of the 1970s:

Joe Morgan
Reggie Jackson
Bobby Bonds
Hank Aaron
Ken Singleton
Willie Stargell
Reggie Smith
Al Oliver
Fergie Jenkins
Bob Watson
Roy White
Lou Brock
George Scott
Dave Parker
Willie McCovey
Frank Robinson
Bob Gibson
Lee May
Don Baylor
Jimmy Wynn
Dave Winfield
Dick Allen
Willie Davis
Billy Williams
Ralph Garr
Gary Matthews
Hal McRae
Mickey Rivers
Dusty Baker
Bill Madlock
Jim Rice
Oscar Gamble
Andre Dawson
Ken Henderson
Willie Horton
Tommy Harper


Can you give some actual numbers not just qualitative statements? I'm not sure how this affects major league quality. The majority of college baseball players are white.

I can't give actual numbers. I don't know of anyone who keeps track of that sort of thing. I have over the past few years read numerous articles and heard things on the radio and TV about how baseball just isn't as popular now as it used to be.



I don't see what your point is here. Have you seen some of the huge signing bonuses that some of the 16 year old latin free agents signees get? It's comparable to the money offered to first round draft picks. I'll say again, the fact that latin prospects do not go through the June INCREASES THE NUMBER OF AMERICAN BORN PLAYERS DRAFTED. I really don't understand why this idea evades you, Chris. The latin players, by not being drafted, causes MORE American born prospects to be drafted.

It does cause more American born players to be drafted, but it also allows the majors to sign more Latin players. My point there was an explanation why there are more Latin players in today's game rather than in the 1970s.


This is one possible explain for the current players separating themselves from "the pack". The problem here is that your interpreting the data to mean one thing without sufficiently studying other possible reasons for the increase in separation. You even use the phrase "seems to suggest". The evidence in itself, the top players separating more form the pack, is not sufficient evidence to claim the baseball in the 1970s was "stronger". Another possible explanation is that the top players of the 1970s simply were not as good relative to the "average player" as the top players are today.

I suppose you could claim there have just been less stars in the 1970s than in modern baseball. But is that really true? The 70s had Morgan, Bench, Rose, Reggie, Schmidt, Brock, Fisk, Parker, TPerez, Rice, Carew, Stargell, McCovey, Yaz, and I'm sure I'm missing someone. For pitchers they had GPerry, Niekro, Jenkins, Palmer, Seaver, Carlton, Blyleven, Ryan, Sutton, Tiant, Hunter, and again I'm sure I"m missing someone. Is that really worse than modern baseball? I don't think so really.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Here are some black stars of the 1970s:

Joe Morgan (all-time great)
Reggie Jackson (2nd tier HoFer)
Bobby Bonds (Rickey henderson was better)
Hank Aaron (not a 1970s star)
Ken Singleton (not a star)
Willie Stargell (HoFer)
Reggie Smith (very underrated)
Al Oliver (could hit but nothing else)
Fergie Jenkins (HoF)['b]
Bob Watson [b](not a star- good player)
Roy White (Decent player)
Lou Brock (worst 3000 hit guy, could steal and hit for ave but nothing else)
George Scott (Mo Vaghn's dad? :D )
Dave Parker (all-star)
Willie McCovey (not really a 1970s star)
Frank Robinson (not a 1970s star)
Bob Gibson (not a 1970s star)
Lee May (decent)
Don Baylor (good player)
Jimmy Wynn (NOT A HOFer!!! :D )
Dave Winfield (ok HoFer)
Dick Allen (HoFer, should be)
Willie Davis
Billy Williams
Ralph Garr
Gary Matthews
Hal McRae
Mickey Rivers
Dusty Baker
Bill Madlock
Jim Rice
Oscar Gamble
Andre Dawson
Ken Henderson
Willie Horton
Tommy Harper


A lot of these guy were not stars. Guys like Mickey Rivers, Oscar Gamble, Willie Horton, Gary Matthews, Lee May, Bob Watson, etc., are basically 1970s versions of Jose Guillen, Carlos Lee, Reggie Sanders, Paul Konerko, Steve Finley, types, good solid major leaguers but hardly HoFers.


It does cause more American born players to be drafted, but it also allows the majors to sign more Latin players. My point there was an explanation why there are more Latin players in today's game rather than in the 1970s.
Did you ever consider that there are more latin players because there are more latin players with major league potential?


I suppose you could claim there have just been less stars in the 1970s than in modern baseball. But is that really true? The 70s had Morgan, Bench, Rose, Reggie, Schmidt, Brock, Fisk, Parker, TPerez, Rice, Carew, Stargell, McCovey, Yaz, and I'm sure I'm missing someone. For pitchers they had GPerry, Niekro, Jenkins, Palmer, Seaver, Carlton, Blyleven, Ryan, Sutton, Tiant, Hunter, and again I'm sure I"m missing someone. Is that really worse than modern baseball? I don't think so really.
I was specifically saying that the modern latin stars today greatly outnumber the 1970s latin stars. There was no equivalent 1970s latin player to Pujols, Manny, Vlad, Tejeda, A-Rod, etc.

[538280]

A lot of these guy were not stars. Guys like Mickey Rivers, Oscar Gamble, Willie Horton, Gary Matthews, Lee May, Bob Watson, etc., are basically 1970s versions of Jose Guillen, Carlos Lee, Reggie Sanders, Paul Konerko, Steve Finley, types, good solid major leaguers but hardly HoFers.

HWR, before we really talk some more I would just like to point out that Hank Aaron certainly was a 1970s star. Hank is more known as a 1960s or even 1950s player, but he probably had his best hitting season in 1971 and was certainly one of the best hitters in the game 1970-1973. That's four years out of 10. How could you not consider a guy who may have been the best hitter in the game 4 out of 10 years in the decade "not a 1970s star". He started declining in 1974, but was still an okay player through 1976 when he finally retired.

And how can you say Ken Singleton wasn't even a star? He was the key hitter on the Orioles of that decade, and really represented Earl Weaver baseball. He did a good job of it too. Singleton the hitter reminds me a lot of Jimmy Wynn, with a slightly better BA, and slightly worse power (I favor Wynn for the Hall and not Singleton because Wynn still contributed lots without the bat, while Singleton really didn't do much for the team outside the batter's box). He may have been the best player in the league in 1975 (him or Lynn), and perhaps in 1977 (him or Carew). He was a walker with very good power and even a good BA, which many players like that lack. He ranks 10th in the 1970s in Win Shares. He was a star.

And Jim Rice.....I hope you just overlooked him. He's overrated but certainly was a superstar in the later part of the decade.

Bill Madlock.....BA is overrated but 4 batting titles has to make at least a minor star. Plus Bill Burgess loves him :)

I was specifically saying that the modern latin stars today greatly outnumber the 1970s latin stars. There was no equivalent 1970s latin player to Pujols, Manny, Vlad, Tejeda, A-Rod, etc.

Now, HWR, I think it would be a relevant exercise if we compared the Latin stars of the 1970s with the black stars of the modern game. I think it will be interesting. I"ll make up a list of 1970s Latin stars, and you can make up the modern black stars. To tell you the truth, looking over the list I have a hard time believing that the black stars today even come remotely close to the 1970s Latinos. I'll do my best with 1970s Latinos:

Rod Carew
Cesar Cedeno
Tony Perez
Bert Campaneris
Luis Tiant
Jose Cruz (talk about underrated, him, Cedeno and Wynn all. Astros players have always gotten a hard deal)
Manny Sanguillen
Jose Cardenal
Willie Montanez

That's about it for real notable Latino stars in the 70s. I'm not sure if black stars today are as good.

[csh19792001]

He probably had his best hitting season in 1971 and was certainly one of the best hitters in the game 1970-1973. That's four years out of 10. How could you not consider a guy who may have been the best hitter in the game 4 out of 10 years in the decade "not a 1970s star". He started declining in 1974, but was still an okay player through 1976 when he finally retired.


Aaron's late career surge was mainly due to the change in his home park, which had already been very good for homeruns and became even better when they moved the fences in (and shortened the height of the fence itself). In his ostensible "monster" renaissance year of 1971, he hit 31 homeruns at home and only 16 on the road.

http://baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2795

Atlanta-Fulton County Stadium
Year PF HHR RHR PA PA/HR
1970 106 23 15 598 15.7
1971 106 31 16 573 12.2
1972 109 19 15 544 16.0
1973 108 24 16 465 11.6
1974 104 11 9 382 19.1

Retrosheet's team splits for the era only go back to 1969, but the data quite clearly shows the "Launching Pad" tag was deserved. From 1969-1974, the Braves and their opponents hit 1.35 homers in Atlanta for every one on the road.

Again, the limitations of OPS+ and similar stats rears its ugly head. Run factors are different from home run factors/avg factors, etc (which are, in and of themselves, different by handedness and for different types of hitters).

Aaron was in most ways a shadow of his former self by the 70's- he did have a very good (but considering everything, not truly great) year in 1971. He couldn't really run anymore, and wasn't anywhere near the fielder he had been- if you look at pictures of him from that era, he had gotten pretty heavy by that point, too. He certainly wasn't one of the most talented players in the game anymore, and was pretty one dimensional in his pursuit of the record.

[leecemark]

--I agree Aaron had seriously declined as a defender and baserunner by 1971. He was still around average at both of those things, but that was a big step down from his prime. I don't know if I'd describe him as one dimensional though. It wasn't like he really changed his approach at the plate to focus on swinging for the fences though. He hit .327, good for 5th in the league and his plate discipline was actually improved from earlier inhis career. he was still one of the top 10 players in the NL, but it wasn't one of his 10 best overall seasons (and that is impressive).

[Honus Wagner Rules]

HWR, before we really talk some more I would just like to point out that Hank Aaron certainly was a 1970s star. Hank is more known as a 1960s or even 1950s player, but he probably had his best hitting season in 1971 and was certainly one of the best hitters in the game 1970-1973. That's four years out of 10. How could you not consider a guy who may have been the best hitter in the game 4 out of 10 years in the decade "not a 1970s star". He started declining in 1974, but was still an okay player through 1976 when he finally retired.

And how can you say Ken Singleton wasn't even a star? He was the key hitter on the Orioles of that decade, and really represented Earl Weaver baseball. He did a good job of it too. Singleton the hitter reminds me a lot of Jimmy Wynn, with a slightly better BA, and slightly worse power (I favor Wynn for the Hall and not Singleton because Wynn still contributed lots without the bat, while Singleton really didn't do much for the team outside the batter's box). He may have been the best player in the league in 1975 (him or Lynn), and perhaps in 1977 (him or Carew). He was a walker with very good power and even a good BA, which many players like that lack. He ranks 10th in the 1970s in Win Shares. He was a star.

And Jim Rice.....I hope you just overlooked him. He's overrated but certainly was a superstar in the later part of the decade.

Bill Madlock.....BA is overrated but 4 batting titles has to make at least a minor star. Plus Bill Burgess loves him :)



Now, HWR, I think it would be a relevant exercise if we compared the Latin stars of the 1970s with the black stars of the modern game. I think it will be interesting. I"ll make up a list of 1970s Latin stars, and you can make up the modern black stars. To tell you the truth, looking over the list I have a hard time believing that the black stars today even come remotely close to the 1970s Latinos. I'll do my best with 1970s Latinos:

Rod Carew
Cesar Cedeno
Tony Perez
Bert Campaneris
Luis Tiant
Jose Cruz (talk about underrated, him, Cedeno and Wynn all. Astros players have always gotten a hard deal)
Manny Sanguillen
Jose Cardenal
Willie Montanez

That's about it for real notable Latino stars in the 70s. I'm not sure if black stars today are as good.

Black stars of he 1990s and beyond:

Bonds
Griffey
Sheffield
Gwynn
Thomas

[538280]

Black stars of he 1990s and beyond:

Bonds
Griffey
Sheffield
Gwynn
Thomas

But those are guys who came up in an earlier era and are really aging today. What young black stars are around? Dontrelle Willis is one. The 1970s had old black stars (Aaron, Robinson, Gibson), black stars in their prime (Morgan, Reggie), and young black stars (Winfield, Rice). Those guys are all guys who came up in previous eras.

[csh19792001]

--I agree Aaron had seriously declined as a defender and baserunner by 1971. He was still around average at both of those things, but that was a big step down from his prime. I don't know if I'd describe him as one dimensional though. It wasn't like he really changed his approach at the plate to focus on swinging for the fences though. He hit .327, good for 5th in the league and his plate discipline was actually improved from earlier inhis career. he was still one of the top 10 players in the NL, but it wasn't one of his 10 best overall seasons (and that is impressive).

This is a fair assessment. I was just disagreeing that Aaron was still a genuine star in the 70's. He clearly was in terms of image and rep, and he did have a very good year in 71', but I just don't think that he was still a "great" player in the 70's, overall.

And some food for thought...
If you look Aaron's his splits, had he not moved to Atlanta, it's actually dubious as to whether he would have broken the alltime HR record. It looks like he really played absolutely as long as he could physically, and by 76' he was clearly done. From 66'-74' he hit 192 homers at home and only 145 away. Even with an even home/road split the rest of the way, that's 708 instead of 755 in 12,364 at bats..... It worked out to be fair in the end because Milwaukee was brutal for homeruns.

And yeah, people gripe about him having 4,000 more at bats to break the record, but that's probably entirely reconciled by how much better the pitching was (combined with the entire shift of the game towards one of defense/low scoring) during Hank's career.

What do you think, Mark?

[leecemark]

--Sounds about right.

[Bill Burgess]

And some food for thought...
If you look Aaron's his splits, had he not moved to Atlanta, it's actually dubious as to whether he would have broken the alltime HR record. It looks like he really played absolutely as long as he could physically, and by 76' he was clearly done. From 66'-74' he hit 192 homers at home and only 145 away. Even with an even home/road split the rest of the way, that's 708 instead of 755 in 12,364 at bats..... It worked out to be fair in the end because Milwaukee was brutal for homeruns.

And yeah, people gripe about him having 4,000 more at bats to break the record, but that's probably entirely reconciled by how much better the pitching was (combined with the entire shift of the game towards one of defense/low scoring) during Hank's career.
I think that is quite a nice analysis, Chris. You hit on some less discernable factors, which cut against Hank.

The 50's-60's were just about as tough a league quality adjustment as you could make. The player/population was maxed out, pre other sports starting to siphon off the talent pool, the influx of the fresh black/Hispanic talent pool, tough hombres to lock horns with for ink, and the drastic 60's shift back towards pitching/defense, with its strike zone, pitcher's mounds, etc.

And Hank had to overcome his Milwaukee ballpark. So, it is really something that Aaron, of all people, ended up with the all time HR record. He really wasn't going for the long ball every time up, like Babe/Mickey & some of the others.

Very nice work, Chris. You too, Mark.

Bill

[Honus Wagner Rules]

But those are guys who came up in an earlier era and are really aging today. What young black stars are around? Dontrelle Willis is one. The 1970s had old black stars (Aaron, Robinson, Gibson), black stars in their prime (Morgan, Reggie), and young black stars (Winfield, Rice). Those guys are all guys who came up in previous eras.

It is true that currently there are no real back star players in mid-career. But that's just an historical anomoly. I believe we are at the cusp of a new wave of great African-American players. There are a group of young players who have a lot of potential:

Carl Crawford
C.C. Sabathia
Dontrelle Willis
Rickie Weeks
Prince Fielder
B.J. Upton
Justin Upton
Delmon Young
Grady Sizemore
Edwin Jackson (if he can come back)

But we are geting away from the main topic. As I stated before the loss of some great black players has been more than made up for by the large increase of the latin star players. I truly believe that baseball over thr past 10-11 years was of higher quality than the 1970s, not much higher, but a bit higher.

[Ubiquitous]

But those are guys who came up in an earlier era and are really aging today. What young black stars are around? Dontrelle Willis is one. The 1970s had old black stars (Aaron, Robinson, Gibson), black stars in their prime (Morgan, Reggie), and young black stars (Winfield, Rice). Those guys are all guys who came up in previous eras.

Shannon Stewart, Dontrelle Willis, Garret Anderson, Juan Pierre, Jimmy Rollins, Derrek Lee, Cliff Floyd, Torii Hunter, CC Sabathia, Prince Fielder, Rickie Weeks, Bill Hall, Tony Clark, Coco Crisp, Jerry Hairston Jr, Jacque Jones, Jermaine Dye, Ryan Howard, Vernon Wells, Carl Everett, Matt Lawton, Carl Crawford, Preston Wilson, and others.

Now are they all superstars? No but you wanted recent players so some of these guys are new and just starting out. But all of them were highly touted prospects and all were thought at one time to be the future of MLB. It didn't happen for some, some didn't develop, some got injured, and some just didn't do it.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Shannon Stewart, Dontrelle Willis, Garret Anderson, Juan Pierre, Jimmy Rollins, Derrek Lee, Cliff Floyd, Torii Hunter, CC Sabathia, Prince Fielder, Rickie Weeks, Bill Hall, Tony Clark, Coco Crisp, Jerry Hairston Jr, Jacque Jones, Jermaine Dye, Ryan Howard, Vernon Wells, Carl Everett, Matt Lawton, Carl Crawford, Preston Wilson, and others.

Now are they all superstars? No but you wanted recent players so some of these guys are new and just starting out. But all of them were highly touted prospects and all were thought at one time to be the future of MLB. It didn't happen for some, some didn't develop, some got injured, and some just didn't do it.

Wow! I forgot about all those guys! Man, I must be getting old! Everyone of the veteran players you lists has been at least a quality major leaguer.

[digglahhh]

By not drafting the Latin players, ML teams can sign Latin players in bunches at comparatively low investments. They can sign far more cheap Latin players (sell dreams and have them sign contracts they can't read/don't understand) than they could ever sign targeting blue chip domestic talent. Even many of the "can't miss" prospects don't pan out, I assume I don't need to compile a list. The alternative of signing tons of Latin players at a fraction of the cost and hoping you get one or two guys who turn out to be a Miguel Cabrera is quite attractive to many teams.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

By not drafting the Latin players, ML teams can sign Latin players in bunches at comparatively low investments. They can sign far more cheap Latin players (sell dreams and have them sign contracts they can't read/don't understand) than they could ever sign targeting blue chip domestic talent. Even many of the "can't miss" prospects don't pan out, I assume I don't need to compile a list. The alternative of signing tons of Latin players at a fraction of the cost and hoping you get one or two guys who turn out to be a Miguel Cabrera is quite attractive to many teams.
Ok? We all agree on this point. But the top latin signees keeps tons of money, comparible to first round draft chioces. Late round draft choice get very little money by the way. Remember the latin players are free agents so they can negociate with several different teams. A drafted player doesn't have that option.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

From Baseball America:

Brewers Nab Top Dominican Talent
By John Manuel
September 7, 2005

The Milwaukee Brewers aren’t known for being a big player in the international marketplace for players. The organization wants that to change.

In July, scouts in Latin America reported that righthander Rolando Pascual was the best unsigned talent in the Dominican Republic. Wednesday, the Brewers confirmed they had signed Pascual, a 6-foot-6, 195-pounder, to a contract.

One international scout with a different organization said the Brewers gave Pascual a $710,000 signing bonus. While assistant general manager Gord Ash and Fernando Arango, Milwaukee’s Latin American scouting supervisor, would neither confirm nor deny the bonus amount, Arango said, “There’s a big leaguer who signed for that amount, Felix Hernandez,” Arango said. “So I hope that number is a good omen.”

The Brewers jumped into the Pascual bidding because he fits the profile of the kind of prospect they are willing to spend significantly to sign, Arango said. He has some present ability, with an average present fastball (in the 87-93 mph range), and it projects to be an above-average pitch. He has some physical maturity as well as projection, and enough mental maturity to handle coming to the United States to play in 2006. The Brewers don’t have a Latin American academy, so any Latin players they sign must be ready to come to the U.S. immediately and be ready to play in Rookie ball.

“This kid has broad shoulders, long arms and big hands,” Arango said from his Miami-area home. “He was 12 pounds when he was born—I heard the scream from his mother. He’s got good size.

“Rolando’s mechanics are pretty fluid. He has a real easy arm action to go with his size. He has the ability to spin a breaking ball pretty good. His biggest thing is going to be getting command of his breaking ball. His changeup at times needs a lot of work and at times it’s pretty good. He has a high ceiling.”

Ash said the Brewers had to have several factors come together to make the Pascual signing happen. The Brewers didn’t have a second-round pick this year (for signing free agent Damian Miller) and saw Pascual as an opportunity to make up for that. They also like his ability, obviously. But Ash acknowledged big-picture issues also came into play.

“We need to send a signal that our organization will be a player in that marketplace,” Ash said. “We want players and agents to know our club will do what it takes to sign talented players in Latin America. We signed (righthander) Roque Mercedes last year for significant dollars, but not for anything like Pascual.

“The previous administration signed (Class A middle infielders) Hernan Iribarren and Alcides Escobar, but we have a slightly different philosophy in that we’re targeting a higher level of player, and we have confidence Rolando will be that kind of player.”

Pascual, born in February 1989, has cleared the bureaucratic hurdles (getting a visa, proving his age, etc.) and is expected to fly to Miami this week. He’ll then report to Arizona for instructional league. Because the status of the lower minors has yet to be determined (Major League Baseball’s proposed changes have yet to be approved by owners), Ash said he wasn’t sure where Pascual would begin his pro career. He said as the minors are currently constructed, Pascual would either spend 2006 in the Rookie-level Arizona or Pioneer leagues.

http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/news/050907pascaul.html

[Dontworry]

Bonds was always a better baseball player than Ted williams.

Before or after 01, he's always been better.

I'm going to use his pre 00 numbers for obvious reasons, although I think The " steroid era " is a complete joke, Others dont, So to avoid the steroid arguement, I will use his pre 00 numbers.

86 Win Shares in the 1980s-- 1986-89-- he was already a star though hardly dominant.

From 1990-98 Bonds, according to Bill James, was oneof the top 5 players in the game.... every single year.

To put that accomplishment in its proper perspective, Honus Wagner is the only other player to have placed in the Top 5 9 years in a row-- he did it ten-- Lou gehrig is the only player to have done it 8 years in a row,

Think of that for a second-- Bonds did something that Ruth, Aaron, Mays, Cobb, and all the rest save wagner never did.

He was , by far the best player of the 1990s-- in fact his advantage over the next best player-- Craig Biggio-- is the largest since Wagner in the 1900s. 351 WS to 287.

The 351 WS he amassed in the 1990s-- are more than any player in any decade since Ruth and Hornsby in the 20s.

He won three MVP'S, but should of won six, he was the best player in the league in 91, 95, and 96. He " averaged " over a 1.000 OPS from 92-99, which is eight straight years, I believe the most since williams and ruth. He also played very good defense and stole a large amount of bases, while williams was slightly below average defensively. He was easily the best offensive force since mantle, and the best " five tool " player since willie mays.

It's very ridiculous how underrated barry has always been. I remember " fans " crying when bonds was Selected by The Sporting News as the 34th Greatest Player of All Time, the highest among active players.

Anyway, the point has been made, Bonds has and will always be a better baseball player than ted williams.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

And another from Baseball America..


Mets Sign Top Two Latin American Free Agents
By John Manuel
July 11, 2005

The Mets have the major leagues’ only Latin American general manager, Omar Minaya. They signed the two most recognizable Latin American free agents in the offseason, Carlos Beltran and Pedro Martinez.

Now, the organization has spent more money on Latin American free agents in 2005 than any other organization. New York signed outfielder Fernando Martinez for $1.4 million, and international scouts say Martinez was the top hitter available in the Dominican this year. Scouting sources in Latin America also report that the Mets have signed the top player out of Venezuela, righthander Deolis Guerra, for $700,000.

Both Martinez and Guerra have signed 2006 contracts. Several scouts contacted agree the international signing period, just more than a week old, is more active than usual, thanks in part to the Mets and also to the Rangers.

“There have been at least nine or 10 guys signed for six figures,” one international scouting director said. “It’s probably double the number in an average year.”

Martinez, represented by agent Ivan Noboa, has received the largest bonus so far. Scouts describe Martinez as a player with skills more typically found in American amateurs rather than Dominicans. His lefthanded bat is his best tool thanks to a mature approach for his age and his surehanded swing. He’s described as an average athlete with a strong frame. Some reports describe Martinez as having a Raul Mondesi-type arm, but scouts contacted by Baseball America say his arm is average.

Guerra is a 6-foot-5 righthander with a projectable frame and a fastball that has touched 90 mph.

Still available is the consensus top talent in the international arena this year, Dominican righthander Rolando Pascual. He’s 6-foot-6 and has shown low 90s velocity with an easy delivery.

http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/news/050711mets.html

[Ubiquitous]

Latin players are signed to contracts at a very early age, so they are not generally free agents and they do not generally seek out competing bids for their services. A wrangler goes off into the city and countryside finds young potential players brings them to a camp that the wrangler has connections too and if they appeal to the franchise they sign him to a cheap contract at a very early age (age 16 I believe). They then become the property of that team for the length of the contract and they can keep him down there without having to worry about the Rule V draft, 40 man roster, or minor league free agency service time.

Secondly I'm willing to bet that even late round draftees recieve more money then 99% of signed (non-cuban) lating players. They simpy don't have to pay them anything to land them on the team. Give somebody from Haiti 500 dollars and it means something. It means very little to an American born player.

Latin players make money but they only make money if they make a Major league roster, and they only really make a lot of money if they can manage to stay on a roster for more then a year or two. Really what is needed is about 3 or 4 years of service time for them to make the bigger bucks. A first round draft choice especially a high first round draft choice will make millions and will probably make more money in signing then the latin player will make in his first 3 years of MLB service combined. The draftee needs never to play Major League ball to make millions, the latin player needs to play major league ball for 3 or 4 years before they make a million.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Latin players are signed to contracts at a very early age, so they are not generally free agents and they do not generally seek out competing bids for their services. A wrangler goes off into the city and countryside finds young potential players brings them to a camp that the wrangler has connections too and if they appeal to the franchise they sign him to a cheap contract at a very early age (age 16 I believe). They then become the property of that team for the length of the contract and they can keep him down there without having to worry about the Rule V draft, 40 man roster, or minor league free agency service time.

Secondly I'm willing to bet that even late round draftees recieve more money then 99% of signed (non-cuban) lating players. They simpy don't have to pay them anything to land them on the team. Give somebody from Haiti 500 dollars and it means something. It means very little to an American born player.

Latin players make money but they only make money if they make a Major league roster, and they only really make a lot of money if they can manage to stay on a roster for more then a year or two. Really what is needed is about 3 or 4 years of service time for them to make the bigger bucks. A first round draft choice especially a high first round draft choice will make millions and will probably make more money in signing then the latin player will make in his first 3 years of MLB service combined. The draftee needs never to play Major League ball to make millions, the latin player needs to play major league ball for 3 or 4 years before they make a million.

See my posts above. Several latin players signed for over $700,000, one got $1.4 million. Yes, high draft choices make lots money as do the top latin signees. All the latin signees are by definition FREE AGENTS. The lower drafted players do not make lots of money. Players drafted say in the 60th round make peanuts.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Cuban Kendry Morales:


Morales To Make Pro Debut
By Bill Shaikin
May 21, 2005

The Angels' long wait for Kendry Morales is over. Morales has arrived in the United States and is scheduled to make his debut tonight at Class A Rancho Cucamonga.

Morales, the Cuban slugger signed amid much fanfare in December, had been stranded in the Dominican Republic. By defecting there and declaring himself a free agent, he could sign with whatever club he liked but could not leave until obtaining the Dominican citizenship needed to secure a Dominican passport and a U.S. work visa.

General Manager Bill Stoneman said that Morales would begin pro ball as a first baseman, although he also can play third base and left field.

"It's the big bat he carries that's the big thing," Stoneman said.

The Angels signed Morales, who is listed as 21 years old, to a six-year contract that includes a $3-million signing bonus.

http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/news/050521morales.html

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Another Cuban free agent...


Mariners Sign Cuban Star Betancourt
By John Hickey
January 11, 2005

The Mariners concluded a yearlong pursuit of Cuban shortstop Yuniesky Betancourt on Wednesday, signing him to a four-year contract worth $3.65 million.

After the United States government granted final clearance, Betancourt, 22, became a Mariner. As part of his contract, he was put on the 40-man roster and will report to spring training next month. Making it to the 40-man roster is a big step for Betancourt, who didn't play last year after having fled Cuba on a raft in 2003, eventually landing in Mexico.

"He's a pretty good-looking ballplayer," said Benny Looper, the Mariners' vice president of player development and scouting. "There was a lot of competition to sign him. And that's what it took to get the deal done."

Betancourt's last regular job was as a 20-year-old shortstop/second baseman for Villa Clara in Cuba’s Serie Nacional. He played mostly at second base because Eduardo Paret, who has spent most of the past decade as the starting shortstop for the Cuban National Team, was Villa Clara's shortstop.

"Yuniesky is an athletic, offensive shortstop," Mariners general manager Bill Bavasi said. "We view him as the equivalent of a first- or second-round draft pick."

Betancourt, 5-foot-10, 190 pounds, played shortstop for Cuba’s bronze-medal winning team during the 2000 World Junior championships, also batting leadoff. (That team also featured recent Angels signee Kendry Morales.) The Mariners scouted the tournament aggressively, signing its MVP, Korea’s Shin-Soo Choo, as well as Australian lefthander Travis Blackley out of the event. A coach who saw Betancourt play in Edmonton said he stood out for having natural middle-infield actions, very good hands both in the field and at the plate, and that he was one of the team’s top players.

The Mariners plan to have Betancourt begin his career at Double-A San Antonio. Looper said Betancourt is capable of playing outfield and third base, which may become necessary, because some of the best players in the Seattle minor league system are shortstops, including Seattle's first picks in the past two drafts, Matt Tuiasosopo and Adam Jones.

"We are excited about this," Looper said. "We like him as a baseball player. I know he can play second; I've seen him play second. I think he can play shortstop, too, but shortstops are generally the most athletic players on the team and they can wind up elsewhere.”

The Mariners first made contact with Betancourt last January, after Looper saw him play shortly following his exit from Cuba. They've had an agreement in principle with Betancourt and his agent, Jaime Torres, since Dec. 16. But neither side could say anything while the U.S. Treasury Department looked into Betancourt.

Cuban exiles need clearance from the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control. That office administers and enforces the U.S. sanctions on foreign governments, including Cuba's. The Mariners got word this week that Betancourt had received clearance.

To make room on the 40-man roster for Betancourt, Aaron Looper, Benny's son, was designated for assignment.

[Ubiquitous]

Those were the top unsigned latin signees, and as your own articles state what happened so far has been unusual and unprecedented in latin signing.

How much money did Sammy Sosa get from the Rangers. What did the first rounders that year get? How much money did Pedro Martinez get? How about the first rounders? What about Adrian Beltre? How much did the top lating signees get in those years?

Whats happening in Latin America is just now starting to happen. I think the highest bonus paid so far is 1.4 million and they just did it. The power down in latin america is shifting, away from the teams and to the players. Last year I was predicting that eventually the latin market would get costly and that it possibly could cause a shift back to highly organized (and thus possibly safer bets) American players. For years latin america was the cheaper and safer bet which caused a shift in the demographics of baseball. Now they are getting expensive and when they hit a point that they are as expensive or more expensive then american born then it will shift back to American born players of all color.

[digglahhh]

Agreed, Ubiq.

The exploitation can only continue so long before those who are being exploited recognize it and demand fair compensation. Citing a couple of examples of Latins who got paid big bucks recently is anecdotal. The average "rapper" who gets signed to a record label or makes an appearance on a record walks away with close to nothing. I can't flip open a copy of People Magazine, show you a picture of Jay-Z and say that contradicts the previous statement.

Once the practice of signing players "in bulk" becomes too expensive, it will no longer be practical. At that point, I believe that we will see a composite of a return to more tradtional scouting practice as well as a greater infusion of SABR type research into the field.

Raising the price of the lottery to $20 a ticket, would surely discourage many from playing...

[csh19792001]

Agreed, Ubiq.


From the "so what does this all mean" department....

Derek:
Do you think baseball is the strongest/most competitive it has ever been currently? Do you have any strong inclination to opine for one decade/era as the strongest? Why?

Phrased differently, do you think Willie Mays would do better or worse (relative to the league) playing in the 90's-2000's NL vs. the 50's-60's NL?

[538280]

It is true that currently there are no real back star players in mid-career. But that's just an historical anomoly. I believe we are at the cusp of a new wave of great African-American players. There are a group of young players who have a lot of potential:

Carl Crawford
C.C. Sabathia
Dontrelle Willis
Rickie Weeks
Prince Fielder
B.J. Upton
Justin Upton
Delmon Young
Grady Sizemore
Edwin Jackson (if he can come back)

Well, we'll see on this. Only time will really tell if these guys do become as good or even close to as good as the 1970s black players, and even the Bonds/Griffey/Thomas generation.

P.S-Grady Sizemore is white.

[538280]

Shannon Stewart, Dontrelle Willis, Garret Anderson, Juan Pierre, Jimmy Rollins, Derrek Lee, Cliff Floyd, Torii Hunter, CC Sabathia, Prince Fielder, Rickie Weeks, Bill Hall, Tony Clark, Coco Crisp, Jerry Hairston Jr, Jacque Jones, Jermaine Dye, Ryan Howard, Vernon Wells, Carl Everett, Matt Lawton, Carl Crawford, Preston Wilson, and others.

All those guys are good players and some might become great (R.Howard, Crawford, Willis, Lee if '05 isn't a fluke, which is anyone's guess), but I would say there probably isn't a HOFer among them except again Willis, Crawford and Howard whose careers aren't really long enough to get a grip on how good they really are. Not nearly as good as the 70s blacks, and probably not even the 70s Latinos.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

All those guys are good players and some might become great (R.Howard, Crawford, Willis, Lee if '05 isn't a fluke, which is anyone's guess), but I would say there probably isn't a HOFer among them except again Willis, Crawford and Howard whose careers aren't really long enough to get a grip on how good they really are. Not nearly as good as the 70s blacks, and probably not even the 70s Latinos.
Chris,

the long list that you gave was about half HoFers and half good players (Rivers, May, Madlock, etc)

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Well, we'll see on this. Only time will really tell if these guys do become as good or even close to as good as the 1970s black players, and even the Bonds/Griffey/Thomas generation.

P.S-Grady Sizemore is white.
Chri,

You're the one complaining about the lack of black stars. You should be supporting these players 100% and pumping them up.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

never mind

[digglahhh]

Alright Chris, since you put me on the spot...

Can we consider this a "clutch posting situation?":atthepc

Well, let me start by saying that there are two overlapping issues here, competitiveness and overall strength. The former is often confused for the latter.

I would say that the elite players today are at the highest skill level. But skill isn't talent. Skills can be cultivated with the aid of technology, expert coaching and time. So I think what we are really talking about is talent.

Now I'm inclined to believe that talent is basically something that is sprinkled in a fairly similar pattern over time. Once again, may I remind everybody that even considering a replacement level player is to refer to about the 99th percentile of athletic talent and skill.

There has been a lot of mention of the ability of superstars to seperate themselves from the league, and I think while this is a convenient assumption to make, it is not the most pertinent. Distancing yourself from your peers depends on your peers as much as it depends on you. Many guys have their highest OPS+ seasons for years in which they did not post their highest OPS. Fewer players distancing themselves can indicate overall league strength, or just imply parity.

Today, a lot of players can distance themselves from the norm, but only a few from that group of players who are well above average distance themselves from the stars.

I would not say that today's game represents the most competitive or strongest league of all time. Another factor at play here is the number of players, which also allows good but not great players to seperate themselves from a watered down average. This is certainly not the most competitive era, there are perenial doormats and powerhouses.

The 70's may have been the strongest league in terms of the average player; many of the players seemed to be more well rounded. Their raw stats would jump in today's era. Expansion was not egregious and intergration was full. However, I don't think it the 70's could be considered the most competitive. There were some dynastic runs. The era was basically dominated by the A's, O's, Reds and Bucks.

Today's era does have many legitimate superstars, including 4 of the top ten pitchers of all time, IMO (Clemens, Maddux, Pedro and Randy). Several of the elite hitters are legitimate greats. The era may have made the Richie Sexsones but not the Manny Ramirezes. Were you to contract today's teams/players until you reached the size of the league in the early 70's and then redisperse the talent evenly (not the way it is now) you may be able to form the strongest and most competitive league, but as is, I think we have neither.

That's another issue that has gone un-raised. The disparity in expenditure amongst franchises serves as an obstacle to an even distribution of talent, and as such the league will never reach its competitive potential- although I think the competitive imbalance, in terms of winning a WS is overated.

BTW, I think that the single most influential determinant of overall competitiveness is teams having similarly skilled pitching. This is why money is a big factor, IMO. The difference between a replacement level #4 and 5 starter and a $6M guy in those spots can lead to a big difference in wins over 162 games between two teams that are pretty equal otherwise. IOW, the luxury of spending money on the basis. A rotation of Roy Halladay and four bums means that one outr of every five days this team is highly competitive, and very successful, while the other four days, they are practically a cakewalk, if the opponent has a competent starter. The shorter rotation minimized this, b/c a team had to find one less pitcher to assemble their rotation.

[Ubiquitous]

All those guys are good players and some might become great (R.Howard, Crawford, Willis, Lee if '05 isn't a fluke, which is anyone's guess), but I would say there probably isn't a HOFer among them except again Willis, Crawford and Howard whose careers aren't really long enough to get a grip on how good they really are. Not nearly as good as the 70s blacks, and probably not even the 70s Latinos.

You are not playing fairly. When you listed off your 70's black players you named a lot of players that either barely played in the 70's, it was their downside, or were not all that great. Meanwhile you filter out many of today's black players because you call them part of another generation.

If we limit ourselves to only ballplayers of the last few years then yeah we are not going to find a HoF'er in the bunch because it is simply to early to tell. You have the entire 70's era ballplayers career to look at and only a handful of seasons from the youth. How many players in history could one say "oh he's going to be a HoF'er" after only 2 or 3 seasons? Not too many. You couldn't say that for Joe Morgan, nor Lou Brock, and many of the players in the 70's that would become HoF'ers.

Prince Fielder could be the next big bopper, along with Ryan Howard but we don't know. Weeks could be the next Alomar but its too early to tell. A year from now we will probably be talking about another 5 guys who got called up from the minors or who look to be top prospects.

But again if you do what you did for the 70's and named all the black players that played regardless of "generation" then todays list would look just as good if not slightly better then the 70's list. Doc Gooden, Rickey Henderson, Cecil Fielder, Barry Bonds, Gary Sheffield, Frank Thomas, Tony Gwynn, Ken Griffey, Mo Vaughn, Albert Belle, Kenny Lofton, and all the others we mentioned.

[digglahhh]

BTW, today's NBA provides an interesting example about using superstars to interpret league strength. There is certainly no lack of superstars in the NBA, arguably more so than 10-15 years ago, but the overall level of play is terrrible. Ironically, the Pistons who are far and away the best team in the league do not have a true superstar (Billups?) but do have five high quality starters. Only a few teams can make that claim, maybe just them and San Antonio, the real contenders. Other contenders, like Dallas have quality depth.

I didn't mean to go off about basketball, but today's landscape is a compelling example of how its is a proliferation of quality, but not spectacular players is more reflective of the overall quality of a league than a simple superstar tally.

[sschirmer]

I really thought this thread was comparing Bonds & Williams. Seems like we are light years from that topic.

[538280]

The 70's may have been the strongest league in terms of the average player; many of the players seemed to be more well rounded. Their raw stats would jump in today's era. Expansion was not egregious and intergration was full. However, I don't think it the 70's could be considered the most competitive. There were some dynastic runs. The era was basically dominated by the A's, O's, Reds and Bucks.


The 70s were not "dominated" by the A's, O's, Reds, Bucks, and Yankees (I assume you just forgot them). Those are the teams that did well in the postseason and won the World Serieses, but it's not like those teams were just so much better than everyone else, a la Pirates, Cubs, Giants in the deadball era NL. Look at won lost records in the 1970s, you won't see too many eye popping ones, except the '75 Reds who were just truly one of the best (if not the best) team of all time. Standard deviations of runs scored in the 70s were really high. Look at the runs scored and runs allowed for the 1974 AL, and try to tell me that's not competitive.

[Ubiquitous]

Look at the runs scored and runs allowed for the 1974 AL, and try to tell me that's not competitive.

Competitive or just mediocre? 5 teams under .500, 4 teams at .500 or only a few games above it, and three teams at the top that wouldn't even be close to a playoff shot in most years with that record.

[csh19792001]

Alright Chris, since you put me on the spot...

I would not say that today's game represents the most competitive or strongest league of all time.

The 70's may have been the strongest league in terms of the average player; many of the players seemed to be more well rounded. Their raw stats would jump in today's era. Expansion was not egregious and intergration was full. However, I don't think the 70's could be considered the most competitive.


How about the 60's, then?

In any case, if I'm reading you correctly, you believe that the average player of the 1970's was better than that of the 1990's, but in terms of competitive balance between teams, the 70's were bereft of parity? That makes sense to me.

What do you think Willie Mays' (or Aaron's, or Frank Robinson's) numbers would look like had he played in the Bonds timeframe 1986-2006?

My tenuous opinion on all this (at the moment) is that the mid-late 60's was probably the best baseball ever got, in terms of greatness of players (both average and in terms of superstars), but not necessarily in terms of parity/competitive balance. I'm actually not concerned with team hegemony, or really team parity at all. I enjoy contrasting the historical stature of alltime players.

What do you think?

[csh19792001]

Competitive or just mediocre?

Which one are you inclined to believe?

[csh19792001]

I really thought this thread was comparing Bonds & Williams. Seems like we are light years from that topic.

Not at all.

If we're comparing two players who competed in different eras, league strength is absolutely germane (and in fact, imperative) to making an educated decision as to who was greater.

[Ubiquitous]

Which one are you inclined to believe?


How about competively mediocre?

It happens, injuries, player development, rule changes, trades, weather and so on. 1974 AL had some good players in it, and more to the point had a good chunk of future greats in it as well. I think the year was a bit of a dud. It happens not every year can be 2001 or 1993 or whatever year one thinks is highly competitive. Sometimes all the random events converge to create greatness sometimes they converge to create mediocrity.

To wrap it up I don't think any of those AL teams were 100 win teams but couldn't get there because of competition. Put these in any other kind of MLB environment but keep the players and injuries and player movements the same and you still won't get a great team out of it.

[leecemark]

--I tend to agree with Ubi. Even in periods of general excellence (which I believe the 70s were) not every season is created equal. 1974 was kind of a transitional year where alot of players from the older generation were winding down and the younger generation wasn't quite ready to take over. There were some great rookies and breakout seasons by young players in 1975. There are going to be peaks and valleys within each decade.

[digglahhh]

I assume Mays and Robinson's numbers would go up a bit in the modern era, probably not by ridiculous proportions, but certainly noticable. Their relative numbers might actually go down though because more "average" guys put up impressive offensive numbers. Its harder to improve upon .300/40/120 than it is to improve on .260/15/65 regardless of conditions.

For Robinson I think its reasonable to assume that several of those high 30 HR seasons become low 40 HR seasons and that he manages to finish his career with a BA a few points above .300. You also have to assume that he might draw some more walks and increase his OBP. In context though, his numbers might still look more impressive in comparison to his own era where he is. Mays is a good example of this, as his yearly OBP and slugging #s are pretty similar the Griffey's, but his OPS+ is substantially higher (13 points through 2005). Mays would have to improve pretty drastically for his numbers to reflect the same level of dominance. So it is possible that both of these guys increase their raw numbers but see drops in their relative numbers. I don't know if that trade off would result in us interpretting them as "better" players. My suspision is actually that it may not. Wouldn't Richie Sexson appear more impressive if we were to subtract 10 HRs from his seasonal totals, but place the seasons in the late 60s?

Robinson is pretty interesting when you consider that some of the era advantage could be mitigated by having to hit at Riverfront instead of Crosley for the beginning of his career. Riverfront was not really a bad place to hit, but Crosley was extremely favorable. However, in the second half of his career he would get Camden Yards instead of Memorial Stadium, that's a substantial uprgrade, IMO.

[Goofy]

Who was the better ballplayer between Teddy Ballgame and Battered Fried Barry?

Bonds: 18 yrs, 2579 hits, 653 HR, 1734 RBI, .297 BA, 1.034 OPS, 500 SB, .984 FP

Williams: 19 yrs, 2654 hits, 521 HR, 1839 RBI, .344 BA, 1.116 OPS, 24 SB, .974 FP



Ted Williams by far because y'all have to admit Bonds has used a hell of a lot of Steroids he's just too cowardly to admit it. Whereas Williams didn't use them at all. His was pure talent!

[Dravecky43]

Ted Williams by far because y'all have to admit Bonds has used a hell of a lot of Steroids he's just too cowardly to admit it. Whereas Williams didn't use them at all. His was pure talent!
Yes, your name exemplifies your post.

[digglahhh]

Ted Williams by far because y'all have to admit Bonds has used a hell of a lot of Steroids he's just too cowardly to admit it. Whereas Williams didn't use them at all. His was pure talent!

say it with me guys, COGNITIVE DISSONANCE.

Now, I'm not advocating Bonds necessarily, but... can you just ignore the fact that Bonds excelled in areas of the game that Williams was below average in?

Like I said before, it must be really easy to cast off anything you don't want to believe by abandoning your intellectual duties and casting blanket insults. Can't do it myself though.

Look Ted was a hell of hitter, the best ever probably, but he wasn't fast and was in all honesty, a liability in the field.

As a big ManRam fan, I wonder if one day people will forget about his defense and give him the respect he deserves by placing him in the pantheon of awesome offensive forces.