Greatest Player Ever [Archive]

csh19792001

03-03-2004, 09:16 PM

Originally posted by Eddie Collins
No one will ever agree with me, but I don't care. I would take Mays, Aaron, or Wagner over Ruth. Cobb is up there too. I change my opinion a lot, but now I am leaning toward Wagner.

Actually, I agree with you a lot eddie. You have made enumerate great points, and always have tidbits to share.

Why leaning towards Honus? Who did you vote for here?

All of the baseball writers, managers, fellow players, executives, and coaches that ACTUALLY SAW Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth, and Honus Wagner play, about 230 said that Tyrus Raymond Cobb was the greatest player who ever lived, while about 30 support Ruth (yes, ONLY 30), and about the same number support Honus Wagner. Many of Ruth's OWN TEAMMATES even said Cobb was a greater player!

I don't see how anyone (besides die-hard Yankee fans and stat mongers) could read the incredible laudatory content of those files and not at least think, (if only for a fleeting second): "Wow, Cobb really was the greatest, because nearly everyone who ever saw him, Ruth, and Wagner play said he was the best!" And it isn't like Cobb got votes out of cronyism or popularity. He was so great, that despite the fact that he was so hated and Ruth so loved and popular, people still (nearly universally) called him the greatest.

Even barring all first hand accounts of witnesses (which many people on this thread insist on doing), it's not like Cobb's numbers aren't incredible, even unadjusted for the era in which he played.

Adjusted, Ty Cobb’s numbers stand up to anyone's. I’d like to mention that Cobb led in adjusted OPS (on base plus slugging) 11 times and led in slugging 8 times. For stat people, OPS+ is akin to the holy grail of baseball statistics. Only Ruth (with many advantages I’ll discuss) and Rogers Hornsby (who focused ENTIRELY on hitting, and was a mediocre player otherwise) led the league more in this stat (13 and 12 times, respectively).

Still, most of us who really know the game realize that much of baseball does not and cannot (because of its nature) show up in statistics. Certain players look a lot better on paper than they really are, and vice versa. But the experts who study and write about baseball for a living catch all of the intangibles that don't manifest themselves in statistics. And that's exactly what we have. The accounts of people, these a priori witnesses who actually saw these guys play.

Some other things of note, germane to this debate that people generally don't know....Babe Ruth never won a poll for "Greatest Player Ever" during his lifetime. His stature has grown continuously and posthumously because he was a NY Yankee, a fun, loveable guy, and had tremendous WS glory. In addition he was on the greatest teams in baseball history (his teams' WPCT for his career) and had the richest owner in baseball, the biggest city, and 25 newspapers behind him. He also changed baseball irrevocably with his new style that the general lay public loved and still loves today.

Ruth's new game worked perfectly given the new baseball in play, the rule changes that put the offense way ahead until about 1940 (rules barring spitballs, shiners, et al), and a stadium that was built for him (The Stadium was always tremendous HR wise for lefties (with that 296 ft. wall and short porch). Babe Ruth took full advantage of everything afforded him, and put up the greatest power numbers in history.

By contrast, Ty Cobb played on generally lousy teams, in the smallest market in the American League, with 2 newspapers and a cheapskate owner behind him. He didn't have those vital advantages, or a guy AVERAGING 150 RBI's per season batting behind him for 10 years. In fact, nobody ever hit more than 21 homers on any of Cobb's teams, either. He had to manufacture runs on his own much more often. He hit .387 in a decade when the league struggled to hit .260. He dominated against the spitball, the shineball, the black ball, and a 370 ft right field line. He also player-managed for 6 years, which generally kills one's numbers because it takes so much out of you. Ruth could never be depended upon to manage because he was a buffoon, and in actuality, knew very little about the intricacies of the game. Hence, he was kind of pushed out of the game. Cobb was a baseball genius, by contrast.

Here are the titles I think The Babe STILL deserves, even after 70 years-
Greatest slugger ever
Greatest home run hitter ever
Greatest pitcher-hitter combo ever
Most famous and arguably most important player ever (given his historical impact), but one could argue for Jackie, perhaps.

But greatest baseball player? I'm not talking about fame and glory and historical importance- just what the guys did on the field. Maybe other people subsume all these things under "greatest". I don't. If that is part of the definition, Ill have to change my whole take on things.

Even using the “5 tools” approach, Ruth falls short of Mays, Wagner, and Cobb.

Chris

csh19792001

03-03-2004, 09:25 PM

Originally posted by Chad
I have got to go with Cobb. Here are my reasons.

4th All Time Games (3034)
1st Batting Average (.366)
3rd Career .300 Seasons (16)
4th Career At-Bats (11434)
1st Career Runs (2245)
2nd Career Hits (4190)
7th Career 100 Run Seasons (11)
2nd Career 200 Hit Seasons (9)
2nd Career Singles (3053)
3rd Career Doubles (725)
2nd Career Triples (295)
4th Career Total Bases (5856)
5th Career RBI's (1937)
4th Career Stolen Bases (892)

Two corrections-

Cobb had 23 .300 seasons, (not 16), and should be third all-time in steals (before 1898, the definition of "stolen bases" also included "extra bases advanced"). Hence, Billy Hamilton was playing under different rules and his total would not be nearly as high playing under current rules.

The other numbers (hits, runs, triples, RBI) fluctuate a bit with each wave of revisional research.

ElHalo

03-03-2004, 10:11 PM

Of course, in my opinion, Babe Ruth is the greatest player ever and there's really nobody else that's even close.

I can see the argument for Cobb, if you want to talk about what people who saw him play felt (which is, in my opinion, absolutely useless... people who saw "Friends" said it was a funny tv show), even though I disagree with it. And I can kinda, sorta, maybe see an argument for Mays, if you're heavily discounting the value of pre-integration baseball (which I don't) and heavily valuing defense (which I wouldn't... when I'm valuing a player, I generally think along the lines of 80% hitting, 10% fielding, 10% baserunning).

But Aaron? I just don't see it. .305/.374/.555 is great... but doesn't compare to Ruth, Williams, Gehrig, Foxx, Hornsby, or any of the other truly great hitters. Sure, Aaron stuck around forever... but was there any point, any particular year, where he was even considered the best player in baseball for that year?

He had one MVP season... where he went .322/.378/.600, with 44 homers, 118 runs, and 132 RBI's. Meanwhile, Mickey Mantle was busy going .365/.512/.665 with 34 homers, 121 runs, and 94 RBI, with 16 steals thrown in for good measure (Aaron had 1 steal). Aaron's best season, 1971, when he went .327/.410/.669, he came in third in MVP voting... Joe Torre was busy going .363/.421/.555 with 137 RBI (which, by the way, is more RBI than Aaron EVER had).

In the first half of Aaron's career, he was in the shadow of Mays and Musial. In the second half of his career, there was Frank Robinson, Pete Rose, and Ernie Banks. And that's just in the NL!

Sorry, but in order for a guy to get mention as the best player ever, he had to have, at least at some point, been the best player in baseball at a given time. Aaron's a great, great player, all time great... but he doesn't crack my top 20 list when it comes down to it.

csh19792001

03-03-2004, 11:02 PM

El Halo,

If you weren't a Yankee fan, would you feel as strongly about Ruth? I'm from NY and a Yankee fan too, but I'm able to be objective. Are you free from NY bias? If Cobb had been a Yankee and Ruth a Tiger would you be singing the same tune?

It's fine if you want to write off the opinions of baseball experts who saw them play, but I can't see any reason for it, or just relying on numbers, unless that's all you have to fall back on. (I hate Friends too, by the way, and am clearly in the minority)

So throw out all that. What about the points I made in the long post above about all of Ruth's tremendous advantages and all of the other things I said?

Where did you come up with the 80% hitting thing? And is that universal, for every position? I'm interested, because I always wonder what relative percentages should be assigned to hitting, fielding, and baserunning.

I never consider Aaron either, for many of the same reasons you do. Ironically, Mays was a better player, really, because the experts who saw him and Aaron play generally favored Mays. Aaron, when asked about this, always says: "My numbers do the talking". Sure they do, Henry, but numbers aren't everything, and people know that!!! Fielding is nearly impossible to confine and quantify in a number system, and much is lost in translation when just looking at raw stats.

RuthMayBond

03-04-2004, 07:42 AM

Originally posted by csh19792001
Two corrections-

Cobb had 23 .300 seasons, (not 16)

Well, 1906, 1914 & 1926 were rather short seasons

ElHalo

03-04-2004, 08:26 AM

Originally posted by csh19792001
El Halo,

If you weren't a Yankee fan, would you feel as strongly about Ruth? I'm from NY and a Yankee fan too, but I'm able to be objective. Are you free from NY bias? If Cobb had been a Yankee and Ruth a Tiger would you be singing the same tune?

Me saying that Ruth is the greatest baseball player ever is completely independent of my being a Yankee fan. I can say Michael Jordan was the best basketball player ever without being a Bulls fan, or that Wayne Gretzky was the greatest hockey player ever without being an Oilers fan.

Why do I throw out the opinions of those who actually saw them play? Because I know the opinions of people who watch baseball now, and I know them to very often be absolute, utter crap. If fifty years from now, people read what current baseball writers said and took it verbatim as fact on current baseball players, then those future people would think that Barry Bonds should actually get credit for all of his walks (instead of basically getting 150 intentional walks a year), that Derek Jeter is at the same time the best and the worst defensive shortstop in baseball, that John Smoltz is much more valuable as a reliever than he was as a starter, that Vlad Guerrero is one of the best defensive outfielders in baseball, that Ken Griffey Jr. belonged on the All Century team and that Cal Ripken Jr. was more deserving than Honus Wagner for the same team, and any number of other things that are just patently, obviously untrue. People watching players play live are inherently biased, because they come towards that player and his team with pre-conceived notions. People learning about players through a veil of history are less biased, because, while it might hurt a Yankee fan in 2003 to admit that Pedro Martinez was a better pitcher than anybody the Yanks had, it would hurt much, much less for a Yankee fan in 2053 to admit that Pedro Martinez was a better pitcher than anybody the Yankees had in 2003.

As far as Ruth having advantages that Cobb didn't... well, I'll grant you that Ruth had a better offensive team around him most of the time. Having Lou Gehrig hitting behind you for the last eight or nine years of your career doesn't hurt.

But as for Yankee stadium... Ruth had his best season in 1921, in the Polo Grounds. And while the short porch certainly didn't hurt, Yankee stadium is primarily a pitcher's park. Don't buy the argument.

And as for changes in the game... ok, that's legit, and that's why I'll never question Ty Cobb for not hitting 700 home runs. But don't forget that Cobb and Ruth were, for a long time, contemporaries... and that Ruth put up far, far better numbers during that time. Cobb was a better contact hitter, and had a career batting average 24 points higher than Ruth. Ruth was a better slugger, and had a career slugging average... ONE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY EIGHT points higher than Cobb. Sorry, but even accounting for era and park factors... Cobb's OPS+ is 167 for his career. Ruth's is 207. It's just not even close, in my opinion.

And I haven't even gotten into the pitching yet! Even if you could make the argument that Cobb was a better offensive player than Ruth, which I wouldn't, it'd still be fairly close. Say, on a scale of 0-100, with 100 being the perfect ball player and 0 being a guy who only deserves a one game cup of coffee, the absolute worst that a Ruth hater could say is that Ruth is an 88 and Cobb is 93, or something along those lines. But factor in Ruth's pitching, and that's probably worth, say, an extra 20 points on top of his score. Sorry, but I just can't possibly agree that you could consider Cobb a better ballplayer than Ruth.

Zeth

03-04-2004, 08:31 AM

Heh, the biggest reason Lou Gehrig averaged 150 RBI a year is because he had Babe Ruth getting on base 50% of the time ahead of him.

I understand that Babe Ruth was not a marvel on the bases, or in the field. He was better at both than people give him credit for; he was a captable baserunner and a good outfielder much of his career, until he got old and put on more weight. But the main point of the argument is two things:

(1) Is Ruth's slugging so much better than anyone else's that it outweighs his inferiority on the bases and in the field to Cobb, Wagner or Mays?

(2) Are walks something that should be counted in Ruth's favor?

My answers to those questions are yes, and yes. In particular, there seems to be a major issue over what walks are worth. Some of us believe, it appears, that walks are essentially a failure, or at best, neutral, for the hitter -- inferior to singles. But what I believe is walks are a success by the hitter -- superior to outs. Babe Ruth made far, far fewer outs in his career than Ty Cobb or Honus Wagner or Willie Mays, and that matters a great deal.

I understand, Chris, that you believe walks are boring and should not be more than a cursory part of baseball. I tend to agree with you that I wish there were a lot fewer walks than there are, but the fact of the matter to me is, they happen, and they're a lot better than outs, and OBP is the most important ability there is. OBP and SLG put Ruth ahead of the field. I don't believe any of us is going to convince anybody else, at least, among those of us whose beliefs about the relative merits of walks and speed are set.

Yeah, I understand that Ty Cobb played baseball the way it's supposed to be played, in traditional minds, and Babe Ruth didn't. I prefer the Ty Cobb style of baseball to the Babe Ruth style of baseball, too. But Babe Ruth created more runs -- and thus, more wins -- than Cobb did, and that fact doesn't change depending on how we feel about how he did it.

csh19792001

03-04-2004, 10:02 AM

I consider walks quite valuable, actually. I don't see them as a failure at all- but CERTAINLY not equivalent to a single, which the SABR people insist on!! I don't see them as cursory at all, and important. I also agree that walks are boring, however, and that selfish players like Ted Williams would take a pitch an inch off the outside corner and kill rallies. Does it show up in the record books how many rallies he killed and how many runs he could have driven in had he swung at those pitches? Of course not. But the writers and experts who saw it knew this, and they wrote about it. Another case of statistics lying (or obfuscating the truth).

RuthMayBond

03-04-2004, 10:11 AM

Originally posted by csh19792001
selfish players like Ted Williams would take a pitch an inch off the outside corner and kill rallies. Does it show up in the record books how many rallies he killed and how many runs he could have driven in had he swung at those pitches? Of course not. But the writers and experts who saw it knew this, and they wrote about it. Another case of statistics lying (or obfuscating the truth).

Getting on base & not making an out kills rallies? I'm not sure it's a good idea to swing at pitches out of the strike zone, especially the old SZ. I don't think walks are exactly equivalent to singles, but they oughta be at least 0.9 single and better that swinging at something you will pop up or ground out.

csh19792001

03-04-2004, 10:48 AM

Originally posted by ElHalo
Me saying that Ruth is the greatest baseball player ever is completely independent of my being a Yankee fan. I can say Michael Jordan was the best basketball player ever without being a Bulls fan, or that Wayne Gretzky was the greatest hockey player ever without being an Oilers fan.

Ok... but you can say that to us, but is there a candidate in hockey or basketball from NY that is a legit contender for greatest ever in their respective sports? No, so the comparison is moot. Also, Ill assume you are more passionate about the Yankees than you are the Knicks or Islanders/Rangers (if you aren't than the following is erroneous...) That would also make you less biased (die-hard) in those sports and make a "greatest ever" from another city and franchise more palpable.

"If fifty years from now, people read what current baseball writers said and took it verbatim as fact on current baseball players, then those future people would think that Barry Bonds should actually get credit for all of his walks (instead of basically getting 150 intentional walks a year)"

You've just made my point exactly!!! You WITNESSED how those walks were drawn, and you considered the validity of those walks based on the situation and context, instead of just looking at the numbers in a stat book!!! Numbers not coming close to tellng the whole story.

So now, what you are doing is going back and looking at Ruth's enormus accomplishments in statistical fashion without considering HOW they were accomplished- (context), just like the people you talk about looking at Barry's numbers 50 years from now! Here is context, considering HOW things were accomplished, not just WHAT was accomplished. This is in addition to all the huge advantages Ruth had that I listed in my previous post.

Looking at the bigger picture, instead of just stats.....

that pitchers had no idea how to deal with a HR hitter because they never had before, and hence they walked him because he was disposable that way (was slow, a fair baserunner at best, and a lousy basestealer). What do tons of walks equal? A high OBP.

that Ruth played in a park with a 256 ft. right field line when he had his best seasons, and afterwards, on many of the greatest offensive teams ever in a park with a 296 ft. right field line and a short porch built for him, What do these factors combined with a juiced ball create? High slugging numbers.

That the offense was WAY AHEAD in Ruth's prime, and the 1929-32 "phase two" of the lively ball era was a joke- the offense so far ahead that you had an entire league hitting over .300 and any medicore player driving in over 100 runs a year.

Ruth would have been tremendous if you placed him in any era after 1920, even when the offense wasn't way ahead and even in a poor HR park for lefties (say Fenway, 1939-60 :)) But because of where and when he played, his numbers are through the roof.

"that Derek Jeter is at the same time the best and the worst defensive shortstop in baseball, that John Smoltz is much more valuable as a reliever than he was as a starter, that Vlad Guerrero is one of the best defensive outfielders in baseball, that Ken Griffey Jr. belonged on the All Century team and that Cal Ripken Jr. was more deserving than Honus Wagner for the same team, and any number of other things that are just patently, obviously untrue."

Each one of these cases is something isolated,and the (all century team examples) were voted on BY THE FANS (who generally know Nihilo), making the all century team results totally bogus, so you can throw those two examples out.

When I say isolated (Jeter, Smoltz, Vlad), I mean that these are issues without any consensus and continuity to the arguments made. If you have widespread disagreement, as there is with the cases you mentioned, I don't put much stock in it. But we have hegemony here- from a WIDE ARRAY of sources from every part of baseball- Yankees players, liveball era players, managers from many different teams, players from all over the place. The 230 opinions I'm talking about are drawn from a wide variety of sources (lending to their credibility, validity, and reliability), and they are remarkably consistent in sentiment, if you read the content. This isn't some inconsequential squabble over whether Vlad is a great defensive outfielder- this is "who is the greatest baseball player who ever lived?". The two arguments are far, far from analagous, as is the research I'm talking about vs. the isolated, ephermal opinions you are speaking of.

"But as for Yankee stadium... Ruth had his best season in 1921, in the Polo Grounds. And while the short porch certainly didn't hurt, Yankee stadium is primarily a pitcher's park. Don't buy the argument."

Ruth's career slugging at the Polo Grounds was over 200 POINTS HIGHER for his career than on the road!!! Ruth himself said: "I cried when I left that place". The Polo Grounds inflated his numbers even more than the stadium.

It's true that Yankee stadium has never been over great for batting averages, but overall good for homers (and hence, slugging), esp for lefties before they tempered the short porch and moved the right field line back 30 ft.

"And as for changes in the game... ok, that's legit, and that's why I'll never question Ty Cobb for not hitting 700 home runs. But don't forget that Cobb and Ruth were, for a long time, contemporaries... and that Ruth put up far, far better numbers during that time. Cobb was a better contact hitter, and had a career batting average 24 points higher than Ruth. Ruth was a better slugger, and had a career slugging average... ONE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY EIGHT points higher than Cobb. Sorry, but even accounting for era and park factors... Cobb's OPS+ is 167 for his career. Ruth's is 207. It's just not even close, in my opinion."

You haven't indexed Ruth's BA, or any of his stats. Read "Leveling the Field" by G. Scott Thomas, or check this out- http://www.exploratorium.edu/baseball/1905_BR.html

You put Ruth in a neutral context, an his batting average drops nearly 20 points- and look at his RBI's and Runs!

By contrast, check this out... http://www.exploratorium.edu/baseball/1921_TC.html
You put Cobb in an era like Ruth's, (btw, the inclusion of the early 40's makes up for the exlusion of the teens, where Ruth didn't much most seasons, ANYWAY), and Cobb's numbers are completly outrageous!! If Ruth had played from 1905-28 and Cobb 1915-35, the numbers would be so lopsided that it would be silly. This is the point.

And still, I already said that Ruth was the greatest slugger ever, despite all of his advantages. Still, when you take everything into account (or, in this case, "everything" meaning as far as adjusting numbers can take you)... Cobb led in adjusted OPS 11 times, Ruth 13. Ruth led in slugging 13 times (and in strikeouts 5), Cobb 8 (never close to leading in K's). So I give Ruth credit as greatest slugger and HR hitter ever. He was playing a new game and swinging from the heels when nobody else was- if everyone had been swinging from the heels from the beginning, do you think he would have led in slugging 13 times? Of course he was way ahead of the curve stats wise. Look at the times.

Again, discussing OPS+ and the like is just numbers- it isn't taking into account that Cobb was also the best baserunner of his time (and of all time), or that he was also a top notch fielder playing a much more difficult and important OF position. (Context, again).

I have no idea how to reconcile the pitching, but I think it is solipcistic and dismissive to just say, (like most do, yourself not necessarily inclusive), in a syllogistic fashion: "Ok, well, Ruth pitched well and hit well- he's automatically the greatest ever, because nobody else could ever do both." This isn't philosophy, this is baseball, and syllogisms don't work.

I don't hate Ruth, btw- I'm fascinated and in awe of him. I just see him as the luckiest, most opportunistic player ever, by far, and make note of all his advantages to be fair and try to level the field.

Chris

Zeth

03-04-2004, 10:57 AM

RMB pretty much said what I wanted to say about this, but I will say that the few people who insist walks and singles are equal in value are wrong. Singles are more valuable... not much more, but more. A walk being worth 0.9 of a single sounds about right to me.

RMB is also right that it's erroneous to suggest that walks kill rallies. To the contrary, if you take a walk with people on base, it means the pitcher threw you four, five, or six pitches, tiring him (statistics very clealry show that pitchers' effectiveness quickly and dramatically decline after they've thrown 15 pitches in an inning.) And getting on base continues the rally. Williams swings at a ball three inches outside the strike zone on 3-1... he's going to make an out three fourths of the time (Ted Williams hit .340 swinging almost entirely at strikes), possibly ground into a double play (a lot of GIDPs happen when a batter swings at an outside pitch that he should take), and that is what kills rallies. You take that pitch, your odds of making an out are 0%. Taking the pitch and the free base is a much better option.

ElHalo

03-04-2004, 11:06 AM

Ok... but you can say that to us, but is there a candidate in hockey or basketball from NY that is a legit contender for greatest ever in their respective sports? No, so the comparison is moot. Also, Ill assume you are more passionate about the Yankees than you are the Knicks or Islanders/Rangers (if you aren't than the following is erroneous...) That would also make you less biased (die-hard) in those sports and make a "greatest ever" from another city and franchise more palpable.

Actually, I don't follow hockey particularly closely at all. I am, on the other hand, a rabid NBA fan. Not as much as baseball, of course, but not extremely far off. And my team is the Pistons, not the Knicks. I've been tearing my hair out about Darko Milicic for months.

You haven't indexed Ruth's BA, or any of his stats. Read "Leveling the Field" by G. Scott Thomas, or check this out-

OPS+ is indexed AND park adjusted. Ruth's was 207. Ty Cobb's was 167. Cobb ranks 9th all time in that stat-- behind Joe Jackson, Dan Brouthers, Mickey Mantle, Rogers Hornsby, Lou Gehrig, Barry Bonds, Ted Williams, and Ruth. Ruth's in first with 207. The next closest: Ted Williams, with 190.

Cobb's baserunning makes up for some of that, sure. But no where near all of that. Was Cobb a better baserunner than Ruth? Sure. Better fielder? I'll take your word for it, seems logical. But Ruth had such an advantage over Cobb on hitting, that it far more than makes up for it.

Saying that Ruth had an advantage because teams had never seen anything like him before... of course that's true. Ruth was good enough to completely change the way the game was played. You don't see that as a huge point in Ruth's favor?

And sorry, but I just don't trust what people say about ballplayers that they watch. They have their own biases and opinions that can't possibly help but influence them. If somebody fifty years down the road read what I say about Derek Jeter and take that as true, then they'll think that he's the greatest player ever-- which isn't possibly the case. Sorry, but by and large, people are idiots and can't be trusted to truthfully speak things the way they are. I don't disclude myself from this statement.

ElHalo

03-04-2004, 11:24 AM

Originally posted by Zeth
RMB pretty much said what I wanted to say about this, but I will say that the few people who insist walks and singles are equal in value are wrong. Singles are more valuable... not much more, but more. A walk being worth 0.9 of a single sounds about right to me.

RMB is also right that it's erroneous to suggest that walks kill rallies. To the contrary, if you take a walk with people on base, it means the pitcher threw you four, five, or six pitches, tiring him (statistics very clealry show that pitchers' effectiveness quickly and dramatically decline after they've thrown 15 pitches in an inning.) And getting on base continues the rally. Williams swings at a ball three inches outside the strike zone on 3-1... he's going to make an out three fourths of the time (Ted Williams hit .340 swinging almost entirely at strikes), possibly ground into a double play (a lot of GIDPs happen when a batter swings at an outside pitch that he should take), and that is what kills rallies. You take that pitch, your odds of making an out are 0%. Taking the pitch and the free base is a much better option.

I don't necessarily agree with that. Obviously outs = bad. But I'd say that a walk with men on base is worth a whole lot less than 0.9 of a single with men on base. And putting the ball in play, you've always got the chance of getting more than one base.

If you figure that guys on base will, on average, be able to advance 1.5 bases for every base that the batter gets on a fairly hit ball (which, admittedly, is a number drawn from thin air), and a guy has a slugging average with guys on base of at least .667 (Ted Williams had a slugging percentage of .634 for his career, and it would be logical that that would be higher with men on base), then it would be in a hitter's interest to swing at that 3-1 pitch. Even leaving aside for a second the fact that I hate walks and feel that walks, being designed as more a punishment for pitchers that can't throw strikes than a reward for patient hitters, should never be a hitters goal, it would be better for a hitter in that situation to try for the hit, and risk the out, than just take the walk.

Eddie Collins

03-04-2004, 01:46 PM

Of course Ruth, Foxx, Gehrig, and Hornsby will have higher offensive totals. Look at the era they played in compared to Aaron's.

Dizzy

03-04-2004, 03:20 PM

Sorry about my mistakes. I didn't realize my book was 5 years old. However the 16 .300 seasons was with a 500 plate appearances.

csh19792001

03-04-2004, 04:44 PM

Originally posted by Eddie Collins
Of course Ruth, Foxx, Gehrig, and Hornsby will have higher offensive totals. Look at the era they played in compared to Aaron's.

That needs to be noted. It's totally unfair to compare the numbers of Earl Averill to Tony Oliva, Lou Gehrig to Frank Howard, or Mays and Aaron to the guys you mentioned. Numbers are all relative- and need to be indexed to make things fair.

Look at the runs/game and BA for each player's career. Then understand that at times a .300 BA and 100 RBI's has been enough to lead the league (1968, 1908), while other times it has been what dozens of guys in the league did (1893,1930, 1994 even- not to the same extent, though).

Zeth

03-04-2004, 05:07 PM

ElHalo, your post about walks is pretty clearly influenced by your dislike for them. Runners do not advance 1.5 bases per single. That would mean that a runner goes first-to-third, or scores from second, on half of all singles, which is not true. That happens on, at most, 25% of singles. Most singles result in the runner moving up one base.

And if you look at all hits and not just singles, the effect is even more dramatic, because you can't advance more than three bases on any hit. For all hits, I would suppose that a runner on base gains maybe 1.15, maybe 1.20 bases per base obtained by the hitter.

Let's look at it like this...

With no one on base, walks and singles are equal in value.

With a man on first, singles are very slightly more valuable than walks, but not much, especially factoring in the danger of a GIDP with a man on first and less than two out if you swing away.

With men on first and second, it's nearly identical to having a man on first. Singles are slightly better than walks.

With the bases loaded, again, singles are just a little bit better, since the runner from second will generally score on a single only if he's fast and/or the single is softly hit.

With a man on second, singles are more valuable than walks, because a single moves the man to third (and every now and then scores him) whereas a walk does not.

With a man on third, runners on 1st or 3rd or runners on 2nd and 3rd, a single is considerably more valuable than a walk.

Taking all of this together, and recognizing that the situations in which the difference is not that great (if a man is on first or the bases are empty) are much more common than the situations when singles are notably more valuable (runners on bases other than first). The most common situations, by far, even in modern baseball, are nobody on or a runner on first. In those situations, the difference between a walk and a single are almost nil.

So, maybe 0.9 is a bit high. I don't think it proper to go any lower than 0.8, though.

Then factor in the point I made in my last post, that if you try to hit the outside pitch on 3-1 you'll make an out 70-75% of the time, whereas if you take that pitch you make an out 0% of the time. The difference between walks and outs is obviously far, far greater than the difference between walks and singles.

A walk with runners on 2nd and 3rd is still a success. A hit is more of a success, but not so much more that you should swing at pitches outside the strike zone to try to get them.

Eddie Collins

03-04-2004, 07:46 PM

My last thought on Aaron:

Aaron was a quiet player. He could do everything. He could hit for average and power. He had a great glove, he just didn't make the circus catch. He could run, he just didn't lose his hat while stealing a base. He was very good for a very long time. He was a no-nonsense type of player, and ranks with Jackie Robinson as one of the toughest to ever play the game. So you can have your hard drinking, prostitute loving, big bafoon. I'll take Hank any day.

csh19792001

03-04-2004, 10:02 PM

"With men on first and second, it's nearly identical to having a man on first. Singles are slightly better than walks.

With the bases loaded, again, singles are just a little bit better, since the runner from second will generally score on a single only if he's fast and/or the single is softly hit."

That's where you are just plain wrong- in MOST cases, the run scores from second on a single. Many of your assumptions afterwards are fatally flawed as a result of proposition A. Unless the hit is a hard line drive or an extremely slow runner on second, the runner scores. When runners are on second or beyond (or multiple baserunners), a single is FAR more valuable than a walk.

You put pressure on the opposition- a single can lead to defensive errors and throwing errors, NONE OF WHICH can ever happen with a walk.

"A walk with runners on 2nd and 3rd is still a success. A hit is more of a success, but not so much more that you should swing at pitches outside the strike zone to try to get them. "

That is context dependent- if you have the winning run on second or third, in the 9th, a great hitter will take a pitch just off the plate and try to put in to play to win games. Dimaggio would do that, Williams wouldn't- the writers knew this, and knew it was a small part (and indicative of) Williams' selfishness and resultant lack of success.

If the team is 4 runs behind in the same situation, sure, a walk is better. Context.

csh19792001

03-04-2004, 10:06 PM

Originally posted by csh19792001 What to people think of that idea, anyway? The one espousing that modern players (those who started their careers from circa 1950- present) as being in a different (higher) class than the old timers? Could Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, and Honus Wagner possibly be as awesome now vs. playing then, against all white, American guys? Just playing devil's advocate in order to learn.

Are people who don't consider pre-integration pre-"modern" era players dismissive? Someone posted on the stats thread of the hegemony of old timers on the all-time lists of nearly everyone (and that as being indicative that players dominated more then because the average player was far weaker.) Does this argument hold water, or are there alternative explanations as to the dominance of guys like Ruth, Cobb, Wagner, (and most of the all-time pitchers?)

Chris [/B]

What do people think about this? Are all of us who consider the old timers deluding ourselves?? Do Cobb, Ruth, and Wagner really belong perhaps in the top 20, instead of 1,2,3 alltime because their competition was inferior?

Zeth

03-05-2004, 06:51 AM

I'm sorry, but runners do not score from second on "most" singles. It may well be that it happens more often than I at first supposed, but "most" is overboard. Less than half.

A walk being .60 of a single is too low. Of course, if you look at it that way, that favors Ty Cobb over Babe Ruth, so... once again, we're back where we started. Statistics can be interpreted any way we like, really.

Bill, you raise good points about the quality of play. The best players have not been getting better, I agree with you about that. However, as you agree, the worst players HAVE been getting consistently better over time, and that's what confuses the argument -- Ty Cobb and Honus Wagner played in a league that was easier to dominate than Barry Bonds and Alex Rodriguez. That doesn't change how good Honus Wagner or Barry Bonds was, but it makes it a little bit harder to see clearly what they really were. Honus Wagner was pretty clearly better even than Alex Rodriguez, and I believe Ty Cobb was better than Barry Bonds.

RuthMayBond

03-05-2004, 10:37 AM

Originally posted by william_burgess@usa.net
RMB,

Ah, but I shall, I shall. I'm having fun posting all over the place. And don't forget to vote in the March Fever Hall of Fame survey again. They come up so fast. But you do have time to give a relaxed contemplative ballot now, since it not near cut-off date.

Bill Burgess

I asked it last time & didn't get an answer. Is there a list of candidates to pick from/ones that have already been picked/etc.?

Bill Burgess

03-05-2004, 11:16 AM

RMB,

I do think that a team of the best from the past could compete very well from an all star team of today, and beat it rather comfortably.

In this opinion, I am joined by, Bill James, John P. McCarthy, sports writer Robb Neyes, Sporting News, MLs (their all-century team is loaded with old players), probalbly 85% of the Fever's posters, and from the looks of your own all-time team, you too.

If we took the bottom third of the Hall of Fame barrel, and compiled an all-star team from them, and pitted them against an A team of today's all-star team, I think the modern team would win. And that's because the bottom third of the Hall of Fame should never have been voted into Cooperstown.

We can thank the Veterans Committee for that devaluation. They believed that merely very good players should be represented so they wouldn't be forgotten. They put in almost the whole NY Giants team from the 20's! And now we're stuck with a discounted degraded Hall. Makes me sick.

Bill Burgess

csh19792001

03-05-2004, 11:29 AM

RMB,
I always advocated that there was a strong NY bias. It put people in the Hall that shouldnt be in there, and exalted guys to Gods who were mere men. This is what we are talking about here, in this example.

Are opinions espoused by men effable? Sure, but we look for consensus and consider the extenuating and mitigating circumstances surrounding the opinions in question. Cobb was not a person to favor for reasons other than he was the greatest. He was a *******, especially according to Ruth fans. He played for generally poor teams, and never on a WS winner. He played in the smallest market team in the entire league, with a cheapskate owner and 2 newspapers bolstering him!! Despicble guys on bad teams are heavily DISCOUNTED, not augmented!! Still, look at the file.

Are number systems created by men who have certain biases effable also? Yes.

Bill Burgess

03-05-2004, 11:29 AM

RMB,

The Veterans Committee were well known to be prejudiced in favor of NY guys getting into the Hall. How else could Ross Youngs ever make it? He died early and was just a very good ballplayer. Not an all time great.

I'd love to expell the bottom third, but politically that'll never happen. But we COULD do a Hall based on tiers, putting the categories of greatness in order.

That would re-invigorate interest in the Hall. But even that would take guts, that the Hall has never shown any evidence to have.

Bill Burgess

PS. Are you telling me that the greatest players from the past pre-1950 would not beat the post 1950's team of their greatest?

Bill Burgess

03-05-2004, 11:54 AM

RMB,

I like the way you think. But sometimes you betray a rather innocense about your postings that perplex me. I am charmed by your naivite and don't know how to help you out of the maze.

Men of determination and deep inner intelligence can be scoundrels. Evil isn't out of line to use here. The key to getting one's favorite beliefs enshrined in other's minds is, - tenacity.

Follow through. If one has sufficient supplies of that commodity, they can outlast their opponents. And the sports writing community has that scope and magnitude of deep-seated tenacity. When they want something acknowledged, they usually get it in the end. Cause they never die, as a group. Their agendas just get passed down the line to the newer members.

What in hell am I talking about here? I guess it's stereo-types. When one gets one, it sticks forever. Modern celebrities come to mind. Dylan, Lennon, Madonna, Cher, Spears, Jackson, OJ Simpson, Clinton. The list could easily be extended indefinitely.

Once Cobb's personal persona got established, that was it. Same with the Babe.

Today, there is a very real and deep prejudice towards the kind of baseball that was played from 1876 to 1928. The deadball era. Although we now officially declare that the deadball era stopped being played in 1920, that's not accurate. Only one man stopped playing it, Babe, and later in the 20's, less than 20 others played modern. But as a league, it was still played up to around 1928.

During the 50's, when Ty was in the process of being replaced by Babe as the best ever, the reasons were their accepted personas, and the fact that no one could hardly remember the deadball era any more. And to continue to espouse it's prime exemplar as the best, especailly since he was a known racist & brawler, he had to be eased out. Cobb's supporters never deserted his cause, but Cobb's death in '61 and his biggest booster, JG Taylor Spink, editor of Sporting News, from 1914-62, dying in Dec. '62 were really the critical turning point in the debate. It was all downhill after that.

No, the old-timers were not right about everything. In fact, they were wrong about a lot of things, like Cobb lobbying to get Sam Rice into the Hall. But in my opinion, they were dead on about one thing. Ty played a better brand of ball across the boards than anyone else that they had ever seen, or heard of. And they had seen and heard of the Babe quite a bit, I'd imagine.

Bill Burgess

Bill Burgess

03-05-2004, 12:02 PM

RMB,

Contrary to popular belief, I can be turned around quite easily. Not about Ty perhaps, but about most BB issues.

One of my bad habits, is that I post very furiously. I type so fast that I get splattered with cyber-ink all over my tee shirt.

But there are other times when I have to slow up, and look up stats, and check my work for inconsistencies.

Like now I feel like we're instant messaging. I can barely keep up with your posting so quick. As soon as I can get my messages up, you got two more waiting for me. You're lucky I have no wife or kids, or I'd never have this kind of time to my favorite hobby. I'm now addicted to the Fever.

Bill Burgess

Bill Burgess

03-05-2004, 12:15 PM

But Doc! I didn't know I was posting at 2AM. I must have been sleep-posting. It was my sub-conscious! I'm really quite flexible.

Ty who? Who are Babe Ruth and Bill Lange? Sisler who?

Bill Burgess

Bill Burgess

03-05-2004, 12:49 PM

RMB,

Gotta run for a while. Must go and make my money. Talk with you later on.

Bill Burgess

Appling

03-05-2004, 03:18 PM

In polls of this type, I have ALWAYS (until now) picked the Bambino. But the 3-02-04 posting by Mr. Burgess has changed my mind.

When batting titles were highly valued, Cobb won batting titles.
When homerun crowns were valued even higher, Ruth won HR crowns.

Cobb was a big man. If he strove to be the all-time HR leader and had the advantage of being in his prime years with a live ball, he would probably achieve that goal.
Ruth had the courage to go against the grain. Without someone else to blaze the trail, he was willing to risk BA points and take more strikeouts so that he could hit more homeruns. If his goal were batting titles rather than homeruns, I believe Ruth could have won 5 or 6 batting crowns.

Two truly great offensive players, both of whom changed the game of baseball.
But:
Cobb was more dedicated to the game of baseball. It was the center of his life. Ruth loved the adulation but he was not fully committed to being the "best he could be".

Lastly, I do not consider Ruth's pitching when evaluating the overall player. At one time in his life Ruth was primarily a pitcher (and a very good one). At a later time in his life he was a hitter (and a truly great one). But when he was his best as a hitter he was no longer a pitcher. He could do one or the other, but not both at the same time. Ruth's prior success as a pitcher contributed nothing to the Yankee wins of the 1920's.

RuthMayBond

03-05-2004, 03:24 PM

Originally posted by Appling
Cobb was more dedicated to the game of baseball. It was the center of his life. Ruth loved the adulation but he was not fully committed to being the "best he could be".

RMB:
What this has to do with how good they were, I'm not sure

Lastly, I do not consider Ruth's pitching when evaluating the overall player. At one time in his life Ruth was primarily a pitcher (and a very good one). At a later time in his life he was a hitter (and a truly great one). But when he was his best as a hitter he was no longer a pitcher. He could do one or the other, but not both at the same time. Ruth's prior success as a pitcher contributed nothing to the Yankee wins of the 1920's.

Just drop Ruth's pitching? Interesting. Actually in 1918, Ruth both won the SLG title AND went 13-7 with 18 CG & a 2.22 ERA. He didn't even do bad with both in 1919. The point is, how many could ever do both that well? Why are you bringing up Ruth's pitching with the Yankees wins?

Appling

03-05-2004, 03:46 PM

Originally posted by RuthMayBond
Just drop Ruth's pitching? Interesting. Actually in 1918, Ruth both won the SLG title AND went 13-7 with 18 CG & a 2.22 ERA. He didn't even do bad with both in 1919. The point is, how many could ever do both that well? Why are you bringing up Ruth's pitching with the Yankees wins?
Yes Ruth led in slg pct in 1918 while still mostly a pitcher -- but he had "only' 11 homeruns. He could not have ac hieved his reputuation as a homerun leader if he stayed a pitcher and averaged only 300 at-bats per year.

This does raise some interesting "what if's" however:
1. What if baseball had the DH in Ruth's day? Could he have continued to pitch 300+ innings and win 20+ games per year and yet average 600 plate appearances by being DH on the days he wasn't pitching? Then he might have done both at the same time.
THAT would have truly remarkable!

2. But what if Ruth had spent his entire career in Boston? Without that short porch in right field, would he have hit 50+ homeruns four times? I don't think so. If he had stayed in Boston, I think his career numbers would have been more like Ted Williams' (although that's not exactly terrible: higher BA but fewer homeruns).

As far a dedication to the game, who was the better role-model for the youth of his day? Most players who copied the Babe Ruth life style would have failed.

Zeth

03-05-2004, 05:36 PM

I must say this: The more I read on the topic of whether or not Babe Ruth is the greatest player ever (and you guys are providing a ton of good reading for me in that department), the more I see that those who want to establish that Ruth was not the greatest ever have to reach out and grab onto arguments that don't necessarily have much to do with the player's performance on the field. Which in itself says something to me.

No offense to you there, Bill. You're as dedicated to your cause (Cobb) as anyone I've ever seen, and you do your homework. The more of this argument I read, and especially from a variety of people, the more apparent it seems to get to me that Ruth has the advantage on everyone else.

Throwing out Ruth's pitching is every bit as ridiculous as throwing out Honus Wagner's days playing positions other than shortstop would be.

Bill Burgess

03-05-2004, 05:52 PM

RMB,

Looks like you need to lay off the stat models for a bit and go back and get you BA in general reading. You really can't go without bootcamp. There are just too many subjects that are slipping past you.

Let me help you out. Wagner didn't start out at SS. He started in the OF & 1B. He became the best fielder in BB at both positions. He then became the best fielder at 3rd. He liked playing 3B. But then Fred Clarke sent him back to CF. He was a legend at fielding at all of these.

Finally, the Pirates SS got hurt and Clarke asked Hans to fill in briefly, and for the first time, he just said no. Flatly refused. But when they started losing games, he relented, but on condition it was temporary. He was then 27, in '03. He did adjust and agreed to stay there. And became the best fielder in the majors.

Perhaps if the stats you're looking over don't show greatness. But so what? Who cares. Those who played with him never got over him. Now I'm not saying that Wagner was the best fielding SS ever. Herman Long, Bobby Wallace and Glenn Wright were better fielders. But not by a lot. Hans was very close to them and most definitely in their exalted class. Hughie Jennings was also a great fielder, but punk in the batter's box.

There is no substitute for reading Sporting News and Baseball Magazine, or else you'll always be an anthropologist, studying the dinosaur bones(stats), and wondering how those beasts looked & behaved. There's just no getting around a college education. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Bill Burgess

PS. In '18, Ruth hit 11 HRs and led in SLG. So what? Did that make him a great hitter in '18? By doing both, he made a nice contribution to his team, but was neither a great hitter, nor a great pitcher. He was neither fish nor foul.

Don't forget to vote in our March, Fever Hall of Fame, and I'm still curious if you think my stat evaluation are in the ballpark.
Look over my most recent posts.

Eddie Collins

03-05-2004, 05:54 PM

How do we know Willie Mays was not a great pitcher as well? We don't. It is stupid to rank Babe ahead of others for his pitching, since most great hitters do not get the chance to pitch regularly.

Bill Burgess

03-05-2004, 06:22 PM

Zeth,

It's cool if you or anyone else believes things differently than me. I kinda always smile with amusement when you say, "Bill Burgess won't like this, but . . .". I'm not important. Just a name in cyber-space.

To be honest, I haven't heard too many good arguments here on why George Herman Ruth deserves to be rated the Best. All I have really heard is that the numbers prove he is. That doesn't work for me. I strongly suspect that they don't work for the general fan. The only people that seem to resonate with is the statistical community. No explanation of why the formulas are developed in the exact way they are. And TB revised them. But no good reasoning behind the numbers. You say my .60 is too low, assuming I'm favoring one player. I have yet to hear that a number ever favored your candidate. And I'm not sure why that is. Below, I've tried, in my pathetic way, to come up with more reasonable numbers, which don't throw the game to the sluggers community. And I can't get good feedback if I paid for it. So what's a guy to do. Beg? Not my style. Grovel. Forget it! But since "win shares" is neither indexed nor uses linear weights, I and others feel that it's less accurate than it could have been made to be. And that "timeline"!!! Pure BB hatred at it's most prejudiced, in broad daylight, and not a peep from those who presume to be "objective". So much for justice, fairness or objectivity in numbers.

SERVICE HERE!!! CAN WE GET A LITTLE NYC SERVICE HERE!!

A HR should be worth no more than 3.15 singles.
A triple should be worth no more than 2.7 singles.
A double should be worth no more than 1.7 singles.
A walk should be worth no more than .73 of a single.
A steal should be worth no less than .70 of a single.
A Strikeouts should be worth .80 of hitting out.
GIDP should be worth .50 of hitting out otherwise.
A walk post 1920 should be worth .50 of a walk pre 1920.

3. There should be no timeline adjustment, as Bill James has done.

4. Walks are a special problem. Since pre-1920 sluggers did not receive more walks than contact hitters and post-1920 sluggers, due to the live ball, did receive a great deal more than contact hitters, a major adjustment needs to be made. First walks need to be indexed to league ave. and then another adjustment needs to be introduced as a timeline, pre and post 1920. I'd make a walk after 1920 worth .50 of a walk before 1920."

But aside from that, your post was pretty good.

Bill Burgess

RuthMayBond

03-05-2004, 06:30 PM

Originally posted by william_burgess@usa.net

Wagner didn't start out at SS. He started in the OF & 1B. He became the best fielder in BB at both positions. He then became the best fielder at 3rd. He liked playing 3B. But then Fred Clarke sent him back to CF. He was a legend at fielding at all of these.

RMB:
Best fielder BASED UPON WHAT? He became the best fielder at 1B after SEVENTY-NINE games? (got that from a stat book!)

Finally, the Pirates SS got hurt and Clarke Hans to fill in briefly, and for the first time, he just said no. Flatly refused. But when they started losing games, he relented, but on condition it was temporary. He was then 27, in '03. He did adjust and agree to stay there. And became the best fielder in the majors.

RMB:
Because you say so, without objective evidence.

Perhaps if the stats you're looking over don't show greatness. But so what? Who cares. Those who played with him never got over him. Now I'm not saying that Wagner was the best fielding SS ever. Herman Long, Bobby Wallace and Glenn Wright were better fielders. But not by a lot. Hans was very close to them and most definitely in their exalted class.

RMB:
And Everett Scott . Boudreau & McMillan were hacks.

There is no substitute for reading Sporting News and Baseball Magazine, or else you'll always be an anthropologist, studying the dinosaur bones(stats), and wondering how those beasts looked & behaved. There's just no getting around a college education. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

RMB:
If it's the one I'm thinking of, I've read Baseball magazine. Sometimes good, sometimes bad, many times conflicting reports.

Bill Burgess

PS. In '18, Ruth hit 11 HRs and let in SLG. So what? Did that make him a great hitter in '18? By doing both, he made a nice contribution to his team, but was neither a great hitter, nor a great pitcher. He was neither fish nor foul.

RMB:
If you say so

Don't forget to vote in our March, Fever Hall of Fame

RMB:
Thanks for the list of candidates

Rob Neyer has a column in his book that lots of people tell him that Omar Vizquel was the best fielding shortstop ever. So at least we've settled that question

csh19792001

03-05-2004, 07:36 PM

Originally posted by william_burgess@usa.net
RMB,

Looks like you need to lay off the stat models for a bit and go back and get you BA in general reading. You really can't go without bootcamp. There are just too many subjects that are slipping past you.

Let me help you out. Wagner didn't start out at SS. He started in the OF & 1B. He became the best fielder in BB at both positions. He then became the best fielder at 3rd. He liked playing 3B. But then Fred Clarke sent him back to CF. He was a legend at fielding at all of these.

Finally, the Pirates SS got hurt and Clarke Hans to fill in briefly, and for the first time, he just said no. Flatly refused. But when they started losing games, he relented, but on condition it was temporary. He was then 27, in '03. He did adjust and agree to stay there. And became the best fielder in the majors.

Perhaps if the stats you're looking over don't show greatness. But so what? Who cares. Those who played with him never got over him. Now I'm not saying that Wagner was the best fielding SS ever. Herman Long, Bobby Wallace and Glenn Wright were better fielders. But not by a lot. Hans was very close to them and most definitely in their exalted class. Hughie Jennings was also a great fielder, but punk in the batter's box.

There is no substitute for reading Sporting News and Baseball Magazine, or else you'll always be an anthropologist, studying the dinosaur bones(stats), and wondering how those beasts looked & behaved. There's just no getting around a college education. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Bill Burgess

PS. In '18, Ruth hit 11 HRs and let in SLG. So what? Did that make him a great hitter in '18? By doing both, he made a nice contribution to his team, but was neither a great hitter, nor a great pitcher. He was neither fish nor foul.

Don't forget to vote in our March, Fever Hall of Fame, and I'm still curious if you think my stat evaluation are in the ballpark.
Look over my most recent posts.

Yeah- he also managed to lead in strikeouts in 18' while playing only 95 games, too.

Look at Wes Ferrell in 35' or Walter Johnson in 25', or Newcombe in 55'. People that think that Ruth is the ONLY pitcher that could hit and pitch just haven't learned enough. Look at Red Ruffing or Cy Seymour or Carl Mays. People don't do there homework, and just say without cause that Ruth was the only guy who could contribute on both ends. Lack of information.

Bill Burgess

03-05-2004, 08:01 PM

RMB:
Best fielder BASED UPON WHAT? He became the best fielder at 1B after SEVENTY-NINE games? (got that from a stat book!)

(Bill - Why are you demanding that I prove this stuff? I'm only trying my best to share the concensus opinions that was written of in the 2 most important BB publications that ever existed, based on my personal research and readings.

Somehow, you have gotten the idea that I'm trying to "prove" these "assertions". (Bill James' favorite word). I'm not really. I have no big personal investment in these things I'm sharing with you. If John McGraw and the other SSs in the league all were in awe of his fielding raved about him, what can I say. You discount the eye witnesses who had to try & cope with Wagner. I'm only trying to help you out here and guide you towards the place where you can hit paydirt. Wagner's fellow peers and sports writers in The Sporting News had no particular motive to rave about him.

There were a few fielders who were so committed to get to every ball that they made a seemingly large number of errors, which might have marred their fielding stats. Cobb always had lots of errors, and so might have Wagner. They had great range. Which sometimes work against one. If I bring you the accepted concensus' of that day, why kill the messenger, just because I can't prove this stuff.

RMB. This is not MY stuff. If you don't desire my views any further, that OK. It takes me a long time to gather this stuff and print it up. Since you are reacting pissed at me, I won't share my stuff any more.

temporary. He was then 27, in '03. He did adjust and agree to stay there. And became the best fielder in the majors.

RMB:
Because you say so, without objective evidence.
(Bill - Already answered. Not my info. And I don't owe anyone proof. I was trying to make myself useful.

RMB:
If it's the one I'm thinking of, I've read Baseball magazine. Sometimes good, sometimes bad, many times conflicting reports.
(Baseball Magazine is available to members of SABR, via their inter-library loan program. Mandatory reading. Fantastic recreational readings for me. I have my own set of 22 microfilm. One can buy their own set of 22 reels from the Library of Congress.

Bill Burgess

PS. In '18, Ruth hit 11 HRs and let in SLG. So what? Did that make him a great hitter in '18? By doing both, he made a nice contribution to his team, but was neither a great hitter, nor a great pitcher. He was neither fish nor foul.

RMB:
If you say so
(Bill - I won't be saying so any more. Thanks for the appreciation.

Don't forget to vote in our March, Fever Hall of Fame

RMB:
Thanks for the list of candidates

(Bill - I don't have a list, nor do I know where one is. Chancelor conducts the survey.

Hey, Chancelor. Perhaps you could post a list of all those already in the Fever Hall at the top of each month's voting. That might help all of us. Thanks.

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

Rob Neyer has a column in his book that lots of people tell him that Omar Vizquel was the best fielding shortstop ever. So at least we've settled that question

(Bill - Thanks.)
Bill Burgess

csh19792001

03-05-2004, 08:02 PM

Originally posted by Zeth
I must say this: The more I read on the topic of whether or not Babe Ruth is the greatest player ever (and you guys are providing a ton of good reading for me in that department), the more I see that those who want to establish that Ruth was not the greatest ever have to reach out and grab onto arguments that don't necessarily have much to do with the player's performance on the field. Which in itself says something to me.

No offense to you there, Bill. You're as dedicated to your cause (Cobb) as anyone I've ever seen, and you do your homework. The more of this argument I read, and especially from a variety of people, the more apparent it seems to get to me that Ruth has the advantage on everyone else.

Throwing out Ruth's pitching is every bit as ridiculous as throwing out Honus Wagner's days playing positions other than shortstop would be.

Zeth,
First, I NEVER advocate throwing out Ruth's pitching. Ridiculous.

"The more of this argument I read, and especially from a variety of people, the more apparent it seems to get to me that Ruth has the advantage on everyone else."

"the more I see that those who want to establish that Ruth was not the greatest ever have to reach out and grab onto arguments that don't necessarily have much to do with the player's performance on the field. Which in itself says something to me."

Where is this coming from? I make hundreds of very well researched, lengthy, compelling posts and arguments. I've convinced many very learned fans to change their minds- or, at least, given them the gift of an enormus amount of seminal research and let them do with it what they want with it.

Have you seen or read Bill Burgess' Cobb files? I doubt you would say what you said above if so.

I try NOT to get away from on field performance.

If you really believe this, then I encourage you to go back and read these threads... (do History of The Game), and than under search criteria, (last 100 days). I don't know how long you have been on this site...I spilled my guts on many of these threads:

1. "Neither Bonds nor Ruth"

2. "The top 5 Players of All Time: The greatset argument in Baseball Fever History!"

3. "Bonds or Ruth Greatest?"

4. And perhaps most important: "Babe Ruth- Short Porch"

In addition to this, the Cobb/Ruth banter has surfaced on many other fronts.

If you really are a baseball scholar (and I think you absolutely are) you'll match the dozens of hours I put into it and read what all those people had to say, as Bill and I did.

The proof seems to be in the feedback I get about my posts and the files, along with (perhaps more importantly) the erosion of the dominance or Ruth over Cobb in the opinions espoused by many of the people on this forum and others. People are learning and many are changing their minds in light of new, non "status-quo I can find in an encyclopeida" information.

From the feedback I've recieved, it is pretty clear that most are headed in the other direction as you are. I wonder why.

Chris

RuthMayBond

03-05-2004, 08:49 PM

Originally posted by csh19792001
Yeah- he also managed to lead in strikeouts in 18' while playing only 95 games, too.

RMB:
You can't blame it on his prodigious HR total ;-)

Look at Wes Ferrell in 35' or Walter Johnson in 25', or Newcombe in 55'. People that think that Ruth is the ONLY pitcher that could hit and pitch just haven't learned enough. Look at Red Ruffing or Cy Seymour or Carl Mays. People don't do there homework, and just say without cause that Ruth was the only guy who could contribute on both ends. Lack of information.

Actually, you're the only one who said anything about contributing on both ends. I'm saying that he's the only guy who was amongst the leaders in pitching and hitting...other than that other guy, who I'm sure you can tell me. Since you've got so much more information than I do.

RuthMayBond

03-05-2004, 08:57 PM

Originally posted by william_burgess@usa.net
RMB:
Best fielder BASED UPON WHAT? He became the best fielder at 1B after SEVENTY-NINE games? (got that from a stat book!)

Somehow, you have gotten the idea that I'm trying to "prove" these "assertions". (Bill James' favorite word).

RMB:
I don't like that word. I like "give objective evidence". And you completely ignore the 79 games part.

There were a few fielders who were so committed to get to every ball that they made a seemingly large number of errors, which might have marred their fielding stats. Cobb always had lots of errors, and so might have Wagner. They had great range. Which sometimes work against one. If I bring you the accepted concensus' of that day, why kill the messenger, just because I can't prove this stuff.

RMB:
I don't see any evidence that Wagner had many errors . . . or great range. No one's trying to kill you, but can I disagree with you without you whining?

(Bill - Already answered. Not my info. And I don't owe anyone proof.

RMB:
Ya know, then neither does anyone else owe you evidence (you like that word proof)

(Bill - I don't have a list, nor do I know where one is. Chancelor conducts the survey.

Hey, Chancelor. Perhaps you could post a list of all those already in the Fever Hall at the top of each month's voting. That might help all of us. Thanks.

RMB:
Hopefully it will go better than last time.

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

Rob Neyer has a column in his book that lots of people tell him that Omar Vizquel was the best fielding shortstop ever. So at least we've settled that question

(Bill - Thanks.)

RMB:
Hopefully you got my point.

RuthMayBond

03-05-2004, 09:09 PM

Originally posted by csh19792001
"the more I see that those who want to establish that Ruth was not the greatest ever have to reach out and grab onto arguments that don't necessarily have much to do with the player's performance on the field. Which in itself says something to me."

As for me, as you & Bill have presented evidence, I have begun to hold Cobb in greater esteem than I used to. If you were to tell me that Cobb was the greatest player ever, I wouldn't have a humongous problem with that. It's the stuff like including Lange, Sisler and Ewing among the 25 best ever (either they're trying to remember something from forty years ago or they're only going a certain distance into recent history) that I can't see any support for.

csh19792001

03-05-2004, 09:13 PM

Originally posted by RuthMayBond
Actually, you're the only one who said anything about contributing on both ends. I'm saying that he's the only guy who was amongst the leaders in pitching and hitting...other than that other guy, who I'm sure you can tell me. Since you've got so much more information than I do.

I wasn't singling you out as someone who espoused the opinion I attacked....but I'd love to share with you some others-

Cy Seymour is one such guy. Also, the further back you go into the 1890's and 80's, the more pitchers could hit. Seymour also led in things hitting and pitching wise (K's). His 1905 season is absolutely top notch, any way you slice it. And before he hurt his arm in midway through the 98' season, he'd become a pretty good pitcher (winning 25 for a .500 team ain't bad).

Monte Ward is another.

But leading the league isn't a necessary indicator of greatness (see Steve Stone). Contributing on both ends to a high extent over a career is. The other guys I mentioned made huge contributions in both single seasons and throughout their careers, in many cases, although many never became full time outfielders, so never had THE CHANCE to lead the league in hitting numbers. Could they have? Judging, for instance, by the three examples I gave, it sure looks like they could have, but never had the chance.

Smokey Joe Wood is another tremendous pitcher/hitter dyad in addition to all the other guys I named. (he was converted to OF, however, and didnt ever lead in anything.)

George Uhle was damned good, too.

I think what you are trying to say is that nobody was ever TOP NOTCH as both a hitter and pitcher in the same career, which seems true, from what I've learned as of now.

csh19792001

03-05-2004, 09:17 PM

Originally posted by RuthMayBond
As for me, as you & Bill have presented evidence, I have begun to hold Cobb in greater esteem than I used to. If you were to tell me that Cobb was the greatest player ever, I wouldn't have a humongous problem with that. It's the stuff like including Lange, Sisler and Ewing among the 25 best ever (either they're trying to remember something from forty years ago or they're only going a certain distance into recent history) that I can't see any support for.

I admire your open-mindedness. Very rare and admirable.
I assume you've seen the files?

I never supported any of those guys, personally. Bill and I differ on the constituency of our top 10 and top 25. I put Ruth (2nd) far, far higher than he does (usually around 10th, if I remember correctly).

RuthMayBond

03-05-2004, 09:24 PM

Originally posted by csh19792001

Cy Seymour is one such guy. Also, the further back you go into the 1890's and 80's, the more pitchers could hit. Seymour also led in things hitting and pitching wise (K's). His 1905 season is absolutely top notch, any way you slice it. And before he hurt his arm in midway through the 98' season, he'd become a pretty good pitcher (winning 25 for a .500 team ain't bad).
Monte Ward is another.
But leading the league isn't a necessary indicator of greatness (see Steve Stone). Contributing on both ends to a high extent over a career is. The other guys I mentioned made huge contributions in both single seasons and throughout their careers, in many cases

RMB:
Point taken about contributing, and Seymour did not contribute that much in pitching.

Smokey Joe Wood is another tremendous pitcher/hitter dyad in addition to all the other guys I named. (he was converted to OF, however, and didnt ever lead in anything.)

RMB:
When was Wood a "tremendous hitter"?

George Uhle was damned good, too.

RMB:
You mean at pitching? These guys may have been good hitters for pitchers, but convince me that Uhle "made huge contributions in both single seasons and throughout their careers"

csh19792001

03-05-2004, 09:28 PM

Smokey Joe Wood is another tremendous pitcher/hitter dyad in addition to all the other guys I named. (he was converted to OF, however, and didnt ever lead in anything.)

RMB:
When was Wood a "tremendous hitter"?

He wasn't ever- just a guy who was a tremendous pitcher, hurt his arm, and became a good hitting OFer. Never said he was a tremendous hitter- but was great at one and very good at the other.

George Uhle was damned good, too.

RMB:
You mean at pitching? These guys may have been good hitters for pitchers, but convince me that Uhle "made huge contributions in both single seasons and throughout their careers"

I was talking (in that case) about Johnson, Ferrell, and Newcombe.

(the email i just wrote before elucidates things a bit- we are getting confused here)

RuthMayBond

03-05-2004, 10:19 PM

Originally posted by csh19792001
I was talking (in that case) about Johnson, Ferrell, and Newcombe.

Johnson was good in '25 - for 97 AB!
the others for a little more, and for one year

Zeth

03-06-2004, 11:14 AM

No, Wes Ferrell was a consistently good hitter -- a good hitter for anybody, not just a good hitter for a pitcher. Don Newcombe and Don Drysdale just had one good year, but Wes Ferrell and Bob Lemon were good enough hitters that they could have had long careers as position players.

csh19792001

03-06-2004, 11:23 AM

Originally posted by Zeth
No, Wes Ferrell was a consistently good hitter -- a good hitter for anybody, not just a good hitter for a pitcher. Don Newcombe and Don Drysdale just had one good year, but Wes Ferrell and Bob Lemon were good enough hitters that they could have had long careers as position players.

My point exactly, with the guys I named like Johnson, Newcombe, Ferrell, and Uhle.

Zeth

03-06-2004, 11:23 AM

Chris, I have read the threads you listed, most of them, anyway; I have pretty limited time, and I read what I can when I can. I respect your great abundance of arguments relating to on-field performance. You have convinced me that Cobb probably was the second greatest player ever... well, I may still lean toward Willie Mays on that, but Cobb certainly is right there.

You and Bill have done an admirable job of presenting your arguments, and certainly I'm still listening. I still believe Ruth was the greatest ever, because the combined weight of his OBP and SLG -- even after adjusting as best we can for his era and park -- are so overwhelming, and I do believe hitting is more important than running or defense. That's another critical thing right there -- I see that you (and Bill) have convinced some people that running and defense are, in themselves, as important or more important than hitting. That, I'm not convinced of and doubt I ever will be. It's the weight I give to hitting that causes me to list Ruth as #1. I don't sneeze at defense or running; they're important. But take a team of the nine greatest defensive players in history, and give them average hitting, average running and average pitching (ignoring the players' own skills at everything except defense). Run that team for 162 games under any conditions you like. Then take a team of the nine greatest baserunners in history, and give them average hitting, pitching and defense. Run that team for 1623.

Then get the nine best hitters at each position and give them average running, pitching and defense, and do the same. I think you would find that the hitters would come out on top, by far.

So, to recap: Your research and debating are certainly quite excellent, and I've learned absolutely a ton of stuff I didn't know before. I still think Ruth is #1, because I still think hitting is more important than you do, and because Ruth in his prime was a good fielder and at least an adequate runner. Not that Ty Cobb wasn't a great hitter; he was one of the best hitters in history, even independent of his other contributions. But again, Ruth is so far ahead of everybody else that it more than makes up the difference. I don't see my opinion on that changing, but I know you won't let that discourage you :)

Zeth

03-06-2004, 11:24 AM

Yeah, but Walter Johnson and Don Newcombe were not nearly as good for their careers as Wes Ferrell and George Uhle were.

catcher24

03-06-2004, 12:48 PM

Posted by csh19792001
He played for generally poor teams, and never on a WS winner.

Depends on what you consider "generally poor" teams. According to my "research" (a little addition and division), the winning percentage for Detroit during Cobb's tenure as a player was an overall .529 (1681-1494). Although I would by no stretch say he played on GREAT teams, I think a winning percentage of .529 over 21 years inclusive does not constitute "poor teams".

Posted by william_burgess
The Veterans Committee were well known to be prejudiced in favor of NY guys getting into the Hall. How else could Ross Youngs ever make it? He died early and was just a very good ballplayer. Not an all time great.

Bill - I imagine you have probably read Bill James' book "The Politics of Glory" . If not, you might find it interesting. In it he addresses just the problem you mention, and he lays a good deal of the blame (and in my opinion, correctly) on Frankie Frisch. Frisch was on the Veterans Committee during the period of time that a lot of the members of the New York Giants AND the St. Louis Cardinals were elected (Ross Youngs, George Kelly, Jesse Haines, Jim Bottomley, Fred Lindstrom, Dave Bancroft, Chick Hafey) by the committee. I think you will agree that all of the names I listed are very questionable Hall of Famers. Personally, I don't believe any of them properly belong in the hall. At any rate, if you review the careers of these players, you will find that Frisch played with them, usually for several years. Apparently, he lobbied long and hard for these individuals (as well as others who, thankfully, were NOT elected), and in the end was able to convince the VC to elect them. Bottomley and Lindstrom were elected after Frisch had died, but within a couple of years of his death, so I think his influence was still reflected in their election. It seems Frankie wanted to get as many of his buddies as he could into the hall, at least those who had any kind of chance, and he seems to have succeded very well.

Bill Burgess

03-06-2004, 12:48 PM

Zeth,

Beautiful post. I do appreciate the way you post with relaxed, cordial, thoughtful prose. You manage to say in few words, what requires me many long-winded sermons. And sadly, this one will probably be no different.

If you weren't such a moderate, pensive, nice guy, I'd probably not try to influence you so much. But I do believe that you have missed some of my most incisively critical points. And strangely enough, points on your own turf, stats. So let us begin. I will re-print your remarks, so we have context.

Zeth:
"Chris, I have read the threads you listed, most of them, anyway; I have pretty limited time, and I read what I can when I can. I respect your great abundance of arguments relating to on-field performance. You have convinced me that Cobb probably was the second greatest player ever... well, I may still lean toward Willie Mays on that, but Cobb certainly is right there.
(Bill - Fair enough. No complaints here.)

Zeth:
"You and Bill have done an admirable job of presenting your arguments, and certainly I'm still listening. I still believe Ruth was the greatest ever, because the combined weight of his OBP and SLG -- even after adjusting as best we can for his era and park -- are so overwhelming, and I do believe hitting is more important than running or defense. That's another critical thing right there --

(Bill - Here is the critical point that I've been a failure at having you focus on. We too agree that hitting must be paramount in our analysis also. But you have overlooked a salient, all-important point, that makes all the difference, Zeth. We have been begging this thread, (and you by extension) to focus on walks & their distortion of OBP. OBP before & after 1919 are so bent out of shape, that they scream for an historical timeline adjustment. Walks pre-1919 have 2 times the value. After 1919, half the value. The same pitchers pitching to the same hitters are giving them MANY more walks. Is this not obvious? Pre-1919, the most feared sluggers (Brouthers, Delahanty, Lajoie, Cobb, Wagner, Cravath, Crawford), were averaging 40-70 walks per season. But sluggers post-1919 were averaging 80-150 (Ruth, Gehrig, Foxx, Greenberg, DiMag). And it was most definitely NOT because they were built better, were stronger men, looked meaner, or anything else. They probably could not bench press any more weight, could beat them in an arm wrestle, were taller, heavier, or anything other than had a more resilient ball, cleaner balls, no trick pitchers to flutter up to the plate, etc.

In my above posts, I've shown the actual number of walks both groups got. Cobb actully was walked more after the age of 33, during the 20's than when he was in his prime. Does that tell you anything. And it wasn't due to improved plate discipline, better eyesight, etc. It was because he could do more damage with a livelier ball.

So I hope you will focus on OBP, with this in mind. OBP, without an historical timeline adjustment is bogus, skews stats beyond fair recognition, and makes post '19 heavy hitters look like a different species of hitters, when they were not. They weren't super-hitters. Merely the priveleged recipients of unfair stat illusions.

Different issue. How is it that not one Babe Ruth supporter had questioned the creation of a timeline adjustment to make modern players "APPEAR" better than the numbers show them to be? Not a peep. Am I surprised? No, be discouraged and disillusioned. This group should have been in the vanguard as keepers of the Flame of BB Justice.)

Zeth:
"I see that you (and Bill) have convinced some people that running and defense are, in themselves, as important or more important than hitting. That, I'm not convinced of and doubt I ever will be. It's the weight I give to hitting that causes me to list Ruth as #1."

(Bill - We also give hitting precedence over fielding & running. It's your treatment of hitting stats where we part company. I've shown above that OBP and timeline adjustment are bogus, and the jack doesn't end there, Zeth. Noooooo, not by a long HR. I notice that whereever there is an opportunity to falsify the numbers by the co-efficients, it's always the same. Great multiplyers for Babe & HR hitters. Negligible, miniscual, infintestimal ones for pre- 1919 players. Examples?

Dave Kent told me that since running was more pronounced before 1919, Bill James gave them a multiplyer of .0000000001 advantage for before 1919, for SB. I'm exgaggerating, of course, but not by a lot. James was merely creating smoke to make it appear that he understood the paramount importance of running before and after live ball. Real big of him. Let's move on before I throw up.

Bill James also gives a very low numerical value to SB. You won't protest that, Zeth. Why not?

Bill James refuses to acknowlege that a HR is not worth 4.0 singles. Or same for triples or doubles. Linear weights are accepted in the entire stat community except for the man who created the modern stat revolution. Why? Same thing for indexing all stats to league ave. and park effects. The man who taught us that to not do that is to become irrelevant. And the first man to render his own work irrelevant is it's creator.

And where was the commotion? Where was the protest? Did Zeth see the Emporer had no clothes? Did Dave Kent? Did RBM, 4 Tool Player, ElHalo, Depstein? Of course not. Why? Because you can't critique or debate or object or protest a system which you don't understand!!!! So, the followers have followed the Leader right over the cliff.

No indexing, no linear weights, accept timeline adjustment, keep using OBP with its skewed walks, keep using neglible co-efficients for measuring pre-1919 game which depended on SB, bunts, hit & run, etc, etc, etc. So often, you fail to index career SLG, OBP, BA. etc. It becomes such a French farce.

And you guys were supposed to be the Keepers of the Flame of BB Truth & Justice. We're supposed to be able to turn our backs and know all was well. You were supposed to have our backs. What happened? Were we too naive? Too gullible? Too innocent?

This was supposed to be your very own terrain. Not ours. Yet even we can see the discrepantcies, betrayals of trust, etc.

Zeth:
"I don't sneeze at defense or running; they're important. But take a team of the nine greatest defensive players in history, and give them average hitting, average running and average pitching (ignoring the players' own skills at everything except defense). Run that team for 162 games under any conditions you like. Then take a team of the nine greatest baserunners in history, and give them average hitting, pitching and defense. Run that team for 1623.

Then get the nine best hitters at each position and give them average running, pitching and defense, and do the same. I think you would find that the hitters would come out on top, by far.

(Bill - We agree. But your analogy stops short of OUR argument. We field a team of world class hitters, who were also world class fielders & world class runners.

The modern team, which consists of Ruth, Williams, Gehrig, are all fine until they take the field. And I don't know how many times I've seen bothe WS and all-star games lost due to fielding errors, mental errors, sloppy running, bad bunting gone awry, etc. Even Babe Ruth once talked about how re-assured he felt knowing that Speaker backed him up in '15, and Lewis & Hooper for a few more seasons. If you discount state-of-the-art fielding, just ask a pitcher, how valuable that is to winning. It's paramount to a pitchers ERA. And they will all tell you that.

Ultimately, your above analysis is false. We give no tolerance to average fielding, average hitting or average running. We insist on a team that has all it's strengths intact. That's why we insist on players without ANY weaknesses. Cobb, Wagner, Sisler, Ewing, Collins, Johnson, Speaker, Mays, Schmidt. Everyone was world class across the board. No strange gloves, no one who was thrown out as often as they were safe, no bad bunters, all could pull the trigger with the greatest of ease. Even Sisler, who many accuse of being a "singles hitter", came in 2nd to Babe in HRs in '20 (George had 19), and he came 2nd in HRs again in '19.

So, how can you accuse us of lowering the standards? Where have we failed? Cobb won 8 SLG. titles ( and came in 2nd 3 times, 3rd, 3 times, & 4th once). So where have we skimped on our hitting obligations? I'm beyond mystefied. I'm flabberghasted!

Since you've suggested that Chris or I have neglected our responsibilities for fielding a state-of-the-art team in some abstract manner, I really need to know how you justify your assertion. Please, show us our errors. Where did we screw it up? Because we can't see it. We must be blind cause it escapes our radar.)

Zeth:
"So, to recap: Your research and debating are certainly quite excellent, and I've learned absolutely a ton of stuff I didn't know before. I still think Ruth is #1, because I still think hitting is more important than you do, and because Ruth in his prime was a good fielder and at least an adequate runner.

(Bill - Fair enough. Now you must justify your words. I don't think anyone rates hitting more important than I or Chris, which is why we load our teams with only world class guys. Can you show me "by the numbers, how Babe is a GOOD fielder, and an ADEQUATE runner. Please show me that by the numbers, if you'd be so kind. By our analysis, Babe's 101-100 SB record just stinks to death, and he should NEVER have been allowed to run, and his fielding, by the kindest estimate, was borderline servicable/adequate/poor.)

Not that Ty Cobb wasn't a great hitter; he was one of the best hitters in history, even independent of his other contributions. But again, Ruth is so far ahead of everybody else that it more than makes up the difference. I don't see my opinion on that changing, but I know you won't let that discourage you."

(Bill - Now let me be clear. I have no problems with those who rate Babe #1. But let's do it fairly. Whenever I disagree, every single poster requires me to show them why, by the numbers. So please show me "by the numbers", why OBP is not bogus. (if you'd be so good as to break this down, paragraph by paragraph, item by item, we'd see where we divurge.

Me. Not discourged. (Wink) You just have no idea.

Bill Burgess

PS. On re-reading this, Zeth, I can see that's it's way too intense. Please forgive the tone. I like you as a poster, and I just get way too out there when I'm in the midst of a post. I just fire away too quickly. But the content is right on, I think. Why wouldn't I? I wrote it. So please take no note of my style, just my content, OK? Thanks, Bill

Bill Burgess

03-06-2004, 01:10 PM

Catcher24,

Thanks for your input. No, I have't ever even looked at Bill's book, Politics of the Hall. But now I know the source of that mad admittance to the Hall of so many merely good players, but not great truly Famers. And now we're all dealing with that humongous discounting of the Hall's quality. No quality control was in evidence for quite a while.

But in recent years, they've seemed to have gotten a handle on things. Not too many players the level of Jesse Haines have slipped past the sports writers.

Bill Burgess

csh19792001

03-06-2004, 01:28 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by catcher24
[B]Posted by csh19792001

"Depends on what you consider "generally poor" teams. According to my "research" (a little addition and division), the winning percentage for Detroit during Cobb's tenure as a player was an overall .529 (1681-1494). Although I would by no stretch say he played on GREAT teams, I think a winning percentage of .529 over 21 years inclusive does not constitute "poor teams"."

I don't have time now to look, but in the New Historical Baseball Abstract they have the winning percentages (of the teams) of the greatest players of all time during their careers. And most of the guys were generally on very good teams, so when I say "generally poor", I meant in comparison to those guys, and in the sense of never winning pennants and finishing 3rd, 4th, or in the second division most of the time.

Bill Burgess

03-06-2004, 01:29 PM

RMB,

Originally posted by william_burgess@usa.net
RMB:
Best fielder BASED UPON WHAT? He became the best fielder at 1B after SEVENTY-NINE games? (got that from a stat book!)

Somehow, you have gotten the idea that I'm trying to "prove" these "assertions". (Bill James' favorite word).

RMB:
I don't like that word. I like "give objective evidence". And you completely ignore the 79 games part.

(Bill - Why does it take more than 79 games for professionals to judge your work. Especially if you've proven yourself at another position previously?)

There were a few fielders who were so committed to get to every ball that they made a seemingly large number of errors, which might have marred their fielding stats. Cobb always had lots of errors, and so might have Wagner. They had great range. Which sometimes work against one. If I bring you the accepted concensus' of that day, why kill the messenger, just because I can't prove this stuff.

RMB:
I don't see any evidence that Wagner had many errors . . . or great range. No one's trying to kill you, but can I disagree with you without you whining?

(Bill - Again, I'm not even trying to "give objective evidence", as to his stats. Hans was known "by reputation" to have a lot of mechanical boots, but only because he was so fanatical about reaching everything possible. He often "invaded" the territory of the LF, 3B, 2B, etc. He received his excellent reputation due to his ability to make seemingly impossible plays. He'd go WAY into the hole behind 3B, or short LF, or up the middle, and STILL make his bullet to 1B for his kill. Here is a tip that might make itself worth your while. Request this book from your local library. "The Diamond Appraised", by Craig R. Wright & Tom House, 1989.

On page 80, they address Ty Cobb's fielding. From page 366-406, Hans Wagner is given a wonderful treatment. Some stats, most non-statistical.)

(Bill - Already answered. Not my info. And I don't owe anyone proof.

RMB:
Ya know, then neither does anyone else owe you evidence (you like that word proof)

(Bill - You know, whenever I open my keyboard, I'm challenged to "show objective evidence". And I do. My way. A good, hard, non-statistical look at players. But can never satisfy a world-class stat-hound as yourself, Dave, or ElHalo, of course.)

(Bill - I don't have a list, nor do I know where one is. Chancelor conducts the survey.

Hey, Chancelor. Perhaps you could post a list of all those already in the Fever Hall at the top of each month's voting. That might help all of us. Thanks.

RMB:
Hopefully it will go better than last time.

(Yes, I hope so too.

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

Rob Neyer has a column in his book that lots of people tell him that Omar Vizquel was the best fielding shortstop ever. So at least we've settled that question

(Bill - Thanks.)

RMB:
Hopefully you got my point.

(Bill - Well, I always think I do. But alas, often I find out otherwise, after the fact.)

Bill Burgess

Bill Burgess

03-06-2004, 01:39 PM

Catcher22,

In so many of these postings, Chris & I, are defending the Cobb sector of the trenches, with regards to a Ty/Babe shoot-out.

We've very often fought our battles in the context of comparing Ty to the Babe, and Ty's not winning of WS, or as many pennants as the Babe.

So when we post "generally poor teams", we are coming from a vis a vis comparison with Babe Ruth. Ty's inability to accumulate "win shares" with the Babe were so often mixed into my battles.

I've often battles that if Cobb had been on Ruth's team, and vica versa, THEN who would have won the WS war? But our opponents have admitted that even if Cobb had WS wins & Babe 0, they'd have felt no different. So much for the honesty or validity of their arguing points.

So that was the context of Ty's teams. But are you aware that from 1921-26, Ty's teams improved, and he was in large measure the reason, due to his managerial brilliance and his teaching his players how to hit better. He "made" Heilmann, Manush, Flagstad, and Wingo. Flagstad & Wingo only had 1 great statistical, offensive season under Ty.

Bill Burgess

csh19792001

03-06-2004, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by Zeth
Yeah, but Walter Johnson and Don Newcombe were not nearly as good for their careers as Wes Ferrell and George Uhle were.

No, they weren't. But the last two were probably better hitters than the first two, and Johnson was 10 times better than any pitching- and was such a hitter that they pinch hit him 110 times in his career! and 20 times one year.

Newk pinch hit 21 times two diff years.

The Babe never pinch hit 20 times.

Few more guys for my list- Bob Caruthers and Dave Foutz- were near the top of the league in some offensive as well as pitching categories at least once.

Caruthers hit .357 and scored 102 runs one year, while going 29-9 on the mound (won 218 games and hit .282 for his career).

Foutz also hit .357 and went 25-12 that same year.

Among the moderns, in addition to all of the guys I listed, I think about Early Wynn and (for homers and power only) Earl Wilson.

In the years Ruth was actually a pitcher (by 1918 he was already playing three times as many games in the OF as pitching) Ruth hit .299 with 10 homers. If the debate here is still "Ruth is the only guy that could hit and pitch really well at the same time", obviously the historical answer is "no".

If the debate is over whether anyone was ever the best pitcher in baseball at one time, and the best hitter at another time, than the A: is probably Ruth, because I haven't found anyone else who was top notch on both ends at diff times (i.e., after being converted to OF or any other position, besides Cy Seymour in 1905).

Unless you want to go back to the 1870's and maybe even the NA,where you could find both. That's silly, though, because pitchers pitched far more then and had to hit more, and the rules were totally different.

RuthMayBond

03-06-2004, 03:36 PM

Originally posted by william_burgess@usa.net
Walks pre-1919 have 2 times the value. After 1919, half the value. Cobb actully was walked more after the age of 33, during the 20's than when he was in his prime. Does that tell you anything. And it wasn't due to improved plate discipline

RMB:
Could this be an exaggertion about walks? And as players get older they do tend to have more plate discipline

Bill James refuses to acknowlege that a HR is not worth 4.0 singles.

RMB:
Why in the world should it be? A single still has a chance of coming home anyway. Four singles should bring home as many runs as any HR should, plus that should leave at least two more guys on base.

That's why we insist on players without ANY weaknesses. Ewing, Johnson,

RMB:
Don't be too sure Ewing has no weaknesses. Johnson who?

RuthMayBond

03-06-2004, 03:44 PM

Originally posted by william_burgess@usa.net
(Bill - Why does it take more than 79 games for professionals to judge your work. Especially if you've proven yourself at another position previously?)

RMB:
Why does it take more than 79 games to prove that Wagner was the best fielder at a position (which is what the question was)? If you don't know the answer to that, I can't help you

(Bill - Here is a tip that might make itself worth your while. Request this book from your local library. "The Diamond Appraised", by Craig R. Wright & Tom House, 1989.

On page 80, they address Ty Cobb's fielding. From page 366-406, Hans Wagner is given a wonderful treatment. Some stats, most non-statistical.)

RMB:
Now we're getting somewhere, although I've never heard of the book

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

Rob Neyer has a column in his book that lots of people tell him that Omar Vizquel was the best fielding shortstop ever. So at least we've settled that question

(Bill - Thanks.)

RMB:
Hopefully you got my point.

(Bill - Well, I always think I do. But alas, often I find out otherwise, after the fact.)

RMB:
Tell me what you think my point was and I'll let you know

csh19792001

03-06-2004, 04:00 PM

Originally posted by RuthMayBond

The crux-
1- The point is taken that walks were issued far more after 1920 than before. Hence pre-1920 guys are penalized severely by modern statistical systems of evaluation.

2- We've already debated and discussed that walks are less valuable than singles, ranging from .60-.90 of one single in value.

THE POINT OF ALL OF THIS--- No matter lower walks are, they are STILL OF LESS VALUE THAN A SINGLE, or any other hit.

Yet OBP counts a home run the same as a walk in value!

This, combined with the fact that walks were not issued with as much frequency shows that Pre-1920 players are not being evaluated fairly or on a level field statistically with post 1920 sluggers- they are being unfairly routed, since OPS is the bastion of all stat monger stats.

Another problem I have with OPS- doesn't take into account the QUANTITY of a player's contribution. Like ERA, OPS is only valuable if taken into consideration ALONG with quantity (as quality declines with increased quantity).

OBP values walks and hits as equal. That's bogus.

All things being equal (i.e, indexed SLG%) a guy with a .367 BA and a .433 OBP is more valuable than a guy with a .297 BA and a .433 OBP, for reasons we discussed. Yet, they are considered equal in OBP, because 1-quantity isn't involved, and 2-with OBP, the percent of OBP accounted for by walks vs. hits IS NOT inculcated.

Apropos to #2- 4200 hits and 1200 walks is far, far more valuable than 2600 hits and 2000 walks. yet they are seen as equal by the stat community with regards to this vital stat.

Analagously, A guy with 3000 hits and 1000 walks is also more valuable than a guy with 2000 hits and 2000 walks.

Just another example of stats (while not lying, per se), certainly distorting the truth. Stats are not everything. They are part of the puzzle.

tearforamariner

03-06-2004, 06:52 PM

I'm not even going to list stats here, because we all know them. I wil say this: The only way to compare players from different eras is to compare how they did to their peers. Not even Ruth can say he dominated the league the way Cobb did. It's Cobb hands down.

Bill Burgess

03-06-2004, 07:13 PM

Dave Kent,

I have some questions concerning your top 25. I really can't say too much about your top 20, since many of my choices happen to concur with yours. But your choieces of F. Robinson, Mel Ott and especially Eddie Mathews seems a little too high for my tastes. I think you also have Josh Gibson too high, should be around 20th, but Eddie Mathews should fall out somewhere between 50-75. Ott around 50, Fr. Robinson around 60. How does Mathews outrank Brett, unless you're a 500 club devotee? I just don't see it. I'm not in attack mode here, just can't see your reasoning. I'd like to see a good, hard non-statistical look. Or at the least a little stats, but not exclusively numbers-bound.

"Originally posted by wrgptfan
I was chastised for not posting my own top 25. The only reason that I had not done so was that my list is presumably quite non-controversial (although I might be wrong).

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

Really the only question I had was with regard to the last place on the list - I feel that the 1st 24 are definitely deserving. Possibilities for the last spot were Anson, Buck Ewing, Dan Brouthers, Jimmie Foxx, Joe Morgan, Carl Yastrzemski and George Brett. I was overloaded at 2nd, so Morgan was out. Brett is not really THAT close to Schmidt or Mathews at 3rd. Yaz is great, but a large portion of his value was in longevity - he had a great peak, but he had many years where he was just good or maybe even average. Foxx put up great numbers, but in an era where great numbers were the norm rather than the exception. Buck Ewing, while certainly one of the top players of the 19th century, had a career that was just a bit too short to merit inclusion into my top 25. Brouthers has always been one of my favourites (check my voting for the BBF HoF). Anson however, played almost the entire 19th century (well from the beginning of major league baseball - starting in 1871 although many will tell you the NA was not a major league) at a very high level - he played half a career more than Brouthers. Brouthers was a much more productive batter - his rate stats are incredible. I am not convinced that I prefer Anson over Brouthers, but that is where my vote went - at least for today.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also, Dave. I have many people's all-time all-star teams, A & B. I even have a thread for exactly that. I'd be vary appreciative to have yours. I collect such data. As you should know by now, I collect just about everything. So if you choose to post your A & B teams, could you do so on that thread which I provided especially for that purpose? Thanks, for sharing. Don't forget to vote on our March Hall of Fame ballot.

But be forwarned. Anything submitted to me, or here, is subject to be published in one of my files, such as All-Time All-Star Teams. And I intend to publish all of those here. So . . . pick well.

Bill Burgess

Bill Burgess

03-06-2004, 07:57 PM

RMB,

RMB:
Why does it take more than 79 games to prove that Wagner was the best fielder at a position (which is what the question was)? If you don't know the answer to that, I can't help you
(Bill - I DO know the answer to that question and you STILL can't help me. But I respect your continuing efforts to try to set an old fart like me straight. Better than you have tried, and failed.

Rob Neyer has a column in his book that lots of people tell him that Omar Vizquel was the best fielding shortstop ever. So at least we've settled that question

(Bill - Thanks.)

RMB:
Hopefully you got my point.

(Bill - Well, I always think I do. But alas, often I find out otherwise, after the fact.)

RMB:
Tell me what you think my point was and I'll let you know

(Bill - I believed that your point was that, many people gave Rob Neyer their opinions and they were all arbitrary and meaningless. So you were merely making that point to demontrate why you hold opinions to be interesting and somethimes relevant to a discussion, but ultimately far too arbitrary to be a reliable yardstick with which to measure value.

Upshot: Thou werst waxing sarcasticus, and I waxed likewise in kind. Comprede, mi brainiac amigo?

Bill, el Stubborno Obstinatiac

PS. You should love the book, The Diamond Appraised, by Craig R. Wright and tom House, 1989, for forward by Bill James.

Craig R. Wright is a world-class theorist and Tom House is a ML coach.

Wright is currently Director of ML Operations for Sports Team Analysis and Tracking Systems(Stats).

Tom House pitched in the MLs from 1971-78, and has been the Texas Rangers' pitching coach since 1985.

Bill Burgess

03-06-2004, 08:29 PM

RMB,

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by william_burgess@usa.net

Walks pre-1919 have 2 times the value. After 1919, half the value. Cobb actully was walked more after the age of 33, during the 20's than when he was in his prime. Does that tell you anything. And it wasn't due to improved plate discipline

RMB:
Could this be an exaggertion about walks? And as players get older they do tend to have more plate discipline

(Bill - While many hitters do indeed develope more plate discipline, I didn't use Cobb alone. I used 5-6 pre-1919 sluggers and 5 post 1919 sluggers. And the results are startling. Didn't you see my comparison? Cobb shouldn't have gotten his 4 of his 5 highest walk totals as an old man. He was feared much more 10 yrs. earlier.

Our point of contention here is stark. Do you or don't you accept my theory that pre & post 1919 sluggers got a disporportionate amounts of walks due to the dangers posed by the lively ball? Yes or no. No evasions. Be clear. If you have any questions, back track on this thread and find my comparison. And you still won't answer my valuations.

Bill James refuses to acknowlege that a HR is not worth 4.0 singles.

RMB:
Why in the world should it be? A single still has a chance of coming home anyway. Four singles should bring home as many runs as any HR should, plus that should leave at least two more guys on base.

(Bill - Because every single person in the stat community but Bill acknowleges that 4 singles are potentialls worth many more RBIs thatn 1 HR. Or is that too obtuse for you to grasp?

That's why we insist on players without ANY weaknesses. Ewing, Johnson,

RMB:
Don't be too sure Ewing has no weaknesses. Johnson who?

(Bill - Walter Johnson, that's who. Had no weaknesses. Could hit, and field with any pitcher in history. What were Buck Ewing's weaknesses as a catcher. And don't tell me he played too few games. That's not a weakness AS A CATCHER. He could steal, he could hit, he could be moved around & platooned, hell, he even pitched, which showed the power in his arm. So, . . . where's his playing flaws, compared to his catching brethren? I gotta hear this one!

Bill Burgess

Bill Burgess

03-06-2004, 08:33 PM

RMB,

A few posts ago, I addressed a post to Zeth, in which I started off with, "Beautiful post". I'd like to see you take a crack at that one, if you'd be so kind.

In the meantime, I'm going to look around for those items which you've been ducking. I'd like to hear your sage councel around our Great Councel Fire. If you wouldn't mind.

Bill Burgess

Bill Burgess

03-06-2004, 08:37 PM

RMB,

Here is a re-posting of my valuations. I'd like to get your input on them. I originally addressed these to Zeth, but he doesn't always get back to me any time soon. He doesn't have access to a computer all the time. So why don't you pinch hit for him, while he's on the DL?

It's cool if you or anyone else believes things differently than me. I kinda always smile with amusement when you say, "Bill Burgess won't like this, but . . .". I'm not important. Just a name in cyber-space.

To be honest, I haven't heard too many good arguments here on why George Herman Ruth deserves to be rated the Best. All I have really heard is that the numbers prove he is. That doesn't work for me. I strongly suspect that they don't work for the general fan. The only people that they seem to resonate with is the statistical community. No explanation of why the formulas are developed in the exact way they are. And TB revised them. But no good reasoning behind the numbers. You say my .60 is too low, assuming I'm favoring one player. I have yet to hear that a number ever favored your candidate. And I'm not sure why that is. Below, I've tried, in my pathetic way, to come up with more reasonable numbers, which don't throw the game to the sluggers community. And I can't get good feedback if I paid for it. So what's a guy to do. Beg? Not my style. Grovel. Forget it! But since "win shares" is neither indexed nor uses linear weights, I and others feel that it's less accurate than it could have been made to be. And that "timeline"!!! Pure BB hatred at it's most prejudiced, in broad daylight, and not a peep from those who presume to be "objective". So much for justice, fairness or objectivity in numbers.

A HR should be worth no more than 3.15 singles.
A triple should be worth no more than 2.7 singles.
A double should be worth no more than 1.7 singles.
A walk should be worth no more than .73 of a single.
A steal should be worth no less than .70 of a single.
A Strikeouts should be worth .80 of hitting out.
GIDP should be worth .50 of hitting out otherwise.
A walk post 1920 should be worth .50 of a walk pre 1920.

3. There should be no timeline adjustment, as Bill James has done.

4. Walks are a special problem. Since pre-1920 sluggers did not receive more walks than contact hitters and post-1920 sluggers, due to the live ball, did receive a great deal more than contact hitters, a major adjustment needs to be made. First walks need to be indexed to league ave. and then another adjustment needs to be introduced as a timeline, pre and post 1920. I'd make a walk after 1920 worth .50 of a walk before 1920."

Another issue which you have ducked is "Opinions". In my files I trace them down through the decades, as shown below. So I'd like to hear you give "YOUR OPINION" on why they are as useless as you'd like the posters here to believe. Now read these very carefully. I've documented them exactly for "historical perspective".

Re: Opinions

My files do not just give one's opinions from 1925. Most person's opinions are tracked down the decades. For example. Here are some of the people and the yrs. of their opinions.

Mack:-------1931, 1938, 1941, 1942, 1947, 1950
Speaker:---1918, 1920, 1925, 1942, 1944, 1950, 1954
Collins:------1915, 1924, 1928, 1931, 1942, 1944, 1950
Hornsby:----1931, 1961, 1962
W. Johnson:1924, 1925, 1929, 1931, 1942
Ruth:---------1931, 1933, 1936, 1945, 1946
B. Rickey:----1965
C. Stengel:--1942, 1961, 1975
B. Wallace:--1917, 1954
J. Dykes:-----1942, 1950, 1965, 1967 1976
R. Faber:-----1953, 1961
H. Hooper:---1917, 1958, 1963
J. Wood:------1975, 1979, 1984
O. Bluege:----1942, 1957, 1984
T. Lyons:------1942, 1974, 1984,1985
Al Schacht:----1962, 1966
B. Wambsganss:-1932, 1966, 1985
F. Lieb:---------1938, 1961, 1970, 1977
D. Daniel:------1928, 1933, 1958, 1960, 1961, 1962
D. Baker:-------1942, 1944, 1962
R. Schalk:------1926, 1964, 1969
Ferdinand C. Lane:-1916, 1923, 1924, 1934, 1937, 1981(editor of Baseball Magazine, 1912-37)
S. Povich:------1939, 1959, 1961, 1969, 1997
F. Haney:------1929, 1938, 1961, 1964, 1975
H. Seymour:--1928, 1990
M. Huggins:---1920, 1929
E. Barrow:-----1929, 1951
H. Pennock:---1939, 1945
J. Sewell:-------1983
R. Peckinpaugh:1942, 1944, 1977
H. Jennings:----1912, 1919, 1920, 1921, 1925, 1926
C. Gehringer:---1975
D. Bush:---------1942, 1961
H. Heilmann:--1939, 1947
A. Simmons:---1928, 1942, 1944, 1953
B. Miller:-------1942, 1961
C. Comiskey:--1910, 1919, 1930
C. Griffith:------1918, 1921, 1942
T. Yawkey:-----1933, 1945, 1959, 1961
T. Connolly:----1950, 1953, 1954
B. Evans:-------1926, 1942
G. Moriarty:----1930, 1934
J. McCarthy:----1937, 1940, 1950

So, your often-repeated wail, that one can't evaluate another in that moment, is now, officially, disarmed. You are precisely why I posted opinions down the decades.

If I had only supplied late quotes, you would have attacked with, "They had forgotten that which they saw." If I had only supplied early quotes, you would have attacked with, "They knew not the historical perspective." So now that both of your complaints are very well covered indeed, your outlandish dismissal of peers opinions stands revealed as the invalid whine it always was! Yes?!

Your use of the word "useless" is now revealed as invalid. Which it always was, of course. Yes? But we all know that you are clever enough to have already prepared a fallback defense position. So as your entire line falls back beneath the hammer blows of your colleagues offense, we're all watching how far back your forces will retreat before they desperately try to make a new stand."

Different Issue: Walks before & After 1919. And the Bogusness of OBP because of this disparity.

Zeth:
"A walk being .60 of a single is too low. Of course, if you look at it that way, that favors Ty Cobb over Babe Ruth . . ."

(Bill - I'm not looking at this issue in terms of 2 individuals. I'm looking at it in terms of pre and post 1920. See my above reasoning.

Where Bill James gives an entirely unjustified timeline adjustment benefitting later players, I do that concerning walks. If not, we will end up with an historical anomaly, which will skew and distort true values. Look at the walk totals for pre '20 sluggers.

Lajoie:-----60, 47, 35, 33
Wagner:---67, 66, 59, 59,
Cobb:------118, 85, 78, 66, 65 (85, 66, 65 were all post '20)
Crawford:--69, 66, 61, 52, 50
Brouthers:--99, 87, 84, 1, 68
Delehanty:--86, 77, 65, 62
Cravath:-----86, 83, 70, 64, 55

Now, look at post '20.

Ruth:--------170, 148, 144, 144, 140
Gehrig:------132, 130, 12, 122, 117
Foxx:---------119,116, 114, 111
Greenberg:--119, 104, 102, 93, 91

Totally due to the live ball and the possibility of HRs. See where we're coming from. There needs be an historical, timeline adjustment for walks.

Now I am also aware that there were a very few hitters who drew a lot of walks due to better eyes, tighter plate discipline, such as Miller Huggins, but I don't think that they are numersous enough to invalidate the general theory.

Bill Burgess

wrgptfan

03-06-2004, 09:15 PM

Not wanting to get involved in any more fruitless discussions with you or Chris, but what on earth are you trying to come up with a linear weights formula if - as you freely admit - have no clue what you are talking about when it comes to sabermetrics. Stick with your list of psedo-experts and keep on trying to convince those on this board who may be swayed by that sort of BS. Anyone who has taken stats could not possibly be swayed by your mathematical "expertise".

Look at the following drivel. Did you manage to come up with this yourself?

A HR should be worth no more than 3.15 singles.
A triple should be worth no more than 2.7 singles.
A double should be worth no more than 1.7 singles.
A walk should be worth no more than .73 of a single.
A steal should be worth no less than .70 of a single.
A Strikeouts should be worth .80 of hitting out.
GIDP should be worth .50 of hitting out otherwise.
A walk post 1920 should be worth .50 of a walk pre 1920.

I'm sure there are those 16 year old kids on this discussion board who are wowed by your erudition. Anyone who has read anything on sabermetrics laughs at this.

Walks are a special problem.

Come on Bill. Thankfully we have you to lead us from the darkness. According to you, Walks pre-1920 must have led to more runs than those post-1920. Thankfully you have the data to back this up so we peons can be enlightened.

Perhaps we shoul see what Branch Rickey had to say on the subject of walks.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/news/1997/march1/woolner.html

Hmmm, in 1954 Branch Rickey was able to understand the power of the sabermetric study of baseball. Why is it that 50 years later you are unable to do the same? Could it be that you have too much time invested in your "research" to possibly admit that there is even the slightest chance of it being wrong?

I used to enjoy reading these forums. Now it is just too frustrating to do so. You keep on "challenging" RMB. For example:

SERVICE HERE!!! CAN WE GET A LITTLE NYC SERVICE HERE!!

What arrogance.

I am very sorry that you have turned Baseball-Fever into a place that I no longer wish to visit. I will spend my time at baseball-primer.com where, if you tried to do there what you have done here, you would not last a day.

Bill Burgess

03-06-2004, 10:21 PM

Friends,

I've just had the bad luck to read one of the most personally ugly, nastiest personal attacks ever allowed to be posted on a baseball discussion board.

To any who had the bad luck to view the manure that infrequent poster (862 posts since Jan.,2000, 215 per yr.) named David Kent just smeared across our screens, I simply have this to say.

Those linear weights valuations were from a book called, "Baseball's All-Time Dream Team", by John P. McCarthy, JR., 1994, pp. 13. And while he stated that those numbers were modern values and didn't apply to early dead-ball values, I tried to adjust some of those, like SB & walks.

I did qualify myself with this phrase:

"Below, I've tried, in my pathetic way, to come up with more reasonable numbers, which don't throw the game to the sluggers community. And I can't get good feedback if I paid for it. So what's a guy to do. Beg? Not my style. Grovel. Forget it!"

So, I think it was obvious to all but Mr. Kent, that I was trying to take my very first baby steps into the world of linear weights, and make an offering here to better informed posters, and look what happened to me? Bashed by a poster whose contributions to this site has constituted nothing but posting skills and the same redundant sabr numbers ad nauseum, and absolutely not one iota of an idea from his own brain. Not one. No human element, intuition, instinct, no writing skills to remember. All numbers, no thoughts of his own to contribute.

It is clear that Mr. Kent, upon failing to influence anyone at this site, felt insignificant. And in his frustration, he lashed out. I have a suggestion for him. Try spending the next 40 yrs. of your existence in a library reading about baseball & its rich history. Purify your heart. Let your motivation be to share baseball with others for the love of the game itself and less with its numbers. Perhaps then you won't post as such a small, little, jealous, mean-spirited jack-ass wanna-be. With all your dazzling posting skills, you're so bereft of engaging, entertaining, cool, interesting, human-element based content. Try washing down those cold columns of numbers with some cool refreshing text. Cold numbers, while great if presented in an engaging way, can be dead. Lifeless. Baseball is so much more than its bones (stats). But alas, not for him. We should not scorn him. Better pity him. And wish him luck in finding a discussion home he likes.

So I hope that no one thinks that I was promoting numbers to be accepted, but hopefully critiqued, as the remarks leading up to them clearly suggested. I was asking for feedback.

And this most insultingly ignorant posting by Mr. Kent wasn't even addressed to him!!! I was daring to learn a new area, that is frankly a little scarey for me, and asking others for help.

And he even mocks those who may like talking with me. I admit that it is true that I have a lot to say. Perhaps too much. But if one notices, I only post on certain threads. Less than half. And I've tried to remain polite and gracious. But once in a while . . One of the things which I've tried to do is to avoid getting personal. And I HAVE failed sometimes. Usually with Mr. David Kent.

Mr. Kent ends with a flouish. I wouldn't last a day at baseball-primer.com. Well, I do quite well at SABR's site. As a matter of fact, I have posted about 12 files there, and they like my work so much, that they are offered to the general SABR community and the public at large. So much for Mr. Kent's highly valuable opinions on matters baseball. Funny. I haven't seen any original work by Mr. Kent posted on SABR. Nowhere else either I'm not sad to say. I don't think the man's created anything related to baseball in his entire life.

Mr. Kent. If you can't find anything to enjoy at Baseball Fever, do yourself a favor and never come back. Your lack of anything to say while you were here, won't be noticed.

Bill Burgess

PS. I did look at the Branch Rickey article. He makes some interesting observations. He tells us how he uses new ideas in stats. Many people including myself, give high value to his ideas & perceptions. Interestingly, 11 yrs. later, the yr. he died, he published his life's observations. And here is one of the juicey tid-bit.

"1965 - "The great unrealized and almost never-mentioned contribution of Cobb to the winning of games was his constant wrecking of pitcher concentration on the pitch. With Cobb on first, or any base for that matter, many pitchers over a period of, say, twenty years became simply "throwers." He caused catchers to call for more pitch-outs by far than any player in the history of the game, thereby setting up constantly the three-and-one and two-and-nothing situations for the next batsman and giving repeated opportunity for the batsman to hit the "cripple.". . . I never knew of any player other than Cobb practicing sliding with the intent of using the loose foot to kick the ball out of the baseman's hand. He actually practiced that movement. And Cobb could and did concentrate on it with great effect. It led to the general charge throughout the American League that, on occasion, he intentionally spiked the tagged. I don't think he ever spiked anyone intentionally. . . But he was not a cruel player - not in my book. One more word on Cobb on the subject of his hitting. I may have left the impression that Cobb was not a power hitter. On several occasions he would engage in a pre-game exhibition contest of power hitting. It is said that he never lost a single contest. He could drive a ball for tremendous distance when that was his only purpose. I don't believe that Cobb, when batting, ever had a home run in his mind. . . . Cobb is to be understood rather than maligned unjustly. . .

The truth is that Cobb is the greatest one-game player in all baseball history. He was the most positive character in the game. He was baseball's most earnest and assiduous learner. He was the greatest perfectionist, both on offense and defense.
No player could come close to Cobb's record. Probably no one will ever equal it. Who's the greatest player that ever performed in the major leagues? The vote would surely be Cobb or Wagner. Take your pick. Cobb had a psychological effect on
opponents which Wagner did not have. Wagner had a morale value among his teammates which Cobb did not have. If I had first chance in making up an all-time All-American team for a season's play of 154 games, I would be compelled to choose Wagner. But for the game today: Ty Cobb." (American Diamond, A Documentary of the Game, Branch Rickey, 1965)

Like Mr. Rickey, I too, am endeavoring to use stats in a new way, where walks are concerned. I am introducing a new historical timeline.
And happily, since Mr. Kent has proven unsucessful in driving me off with my initial baby steps into the world of stats, stats REQUIRE treating pre and post 1919 stats with an adjustment where walks are concerned. Walks before 1919 are worth more than after. They have greater value, over & beyond indexing. Supply & demand. Indexing can't make that particular adjustment. And I don't know about you, but I find it fascinating that Mr. Kent never saw that required need. And after all of his yrs. looking at those numbers. How provocative! Perhaps my figure isn't the perfected one, but an adjustment beyond indexing. Now I find that cool. Slam! In your numbers-crunching face, Mr. Kent!!! Slam! Slam! Slam! How satisfying.

RuthMayBond

03-07-2004, 09:58 PM

Originally posted by william_burgess@usa.net
Our point of contention here is stark. Do you or don't you accept my theory that pre & post 1919 sluggers got a disporportionate amounts of walks due to the dangers posed by the lively ball? Yes or no. No evasions. Be clear. If you have any questions, back track on this thread and find my comparison. And you still won't answer my valuations.

RMB:
Post 1919 sluggers got more walks in part because of the dangers posed by the lively ball (not sure where pre 1919 comes in). Could you help me find your valuations?

(Bill - Because every single person in the stat community but Bill acknowleges that 4 singles are potentialls worth many more RBIs thatn 1 HR. Or is that too obtuse for you to grasp?

RMB:
If the singles are not consecutive then I would tend to say they're not worth as much as a HR. At least you got your slam off

(Bill - Walter Johnson, that's who. Had no weaknesses. Could hit, and field with any pitcher in history. What were Buck Ewing's weaknesses as a catcher. And don't tell me he played too few games. That's not a weakness AS A CATCHER. He could steal, he could hit, he could be moved around & platooned, hell, he even pitched, which showed the power in his arm. So, . . . where's his playing flaws, compared to his catching brethren? I gotta hear this one!

RMB:
Although pitchers don't field that much, he was a good fielder and hitter for a pitcher. I don't know that I'd want nine of him in the field or in the lineup. Ewing could steal (although many were stealing then) etc. but you seem to think than someone who is a batting terror couldn't possibly make up for someone who is a little more well-rounded

RuthMayBond

03-07-2004, 10:03 PM

Originally posted by william_burgess@usa.net
RMB,

A few posts ago, I addressed a post to Zeth, in which I started off with, "Beautiful post". I'd like to see you take a crack at that one, if you'd be so kind.

I read it, I don't understand what multipliers you are talking about (just like I don't understand win shares)

Bill Burgess

03-07-2004, 10:28 PM

RMB,

Originally posted by william_burgess@usa.net
Our point of contention here is stark. Do you or don't you accept my theory that pre & post 1919 sluggers got a disporportionate amounts of walks due to the dangers posed by the lively ball? Yes or no. No evasions. Be clear. If you have any questions, back track on this thread and find my comparison. And you still won't answer my valuations.

RMB:
Post 1919 sluggers got more walks in part because of the dangers posed by the lively ball (not sure where pre 1919 comes in). Could you help me find your valuations?

(Bill - Yes post 1919 sluggers got more walks due to the lively ball, which the pre 1919 sluggers didn't. Hence, pre 1919 players need and deserve more value for each of their walks. BECAUSE they are worth more, because they were harder to get. Indexing cannot correct for this.)

Here are my valuations for linear weights. What do you think of these values. Are they fair to you?

A HR should be worth no more than 3.15 singles.
A triple should be worth no more than 2.7 singles.
A double should be worth no more than 1.7 singles.
A walk should be worth no more than .73 of a single.
A steal should be worth no less than .70 of a single.
A Strikeouts should be worth .80 of hitting out.
GIDP should be worth .50 of hitting out otherwise.
A walk post 1920 should be worth .50 of a walk pre 1920.

These valuations are sometimes called multipliers, sometimes called co-efficients.

(Bill - Because every single person in the stat community but Bill acknowleges that 4 singles are potentially worth many more RBIs thatn 1 HR. Or is that too obtuse for you to grasp?

RMB:
If the singles are not consecutive then I would tend to say they're not worth as much as a HR. At least you got your slam off

(And I thought that you were a true stat guy. We are dealing with pure abstract formula here. The singles need not be consecutive, except in the real world. We are trying to assign a value for a single, double, triple, HR.)

(Bill - Walter Johnson, that's who. Had no weaknesses. Could hit, and field with any pitcher in history. What were Buck Ewing's weaknesses as a catcher. And don't tell me he played too few games. That's not a weakness AS A CATCHER. He could steal, he could hit, he could be moved around & platooned, hell, he even pitched, which showed the power in his arm. So, . . . where's his playing flaws, compared to his catching brethren? I gotta hear this one!

RMB:
Although pitchers don't field that much, he was a good fielder and hitter for a pitcher. I don't know that I'd want nine of him in the field or in the lineup. Ewing could steal (although many were stealing then) etc. but you seem to think than someone who is a batting terror couldn't possibly make up for someone who is a little more well-rounded.

(Bill - I'd sure want 5 W. Johnsons on my staff! We are comparing Ewing with his colleagues, catchers. Compare only that. And I do give credit to a batting terror. I just feel no compulsion to use them on my teams automaticly. And I certainly do not feel an obligation to recognize limited, deficient players as
"The Greatest Player Who Ever Lived". I can however accept one as the most prolific runs scorer ever. The two animals are unrelated species. A simplistic child-like understanding which has COMPLETELY eluded & baffled this site, with a few rare, enlightened exceptions.

Bill Burgess

PS. You still won't respond to my argument where I listed all of those former players, and listed how I have tracked their opinions down through the decades. In response to your accusation, that they couldn't see into the future and evaluation players with historical perspective. So now that I've shown you that they didn't need crystal balls, what say ye now?

RuthMayBond

03-08-2004, 08:35 AM

Originally posted by william_burgess@usa.net
My files do not just give one's opinions from 1925. Most person's opinions are tracked down the decades. For example. Here are some of the people and the yrs. of their opinions.

Mack:-------1931, 1938, 1941, 1942, 1947, 1950
Speaker:---1918, 1920, 1925, 1942, 1944, 1950, 1954
Collins:------1915, 1924, 1928, 1931, 1942, 1944, 1950
Hornsby:----1931, 1961, 1962
W. Johnson:1924, 1925, 1929, 1931, 1942
Ruth:---------1931, 1933, 1936, 1945, 1946
B. Rickey:----1965
C. Stengel:--1942, 1961, 1975
B. Wallace:--1917, 1954
J. Dykes:-----1942, 1950, 1965, 1967 1976
R. Faber:-----1953, 1961
H. Hooper:---1917, 1958, 1963
J. Wood:------1975, 1979, 1984
O. Bluege:----1942, 1957, 1984
T. Lyons:------1942, 1974, 1984,1985
Al Schacht:----1962, 1966
B. Wambsganss:-1932, 1966, 1985
F. Lieb:---------1938, 1961, 1970, 1977
D. Daniel:------1928, 1933, 1958, 1960, 1961, 1962
D. Baker:-------1942, 1944, 1962
R. Schalk:------1926, 1964, 1969
Ferdinand C. Lane:-1916, 1923, 1924, 1934, 1937, 1981(editor of Baseball Magazine, 1912-37)
S. Povich:------1939, 1959, 1961, 1969, 1997
F. Haney:------1929, 1938, 1961, 1964, 1975
H. Seymour:--1928, 1990
M. Huggins:---1920, 1929
E. Barrow:-----1929, 1951
H. Pennock:---1939, 1945
J. Sewell:-------1983
R. Peckinpaugh:1942, 1944, 1977
H. Jennings:----1912, 1919, 1920, 1921, 1925, 1926
C. Gehringer:---1975
D. Bush:---------1942, 1961
H. Heilmann:--1939, 1947
A. Simmons:---1928, 1942, 1944, 1953
B. Miller:-------1942, 1961
C. Comiskey:--1910, 1919, 1930
C. Griffith:------1918, 1921, 1942
T. Yawkey:-----1933, 1945, 1959, 1961
T. Connolly:----1950, 1953, 1954
B. Evans:-------1926, 1942
G. Moriarty:----1930, 1934
J. McCarthy:----1937, 1940, 1950

So, your often-repeated wail, that one can't evaluate another in that moment, is now, officially, disarmed. You are precisely why I posted opinions down the decades.

If I had only supplied late quotes, you would have attacked with, "They had forgotten that which they saw." If I had only supplied early quotes, you would have attacked with, "They knew not the historical perspective." So now that both of your complaints are very well covered indeed, your outlandish dismissal of peers opinions stands revealed as the invalid whine it always was! Yes?!

RMB:
No. Most of your dates are STILL 1961 or before, and I don't know how much these guys watched baseball after they retired
Let's take a look at walks. AL walk leaders in '11 had 98, in '12 had 117, in '13 had 99, in '14 had 112, in '15 had 86, in '16 had 110, in '17 had 94, in '18 had 84, and in '19 had 105. Starting in '20, anyone OTHER than Ruth only had 97 in '20, 103 in '21, 89 in '22, 98 in '23, 102 in '24, 90 in '25. So I don't see an AMAZING increase in walks right at 1920.

RuthMayBond

03-08-2004, 08:43 AM

Originally posted by william_burgess@usa.net
RMB:
If the singles are not consecutive then I would tend to say they're not worth as much as a HR. At least you got your slam off

(And I thought that you were a true stat guy. We are dealing with pure abstract formula here. The singles need not be consecutive, except in the real world. We are trying to assign a value for a single, double, triple, HR.)

RMB:
Well, then another of your presuppositions is wrong. If we're talking random singles, no four aren't worth a HR. A HR GUARANTEES AT LEAST one run, a single guarantees NOTHING.

(Bill - Walter Johnson, that's who. Had no weaknesses. Could hit, and field with any pitcher in history. What were Buck Ewing's weaknesses as a catcher. And don't tell me he played too few games. That's not a weakness AS A CATCHER. He could steal, he could hit, he could be moved around & platooned, hell, he even pitched, which showed the power in his arm. So, . . . where's his playing flaws, compared to his catching brethren? I gotta hear this one!

(Bill - I'd sure want 5 W. Johnsons on my staff! We are comparing Ewing with his colleagues, catchers.

I'm just about getting to catchers' GG from Ewing's era. I'd like to see how that turns out. I don't think I have Ewing as winning any hypothetical MVPs/Best Position Players, but let's see.

Retire21

03-08-2004, 09:07 AM

Those who saw my post elsewhere in this site would already know my choice, but it is of course Joe DiMaggio.
I tend to gage the greatness of a ballplayer on more than just stats. Facts stand as my evidence and here are a few:

1-During his time in the majors, the Yanks won 9 World Series titles, second only to the number Yogi had.

2-(For the stat freaks) Dimag's HR/SO ratio is well documented at just under 1.

3-Anyone who played with Dimag or saw him play would admit that he was a true leader on the field and in the clubhouse, a sure sign of a winner and great player.

4-TED WILLIAMS called Joe the "greatest player I ever saw"

5-The Streak (nuff said)

RuthMayBond

03-08-2004, 09:09 AM

Originally posted by Retire21
Those who saw my post elsewhere in this site would already know my choice, but it is of course Joe DiMaggio.
I tend to gage the greatness of a ballplayer on more than just stats. Facts stand as my evidence and here are a few:

1-During his time in the majors, the Yanks won 9 World Series titles, second only to the number Yogi had.

2-(For the stat freaks) Dimag's HR/SO ratio is well documented at just under 1.

3-Anyone who played with Dimag or saw him play would admit that he was a true leader on the field and in the clubhouse, a sure sign of a winner and great player.

4-TED WILLIAMS called Joe the "greatest player I ever saw"

5-The Streak (nuff said)

So you're obviously talking peak value?

Zeth

03-08-2004, 01:23 PM

Bill, I'm a little short on time to post right now but I'll write what I can here...

As for singles vs. home runs, I found something interesting. Bill James uses a pretty effective "leadoff man formula" to predict runs scored (I noticed this while reading the NHBA last night, in the Topsy Hartsel comment). He multiplies times on first base by .35 and home runs by 1, meaning he acknowledges that singles are 40% more valuable than home runs.

BUT -- this is only in the context of predicting runs scored. It has nothing to do with RBI or moving baserunners. In that context, 4 singles definitely would be 40% more valuable than 1 home run (because of being on base), and in that context walks and singles are equal in value.

But let's think this through like this. Let's take a given situation... say, runner on second. If you bat four times with a runner on second, and hit four singles, you'll score that runner one or two times -- let's say you get 1.5 RBI out of that. If you hit one home run and make three outs instead, you'll get 2 RBI. So in that particular situation, 1 home run is slightly better than 4 singles -- in the context of expected RBI.

The rest of the possible scenarios are easy to imagine. Basically, if a runner is on 3rd, 4 singles is much better than 1 home run, and if there isn't anyone on 3rd, the home run is better than the 4 singles, when it comes to RBI. On balance, you'll probably drive in more runs hitting homers than hitting singles.

When it comes to scoring runs, as I noted about, 4 singles is considerably better.

When it comes to moving baserunners, 4 singles is slightly better, but not much, since obviously a home run moves baserunners all the way home.

So to me, that puts them pretty close to even. BUT, there's something else we haven't considered -- outs. Which is better -- batting 500 times in a season and hitting .400 with 200 singles, or hitting .100 with 50 home runs? Well, hitting .400 is better, considerably better, because you are making a LOT fewer outs that way.

So I agree with you there. 3.15 singles = 1 home run seems reasonable to me.

As for walks, we are never going to agree on that. Two points concerning walks pre-1920:

First, making walks twice as valuable before 1920 is just not equitable or justifiable. Just because they were less common does not mean they were more (or less) valuable. It just means the game has changed. It makes it seem as if you're pulling the numbers to help Cobb out, and your argument is probably more effective without doing that. You are not going to convince anybody of Ty Cobb's superiority by looking at walks. You're going to have to convince us Cobb was better despite Ruth's huge advantage in OBP. Cobb's OBP looks somewhat better when compared to his peers, but even doing that, Ruth laps him.

Second, it's interesting that you choose 1920 as the cut-off point when walks exploded. You're acknowledging that the whole reason this happened is because Babe Ruth was so good that he changed the way the game is played -- he made everyone perceive the benefits of not swinging at pitches outside the strike zone, and of uppercutting.

As for Ruth's fielding and baserunning... well, you've done a lot of reading of contemporary accounts. You can read anywhere that Ruth was a fine fielder before he got old. I don't think I have to qualify that further, do I?

As for his baserunning, Ruth was, again before he got old, not slow -- he was never fast, of course, but he wasn't slow. Again, I'd like to see you find some witness accounts that remark on how slow Babe Ruth was, pre-1930 or so. Slower than Cobb, sure, just about everyone was slower than Cobb. But he was adequate on the bases, not immobile like Ernie Lombardi or somebody.

RMB:

Re: Honus Wagner's defense. The win shares analysis of defense... well, let me establish its credibility first. It rates Clete Boyer #1 all time among third baseman, just a hair ahead of Brooks Robinson. It ranks Bill Mazeroski #1 among second basemen, ahead of guys like Frank White, Joe Gordon, and others that obviously were among the best defensive 2Bs ever.

Among shortstops, the system ranks Honus Wagner #1 all time, defensively, followed by Marty Marion and Ozzie Smith. This is why he's among the greatest players ever -- Wagner combines Ozzie Smith's defense with Alex Rodriguez's offense. You certainly wouldn't find anything in the literature of the game to suggest the win shares analysis is wrong about this. Wagner was a defensive marvel, to be sure.

RuthMayBond

03-08-2004, 02:05 PM

Originally posted by Zeth
he acknowledges that singles are 40% more valuable than home runs.

RMB:
I think you'll wanna correct this :laugh:

Re: Honus Wagner's defense. The win shares analysis of defense... well, let me establish its credibility first. It rates Clete Boyer #1 all time among third baseman, just a hair ahead of Brooks Robinson. It ranks Bill Mazeroski #1 among second basemen, ahead of guys like Frank White, Joe Gordon, and others that obviously were among the best defensive 2Bs ever.

Among shortstops, the system ranks Honus Wagner #1 all time, defensively, followed by Marty Marion and Ozzie Smith. This is why he's among the greatest players ever -- Wagner combines Ozzie Smith's defense with Alex Rodriguez's offense. You certainly wouldn't find anything in the literature of the game to suggest the win shares analysis is wrong about this. Wagner was a defensive marvel, to be sure.

RMB:
Then he must have played behind a staff of flyball pitchers

Zeth

03-08-2004, 02:16 PM

Yeah, heh, obviously what that means is 4 singles > 1 home run.

And Wagner did play behind a fly ball staff.

catcher24

03-08-2004, 07:39 PM

I simply cannot agree that a walk post 1920 is only half as valuable as a walk pre 1920. I put together an Excel spreadsheet and discovered the following (American League statistics):

Years Total Walks Total Innings Walks per Game

1901-1905 13454 51120 2.37
1906-1910 14755 55143.7 2.41
1911-1915 19226 55215.7 3.13
1916-1920 18309 52728.7 3.13
1921-1925 20270 54947.7 3.32
1926-1930 20107 54692.3 3.31
1931-1935 22081 54743.3 3.63

The largest percentage increase between five year periods occurs from 06-10 to 11-15. This is over a 30% increase in walks per game. The rate remains steady through 16-20 (actually decreases .28%), then takes another jump of 6.24% for the period 21-25. Another small decrease of .34% for 26-30. Finally, an increase of 9.72% from 31-35. It should be noted that walks per game from 1896-1900 were about 2.94 per game. It appears that the period from 1901 to 1910 inclusive, when the walk totals are so low, is an anomaly. Walk totals prior to and subsequent to that period were higher. Also, the biggest jump certainly comes from 1911-1915. If any adjustment were to be made, it should be made only for the period 1901-1910. Walk totals actually DECREASED per nine innings from 1926-1930, when Babe Ruth and his cohorts were at their peak. The biggest jump, as mentioned, occurs from 1911-1915, during Ty Cobb's prime years. Perhaps we should adjust Mr. Cobb's walk value downward to reflect this. I see no reason to halve the value of walks after 1920 and believe this is an erroneous conclusion.

In addition, I looked at league leaders in walks from 1900 to 1935. The only totals way out of line belong to Babe Ruth. If you look at the second place finisher to Ruth, in each instance that individual's total is completely in line with the other leaders during this period. I would explain that the same way I explain Barry Bonds' incredible totals - the pitchers simply did not want to pitch to him ! Should there be an adjustment every time a once in a lifetime hitter comes along and scares pitchers to death? I don't think so.

Zeth

03-08-2004, 07:45 PM

Excellent study there, catcher24. Thanks. And let us not forget that, while pitchers today walk Barry Bonds to get to Benito Santiago or Jose Cruz or Marquis Grissom, pitchers were walking Babe Ruth to get to Lou Gehrig, much of Ruth's career.

That said, it obviously wasn't only that pitchers were afraid of Ruth. It was also that Ruth had unparalleled plate discipline, far above anyone else in his day.

RuthMayBond

03-08-2004, 08:37 PM

Originally posted by Zeth
And Wagner did play behind a fly ball staff.

Just curious how this was verified

RuthMayBond

03-08-2004, 08:39 PM

Originally posted by catcher24
I simply cannot agree that a walk post 1920 is only half as valuable as a walk pre 1920. I put together an Excel spreadsheet and discovered the following (American League statistics):

Years Total Walks Total Innings Walks per Game

1901-1905 13454 51120 2.37
1906-1910 14755 55143.7 2.41
1911-1915 19226 55215.7 3.13
1916-1920 18309 52728.7 3.13
1921-1925 20270 54947.7 3.32
1926-1930 20107 54692.3 3.31
1931-1935 22081 54743.3 3.63

The largest percentage increase between five year periods occurs from 06-10 to 11-15. This is over a 30% increase in walks per game. The rate remains steady through 16-20 (actually decreases .28%), then takes another jump of 6.24% for the period 21-25. Another small decrease of .34% for 26-30. Finally, an increase of 9.72% from 31-35. It should be noted that walks per game from 1896-1900 were about 2.94 per game. It appears that the period from 1901 to 1910 inclusive, when the walk totals are so low, is an anomaly. Walk totals prior to and subsequent to that period were higher. Also, the biggest jump certainly comes from 1911-1915. If any adjustment were to be made, it should be made only for the period 1901-1910. Walk totals actually DECREASED per nine innings from 1926-1930, when Babe Ruth and his cohorts were at their peak. The biggest jump, as mentioned, occurs from 1911-1915, during Ty Cobb's prime years. Perhaps we should adjust Mr. Cobb's walk value downward to reflect this. I see no reason to halve the value of walks after 1920 and believe this is an erroneous conclusion.

In addition, I looked at league leaders in walks from 1900 to 1935. The only totals way out of line belong to Babe Ruth. If you look at the second place finisher to Ruth, in each instance that individual's total is completely in line with the other leaders during this period. I would explain that the same way I explain Barry Bonds' incredible totals - the pitchers simply did not want to pitch to him ! Should there be an adjustment every time a once in a lifetime hitter comes along and scares pitchers to death? I don't think so.

Yeah but who needs stats? We have eyewitnesses who knew that Ruth's walks were less valuable

Bill Burgess

03-08-2004, 09:21 PM

RMB, Zeth, Catcher22,

Well, I like what all of you had to say but let's actually go over your stuff and see what we will see.

Zeth:
So I agree with you there. 3.15 singles = 1 home run seems reasonable to me.
(Bill - Thank you. I'm not sure RMB is quite the Ninja StatMaster, concering linear weights. I KNOW I'm not. But hey guys! Please cut me some slack. I'm trying to dip my little toe in the statpool and if I fumble the ball, bear with me. This is all new to me.)

Zeth:
As for walks, we are never going to agree on that. Two points concerning walks pre-1920:

First, making walks twice as valuable before 1920 is just not equitable or justifiable. Just because they were less common does not mean they were more (or less) valuable. It just means the game has changed. It makes it seem as if you're pulling the numbers to help Cobb out, and your argument is probably more effective without doing that. You are not going to convince anybody of Ty Cobb's superiority by looking at walks. You're going to have to convince us Cobb was better despite Ruth's huge advantage in OBP. Cobb's OBP looks somewhat better when compared to his peers, but even doing that, Ruth laps him.

Second, it's interesting that you choose 1920 as the cut-off point when walks exploded. You're acknowledging that the whole reason this happened is because Babe Ruth was so good that he changed the way the game is played -- he made everyone perceive the benefits of not swinging at pitches outside the strike zone, and of uppercutting.

(Bill - Catcher22, I hope you're listening up here as well. Let's talk walks. I realize after seeing Catcher's good piece that my figure of 2.0 on a timeline for walks is frankly a little crazy. I hadn't thought it out. But I still insist we need a timeline adjustment. Just not my proposed figure. Catcher's figures are all easily explained. Allow me.

1890-1900 had high walks. That makes sense. They had no foul ball/strike rule. Which created high BA.

1900-10. When they introduced the foul ball rule for 1902, the pitchers stats got way great, and hitting hit the bottom for the decade. This accounts for Wagner's best stats in '00, and Lajoie's .422 BA in '01. So ML BB had it's worst offensive drought in it's history from '02-10.

1910-19. In the '10 WS, they secretly introduced the cork center to the ball, whereas it had been a small rubber ball. Offense took off for 3-4 yrs. and then leveled out, and no one ever figured out why. So walks would jump as hitters were perceived as a little more dangerous to pitch to.

1919-29. The yarn being stronger, they could wind it tighter. During the war, there had been complaints that the ball got mishapen as the games went into the late innings. The new ball was used in '19, not '20 as commonly supposed.)

As for Ruth's fielding and baserunning... well, you've done a lot of reading of contemporary accounts. You can read anywhere that Ruth was a fine fielder before he got old. I don't think I have to qualify that further, do I?

Zeth:
"As for his baserunning, Ruth was, again before he got old, not slow -- he was never fast, of course, but he wasn't slow. Again, I'd like to see you find some witness accounts that remark on how slow Babe Ruth was, pre-1930 or so. Slower than Cobb, sure, just about everyone was slower than Cobb. But he was adequate on the bases, not immobile like Ernie Lombardi or somebody."

(Bill - Babe Ruth a fine fielder? Well, his reviews were a little more mixed than that, Zeth. Even when he was young and svelte at Boston, he was never a speed freak. On his behalf, one can say that his attitude was always good and positive. He tried as hard as his abilities allowed him to try. He did judge hitters well, and he did get a quick break on the ball. But a quick break and catching up with the hard ones are not the same thing. He was always played in the field with the smallest territory, and I just can't square that with fine fielding. . . After 1925, when he was only 30 yrs. old, Babe was fielding like an old OF. He just couldn't cover the ground. You asked for a reference as to that effect. So here is just one, concerning his fielding & running. And bear in mind, this is in 1923, before he ballooned out in his gut.

(Bill - You asked for 1 reference on Babe being a slow fielder, I'll provide 2.

1923 - "Babe Ruth is unquestionably the greatest drawing card in baseball. The impress of his personality on baseball is the most powerful and dramatic. Whether in success or failure, Babe monopolizes the spot light and he is unquestionably the golden magnet of the box office. But is he the greatest player? No, not by the length of many homers. His huge bulk prohibits speed on the bases or in the field. Babe is fast for his size, but that lets him out. Furthermore his fielding at best is fair, if not mediocre. A great pitcher in his day, he is still the greatest of sluggers, but not the greatest of all round players. (Baseball Magazine, June, 1923, pp. 291, column 1, "Who is the Greatest Player in Baseball?" by Ferdinand C. Lane, pp. 291-292, 324) Article claims: 1. Sisler 2. Hornsby)

1924 - "Babe Ruth is baseball's greatest drawing card. His all round value, considering his terrific hitting, is perhaps unequaled. But Babe will never see the day when he ranks with Pep Youngs as an outfielder, taking into consideration only the playing of that important position. Ruth knows batters and he plays them correctly. He can camp under a high fly as well as the next man. He has one of the greatest throwing arms ever seen in the outfield. But when you have said this, you have said it all. Babe is rather clumsy. He isn't specially fast. He's not a great outfielder. Pep Youngs is all these things, and he also has a whip as deadly as a rifle. (Baseball Magazine, June, 1924, pp. 307, Comprising interview with Ross Youngs by F.C. Lane)

(Bill - I think if you glance at Babe's running record, you'll agree that he should not have been allowed to run. Ever. And if you don't believe me, here are Babe's SB record, beginning with '20.
14-14, 17-13, 2-5, 17-21, 9-13, 2-4, 11-9, 7-6, 4-5, 5-3, 10-10, 5-4, 2-2, 4-5, 1-3. That's it up to 1935. Zeth. That is just god-awful. If there was ever a worst record for running in BB's history, I don't want to know who it was. Look at those again. Would you let him run if you were manager. Huggins probably gave up trying to stop him. That % of running loses games.
Even if Babe had a little lead, & got a quick break, the guy just couldn't build up a top-end speed to make stealing work for him. And he shoulda been flagged. No?

Bill Burgess

Bill Burgess

03-08-2004, 09:39 PM

Catcher21,

I like your work a lot. And so I'm retreating on my figure of 2.0 timeline adjustment. But I will not retreat on the need for an historical timeline adjustment. Just no perhaps times 2. I have presented this graph below several times, and it's always ignored. It depicks the leading sluggers pre and post 1919. To say that only BR's walks are out of line is simply not accurate as the below graph reveals. The 7 pre 1919 sluggers, and they WERE the sluggers of BB in their primes, can barely crack 90 walks per season. While the post '19 sluggers are cruising along around 105 and up. I most emphaticly DO NOT attribute this to BR. Not in the least. It shold be so obvious to even the newest neophite that it is attributed to the lively ball. In its entirety. Exclusively.

Lajoie:-----60, 47, 35, 33
Wagner:---67, 66, 59, 59,
Cobb:------118, 85, 78, 66, 65 (85, 66, 65 were all post '20)
Crawford:--69, 66, 61, 52, 50
Brouthers:--99, 87, 84, 1, 68
Delehanty:--86, 77, 65, 62
Cravath:-----86, 83, 70, 64, 55

Now, look at post '20.

Ruth:--------170, 148, 144, 144, 140
Gehrig:------132, 130, 122, 122, 117
Foxx:---------119,116, 114, 111
Greenberg:--119, 104, 102, 93, 91

Yes, Babe Ruth had higher walk totals than anyone else in the 20's. Why did he achieve that. Because he was the greatest slugger that BB has yet produced. This I've been repeating since 1959. I am not the anti-Ruth. But it is just as obvious that the large number of walks that Gehrig, Foxx, Greenberg, DiMag, Wilson, Klein, etc. were able to post, plainly show the results of the lively ball.

You have not been able to show why the league leaders in walks from 1900-19, are so drasticly, dramaticly, & desperately lowere than the league leaders from '20-38 were able to ring up. I suspect that the ball was deadened somewhere around '38, since all offensive stats fell off so unaccountably after '38. If it wasn't the live ball, which '19 wasn't available, what is your personal theory as to why these numbers exist. So far, you've shown some good work, but you haven't answered the questions I've raised in the least. But you have shown me that my figure was ridiculous, but the need for a timeline adustment with regards to walks hasn't even been addrressed yet. Let's try again. I'd really like to get these questions resolved, once & for all.

Were 20's pitchers scared to death of Ruth or the "stitched golf ball"? Would they have been "scared to death" if Ruth had been hitting at the old ball? Hardly. As a pitcher, he was hitting 2-4 HRs per his 40 games as a pitcher. Only difference. Old ball. Or do you have a theory to cover why he couldn't hit so many HRs until '19, when the new ball came in and changed all the rules.

Bill Burgess

Bill Burgess

03-08-2004, 09:47 PM

RMB,

"Yeah but who needs stats? We have eyewitnesses who knew that Ruth's walks were less valuable."

RMB. Perhaps we could live without the sarcasm. The eywitnesses were not the question. The stats prove the premise.

The eyewitnesses merely proved that Ty Cobb was the greatest, most amazing and best baseball player the the sport ever produced, while Ruth was the greatest slugger, and perhaps most prolific runs producer. But that last title will have to await until RetroSheet can find Extra Bases Taken.

But your sarcasm discounting all of BB, doesn't help push the debate along. Insulting Mack & McGraw, after I've given you your respect, isn't showing off your smarts.

Bill Burgess

csh19792001

03-08-2004, 10:17 PM

"iro·ny" Etymology: Latin ironia, from Greek eirOnia, from eirOn dissembler- 2 a : the use of words to express something other than and especially the opposite of the literal meaning. 3 a (1) : incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result (2) : an event or result marked by such incongruity

From Dave Kent's (actually, Branch Rickey's article- and all Branch Rickey's ideas)....

"Statistics, of course, cannot tell the whole story. They fall short of bridging the gap between human expectancy and fulfillment. They cannot measure such intangibles as intelligence, courage, disposition, effort."

Yes, Branch, along with many of the other things that happen during a game, a season, and a career.

;)

Bill Burgess

03-08-2004, 10:20 PM

Zeth,

Where did you ever hear that the Babe was possessed of any plate discipline? I'd really like to hear the quotes.

From everything I've read, the pitchers feared what the Babe might do with the live ball, same with Foxx, Gehrig, Greenberg, Wilson, but to a lesser degree.

Babe swung at almost ANYTHING remotely near the plate. That was why he was always striking out.

He was once asked what kind of balls he hit for homers, and in his child-like manner, said, "Bad balls. They won't throw me anything good to hit". He swung, because if he didn't, he would have walked much more, and the fans would have booed much more. Babe hated to hear booing, so he tried to give his fans the show they came for. And that's to his credit. Plus, they weren't trying to get to Gehrig. But in trying to pitch to Babe, they ended up pitching too fine, and he got walks, but not intentionally.

Bill Burgess

RuthMayBond

03-09-2004, 07:52 AM

Originally posted by william_burgess@usa.net
Perhaps we could live without the sarcasm. The eywitnesses were not the question.

RMB:
Perhaps we could live without you throwing out things like pre-1920 walks should be counted twice as much, since you've already had to retreat from that one.

The eyewitnesses merely proved that Ty Cobb was the greatest, most amazing and best baseball player the the sport ever produced

RMB:
It seems you use the word "prove" more than Bill James does.

Insulting Mack & McGraw, after I've given you your respect, isn't showing off your smarts.

RMB:
Um, WHERE did I do this?

RuthMayBond

03-09-2004, 07:55 AM

Originally posted by william_burgess@usa.net
Zeth,

Where did you ever hear that the Babe was possessed of any plate discipline? I'd really like to hear the quotes.

From everything I've read, the pitchers feared what the Babe might do with the live ball, same with Foxx, Gehrig, Greenberg, Wilson, but to a lesser degree.

Babe swung at almost ANYTHING remotely near the plate. That was why he was always striking out.

This is what gets me. Babe is criticized for being impatient about not getting strikes and striking out. Barry is criticized for not swinging at anything and getting walks

Bill Burgess

03-09-2004, 08:17 AM

RMB,
"Yeah but who needs stats? We have eyewitnesses who knew that Ruth's walks were less valuable."

(Bill - Perhaps we could live without the sarcasm.)

Insulting Mack & McGraw, after I've given you your respect, isn't showing off your smarts.

RMB:
Um, WHERE did I do this?

(Bill - You did that when you said, "Yeah but who needs stats? We have eyewitnesses who knew that Ruth's walks were less valuable." Now I realize perfectly well that you were being playfully tongue in cheek. But it doesn't serve our purposes to sling cheap shots at eyewitnesses (Mack & McGraw).

RMB:
Perhaps we could live without you throwing out things like pre-1920 walks should be counted twice as much, since you've already had to retreat from that one.

(Bill - Yeah, well, so what? Not the 1st time I've thrown out jack-ass SUGGESTIONS (NOT impositions) and had to beat a hasty retreat with my tail between my legs. Probably not the last. At least I'm trying to be creative. And you should realize that linear weights are NOT my forte. I'm trying to make myself comfortable with these crazy damn numbers and at least I had the common sense and humility to retreat from an untenable postion, when logic is pointed out to me. Doesnt' humility count for something around here? I've always shown the ability to back up and have a reverse gear when I've stuck my leg down my throat! You need to learn the same, RMB. But I still hold to my position that an historical timeline is requird for walks, with regards to pre and post lively ball era, and I showed you the graph of those sluggers.

Bill Burgess

RuthMayBond

03-09-2004, 08:23 AM

Originally posted by william_burgess@usa.net
Insulting Mack & McGraw, after I've given you your respect, isn't showing off your smarts.

RMB:
Um, WHERE did I do this?

(Bill - You did that when you said, "Yeah but who needs stats? We have eyewitnesses who knew that Ruth's walks were less valuable." Now I realize perfectly well that you were being playfully tongue in cheek. But it doesn't serve our purposes to sling cheap shots at eyewitnesses (Mack & McGraw).

RMB:
I wasn't slinging cheap shots at Mack & McGraw so much as disputing your claim about doubling walks.

(Bill - Yeah, well, so what? Not the 1st time I've thrown out jack-ass SUGGESTIONS (NOT impositions) and had to beat a hasty retreat with my tail between my lets. Probably not the last. At least I'm trying to be creative. And you should realize that linear weights are NOT my forte. I'm trying to make myself comfortable with these crazy damn numbers and at least I had the common sense and humility to retreat from an untenable postion, when logic is pointed out to me. Doesnt' humility count for something around here? I've always shown the ability to back up and have a reverse gear when I've stuck my leg down my throat! You need to learn the same, RMB.

I do give you credit for retreating, but perhaps you'd have more credibility if you wouldn't throw out these crazy things in the first place? It makes it harder to trust you on other stuff. So it's being called "creativity" nowadays?

RuthMayBond

03-09-2004, 09:12 AM

Originally posted by william_burgess@usa.net

Where did you ever hear that the Babe was possessed of any plate discipline? I'd really like to hear the quotes.
From everything I've read, the pitchers feared what the Babe might do with the live ball, same with Foxx, Gehrig, Greenberg, Wilson, but to a lesser degree.

Babe swung at almost ANYTHING remotely near the plate. That was why he was always striking out.

I have been letting you guys get away with too much. Someone mentioned earlier that Ruth led the league with 95 Ks in 1918. Not sure where they got that from. I read that Ruth had plate discipline in where else, stat books :laugh Ruth LED the league in walks ELEVEN times. Now Ruth was "always" striking out but Total Baseball 7 says he led the league in striking out. baseball-reference.com says he did, but Foxx also led SEVEN times.

Appling

03-09-2004, 10:14 AM

Originally posted by william_burgess@usa.net
Zeth,

Where did you ever hear that the Babe was possessed of any plate discipline?

Babe swung at almost ANYTHING remotely near the plate. That was why he was always striking out.

He was once asked what kind of balls he hit for homers, and in his child-like manner, said, "Bad balls. They won't throw me anything good to hit".

Bill Burgess

How can the hitter with the second-highest OBP of all time be accused of "poor plate discipline"? I can understand his frustration after not getting many good pitches to hit, but Ruth got record numbers of walks because he knew the strike zone.

Sure, he often led the lead in strikeouts -- but only because he was one of the first to dare take a full swing. Other hitters just tried to make contact, especially with two strikes. Ruth was able to maintain a high lifetime BA (.342) despite his daring to take a "full swing" on almost every pitch.

Bill Burgess

03-09-2004, 04:33 PM

Zeth,

This is Tuesday, March 9. Last Saturday I posted this message & was hoping to get your always thoughtful, measured response. So I've re-posted it with the hope you will address my arguments directly. So often my posts are deflected and only addressed in a token way. So below is the Saturday post.

Beautiful post. I do appreciate the way you post with relaxed, cordial, thoughtful prose. You manage to say in few words, what requires me many long-winded sermons. And sadly, this one will probably be no different.

If you weren't such a moderate, pensive, nice guy, I'd probably not try to influence you so much. But I do believe that you have missed some of my most incisively critical points. And strangely enough, points on your own turf, stats. So let us begin. I will re-print your remarks, so we have context.

Zeth:
"Chris, I have read the threads you listed, most of them, anyway; I have pretty limited time, and I read what I can when I can. I respect your great abundance of arguments relating to on-field performance. You have convinced me that Cobb probably was the second greatest player ever... well, I may still lean toward Willie Mays on that, but Cobb certainly is right there.
(Bill - Fair enough. No complaints here.)

Zeth:
"You and Bill have done an admirable job of presenting your arguments, and certainly I'm still listening. I still believe Ruth was the greatest ever, because the combined weight of his OBP and SLG -- even after adjusting as best we can for his era and park -- are so overwhelming, and I do believe hitting is more important than running or defense. That's another critical thing right there --

(Bill - Here is the critical point that I've been a failure at having you focus on. We too agree that hitting must be paramount in our analysis also. But you have overlooked a salient, all-important point, that makes all the difference, Zeth. We have been begging this thread, (and you by extension) to focus on walks & their distortion of OBP. OBP before & after 1919 are so bent out of shape, that they scream for an historical timeline adjustment. Walks pre-1919 have 2 times the value. After 1919, half the value. The same pitchers pitching to the same hitters are giving them MANY more walks. Is this not obvious? Pre-1919, the most feared sluggers (Brouthers, Delahanty, Lajoie, Cobb, Wagner, Cravath, Crawford), were averaging 40-70 walks per season. But sluggers post-1919 were averaging 80-150 (Ruth, Gehrig, Foxx, Greenberg, DiMag). And it was most definitely NOT because they were built better, were stronger men, looked meaner, or anything else. They probably could not bench press any more weight, could beat them in an arm wrestle, were taller, heavier, or anything other than had a more resilient ball, cleaner balls, no trick pitchers to flutter up to the plate, etc.

In my above posts, I've shown the actual number of walks both groups got. Cobb actully was walked more after the age of 33, during the 20's than when he was in his prime. Does that tell you anything. And it wasn't due to improved plate discipline, better eyesight, etc. It was because he could do more damage with a livelier ball.

So I hope you will focus on OBP, with this in mind. OBP, without an historical timeline adjustment is bogus, skews stats beyond fair recognition, and makes post '19 heavy hitters look like a different species of hitters, when they were not. They weren't super-hitters. Merely the priveleged recipients of unfair stat illusions.

Different issue. How is it that not one Babe Ruth supporter had questioned the creation of a timeline adjustment to make modern players "APPEAR" better than the numbers show them to be? Not a peep. Am I surprised? No, be discouraged and disillusioned. This group should have been in the vanguard as keepers of the Flame of BB Justice.)

Zeth:
"I see that you (and Bill) have convinced some people that running and defense are, in themselves, as important or more important than hitting. That, I'm not convinced of and doubt I ever will be. It's the weight I give to hitting that causes me to list Ruth as #1."

(Bill - We also give hitting precedence over fielding & running. It's your treatment of hitting stats where we part company. I've shown above that OBP and timeline adjustment are bogus, and the jack doesn't end there, Zeth. Noooooo, not by a long HR. I notice that whereever there is an opportunity to falsify the numbers by the co-efficients, it's always the same. Great multiplyers for Babe & HR hitters. Negligible, miniscual, infintestimal ones for pre- 1919 players. Examples?

Dave Kent told me that since running was more pronounced before 1919, Bill James gave them a multiplyer of .0000000001 advantage for before 1919, for SB. I'm exgaggerating, of course, but not by a lot. James was merely creating smoke to make it appear that he understood the paramount importance of running before and after live ball. Real big of him. Let's move on before I throw up.

Bill James also gives a very low numerical value to SB. You won't protest that, Zeth. Why not?

Bill James refuses to acknowlege that a HR is not worth 4.0 singles. Or same for triples or doubles. Linear weights are accepted in the entire stat community except for the man who created the modern stat revolution. Why? Same thing for indexing all stats to league ave. and park effects. The man who taught us that to not do that is to become irrelevant. And the first man to render his own work irrelevant is it's creator.

And where was the commotion? Where was the protest? Did Zeth see the Emporer had no clothes? Did Dave Kent? Did RBM, 4 Tool Player, ElHalo, Depstein? Of course not. Why? Because you can't critique or debate or object or protest a system which you don't understand!!!! So, the followers have followed the Leader right over the cliff.

No indexing, no linear weights, accept timeline adjustment, keep using OBP with its skewed walks, keep using neglible co-efficients for measuring pre-1919 game which depended on SB, bunts, hit & run, etc, etc, etc. So often, you fail to index career SLG, OBP, BA. etc. It becomes such a French farce.

And you guys were supposed to be the Keepers of the Flame of BB Truth & Justice. Were supposed to be able to turn our backs and know all was well. You were supposed to have our backs. What happened? Were we too naive? Too gullible? Too innocent?

This was supposed to be your very own terrain. Not ours. Yet even we can see the discrepantcies, betrayals of trust, etc.

Zeth:
"I don't sneeze at defense or running; they're important. But take a team of the nine greatest defensive players in history, and give them average hitting, average running and average pitching (ignoring the players' own skills at everything except defense). Run that team for 162 games under any conditions you like. Then take a team of the nine greatest baserunners in history, and give them average hitting, pitching and defense. Run that team for 1623.

Then get the nine best hitters at each position and give them average running, pitching and defense, and do the same. I think you would find that the hitters would come out on top, by far.

(Bill - We agree. But your analogy stops short of OUR argument. We field a team of world class hitters, who were also world class fielders & world class runners.

The modern team, which consists of Ruth, Williams, Gehrig, are all fine until they take the field. And I don't know how many times I've seen bothe WS and all-star games lost due to fielding errors, mental errors, sloppy running, bad bunting gone awry, etc. Even Babe Ruth once talked about how re-assured he felt knowing that Speaker backed him up in '15, and Lewis & Hooper for a few more seasons. If you discount state-of-the-Art fielding, just ask a pitcher, how valuable that is to winning. It's paramount to a pitchers ERA. And they will all tell you that.

Ultimately, your above analysis is false. We give no tolerance to average fielding, average hitting or average running. We insist on a team that has all it's strengths intact. That's why we insist on players without ANY weaknesses. Cobb, Wagner, Sisler, Ewing, Johnson, Speaker, Mays, Schmidt. Everyone was world class across the board. No strange gloves, no one who was thrown out as often as they were safe, no bad bunters, all could pull the trigger with the greatest of ease. Even Sisler, who many accuse of being a "singles hitter", came in 2nd to Babe in HRs in '20 (George had 19), and he came 2nd in HRs again in '19.

So, how can you accuse us of lowering the standards? Where have we failed. Cobb won 8 SLG. titles ( and came in 2nd 3 times, 3rd, 3 times, & 4th once). So where have we skimped on out hitting obligations? I'm beyond mystefied. I'm flabberghasted!

Since you've suggested that Chris or I have neglected our responsibilities for fielding a state-of-the-Art team in some abstract manner, I really need to know how you justify your assertion. Please, show us our errors. Where did we screw it up? Because we can't see it. We must be blind cause it escapes our radar.)

Zeth:
"So, to recap: Your research and debating are certainly quite excellent, and I've learned absolutely a ton of stuff I didn't know before. I still think Ruth is #1, because I still think hitting is more important than you do, and because Ruth in his prime was a good fielder and at least an adequate runner.

(Bill - Fair enough. Now you must justify your words. I don't think anyone rates hitting more important than I or Chris, which is why we load our teams with only world class guys. Can you show me "by the numbers, how Babe is a GOOD fielder, and an ADEQUATE runner. Please show me that by the numbers, if you'd be so kind.)

Not that Ty Cobb wasn't a great hitter; he was one of the best hitters in history, even independent of his other contributions. But again, Ruth is so far ahead of everybody else that it more than makes up the difference. I don't see my opinion on that changing, but I know you won't let that discourage you."

(Bill - Now let me be clear. I have no problems with those who rate Babe #1. But let's do it fairly. Whenever I disagree, every single poster requires me to show them why, by the numbers. So please show me "by the numbers", why OBP is not bogus. (if you'd be so good as to break this down, paragraph by paragraph, item by item, we'd see where we divurge.

Me. Not discourged. (Wink) You just have no idea.

Bill Burgess

PS. On re-reading this, Zeth, I can see that's it's way too intense. Please forgive the tone. I like you as a poster, and I just get way too out there when I'm in the midst of a post. I just fire away too quickly. But the content is right on, I think. Why wouldn't I? I wrote it. So please take no note of my style, just my content, OK? Thanks, Bill

Bill Burgess

03-09-2004, 05:12 PM

RMB,

"I do give you credit for retreating, but perhaps you'd have more credibility if you wouldn't throw out these crazy things in the first place? It makes it harder to trust you on other stuff. So it's being called "creativity" nowadays?"

(Bill - My credibility? What credibility? Every time I post, you chisel away at my every offering, demanding "good objective evidence". As far as I'm concerned, you can damn my credibility. I've found that reputation is a great hindrance.

Now, whenever I try to contribute, everyone's looking for ulterior Cobb motives. If I re-registered under a psudonym, at least my theories would have an open ear. I'm now known as Cobb's most devoted ass-kisser. Zeth suggested that my linear weights baby steps, were intended to help Cobb inch closer to Ruth.

So now, folks think I'll commit any stat crime, and whore my principles to advance the cause of 1 player!

How little I'm known. I'd call my own grand-mother out at first if she didn't beat the throw. (Grandmother never could bunt.) As far as I'm concerned, no one deserves help or hindrance. Perfection of honest stats is what I'm about. But we're a long way from that, what with the 1885-1919 players uncredited in TB for the SB, Extra Bases taken, GIDP, SO, etc.

Wanna buy my credibility for a cream soda ice cream float?

Bill Burgess

Zeth

03-09-2004, 05:25 PM

Bill, with all due respect, I generally have neither time nor motivation to address each point you make, point by point. I tip my hat to you for doing that so often, but I'm just unable to. You can assume that if I don't address a given point, I either have no problem with your argument or have nothing to say about it.

That said, I'll try and give a quick run-down on this one...

Beautiful post. I do appreciate the way you post with relaxed, cordial, thoughtful prose. You manage to say in few words, what requires me many long-winded sermons. And sadly, this one will probably be no different.

Well, you were right about that last point, heheh. :)

(Bill - Here is the critical point that I've been a failure at having you focus on. We too agree that hitting must be paramount in our analysis also. But you have overlooked a salient, all-important point, that makes all the difference, Zeth. We have been begging this thread, (and you by extension) to focus on walks & their distortion of OBP. OBP before & after 1919 are so bent out of shape, that they scream for an historical timeline adjustment. Walks pre-1919 have 2 times the value. After 1919, half the value. The same pitchers pitching to the same hitters are giving them MANY more walks. Is this not obvious? Pre-1919, the most feared sluggers (Brouthers, Delahanty, Lajoie, Cobb, Wagner, Cravath, Crawford), were averaging 40-70 walks per season. But sluggers post-1919 were averaging 80-150 (Ruth, Gehrig, Foxx, Greenberg, DiMag). And it was most definitely NOT because they were built better, were stronger men, looked meaner, or anything else. They probably could not bench press any more weight, could beat them in an arm wrestle, were taller, heavier, or anything other than had a more resilient ball, cleaner balls, no trick pitchers to flutter up to the plate, etc.

In my above posts, I've shown the actual number of walks both groups got. Cobb actully was walked more after the age of 33, during the 20's than when he was in his prime. Does that tell you anything. And it wasn't due to improved plate discipline, better eyesight, etc. It was because he could do more damage with a livelier ball.

So I hope you will focus on OBP, with this in mind. OBP, without an historical timeline adjustment is bogus, skews stats beyond fair recognition, and makes post '19 heavy hitters look like a different species of hitters, when they were not. They weren't super-hitters. Merely the priveleged recipients of unfair stat illusions.

This has been adequately addressed already, I think, by catcher24 and myself.

Different issue. How is it that not one Babe Ruth supporter had questioned the creation of a timeline adjustment to make modern players "APPEAR" better than the numbers show them to be? Not a peep. Am I surprised? No, be discouraged and disillusioned. This group should have been in the vanguard as keepers of the Flame of BB Justice.

Such a timeline adjustment doesn't favor Ruth over Cobb, unless you have me confused as to what adjustment you're referring to. If it's about the walks, again, that's been discussed.

I'm unsure of the relevance of your arguments concerning Bill James. I'm actually kind of unsure of what point you're getting at, besides that you don't consider Bill James' analysis valid.

I think Linear Weights is an OK system for measuring offense, but it's horrible with defense.

I think we've already been over the issue of well-rounded players vs. devastating offensive players. I put weight on the latter, you on the former. I don't believe either of us will change our mind about that anytime soon :)

And what do you mean, show you by the numbers that OBP is not bogus? Logic tells you OBP is not bogus. OBP is very useful in measuring a player's value. It's not the be-all, end-all, but it's useful, and throwing it out is bogus.

I think I covered it all there, didn't I?

Bill Burgess

03-09-2004, 05:51 PM

Zeth,

"I think I covered it all there, didn't I?"

No, but I don't think you have either the time nor motivation to cover my stuff. But not to worry. Most of my issues will not be dealt with on The Fever.

The issue of walks is not only relevant, but critical to OBP. I posted the walk highs of the pre and post sluggers to show that pre liveball sluggers go no extra walks, and those after got HUGE extra walks.

Lajoie:-----60, 47, 35, 33
Wagner:---67, 66, 59, 59,
Cobb:------118, 85, 78, 66, 65 (85, 66, 65 were all post '20)
Crawford:--69, 66, 61, 52, 50
Brouthers:--99, 87, 84, 1, 68
Delehanty:--86, 77, 65, 62
Cravath:-----86, 83, 70, 64, 55

Now, look at post '20.

Ruth:--------170, 148, 144, 144, 140
Gehrig:------132, 130, 122, 122, 117
Foxx:---------119,116, 114, 111
Greenberg:--119, 104, 102, 93, 91

The simple point is that the pre live ball sluggers were every bit a great as those who came after, (see above), but due to not getting the extra walks to pad their OBP, you'd never know it. So their OBPs look punk by comparison.

Absolutely PUNK. And it wasn't their fault, and their OBP is SCREWED. Totally distorted. Totally skewed.

But don't worry about it, Zeth. This is not your fault, not your doing, and I don't expect any other allies on this salient, all-important, critical stat issue which makes a mockery of legitimate stat value & worth.

I doubt I will bring this up on The Fever. I'm trying it on other sites and getting better results there.

Bill Burgess

Zeth

03-09-2004, 05:56 PM

Bill, I'm unsure of what exactly I did or said to set you off like that. I'm just trying to have a healthy debate here. I certainly don't want to give you the impression that I'm blowing off your arguments. That's not the case. As I said, if I strongly disagree with something, I would post about it. What, I'm not allowed to be lukewarm or neutral on any particular subjects?

Sure, I agree with your point that we have to look at walks a little bit differently in the dead ball era. Not as drastically as you were suggesting earlier, but differently nonetheless. The best way to deal with OBP in any era is compare a given player's OBP to the league average, and also to the league's leaders. Why don't we do that for Cobb and Ruth? Whose OBP was further ahead than that of his contemporaries? To me, it's that simple.

Bill Burgess

03-09-2004, 06:49 PM

Zeth,

Sorry if I got a little too heated. I really wasn't mad at you or anything in general that you said. I was just frustrated in general.

When I see a huge issue, and I'm the only one who does, I need to learn to stay cool and not go off.

But this issue of walks has got me so puzzled when no one else can see the point as clearly as I can. Under normal circumstances, indexing works just fine. This is one of those few issues where indexing fails utterly to address the problem.

In a nutshell, pre-1919, sluggers & contact hitters received about the same numbers of walks. Not so after '19. Suddenly, the impact of the lively ball conferred sometimes 50-60 extra walks to the totals they would have gotten pre-19. And that's the problem. Huge walks numbers to the same level of slugger. Indexing can not address the problem. So Lajoie, Wagner, Crawford look punk in their OBP.

I am having problems figuring out how this issue is SO invisible to The Fever's best & brightest.

So, sorry for getting too intense there, Zeth. Don't worry about it. I intend to go to SABR's stat guys and throw the apple of discord into their midst. Just to see what happens. I'll probably get myself assassinated or something. So if I suddenly stop posting . . .

Bill Burgess

catcher24

03-09-2004, 07:05 PM

Bill - With the problem you're having with the two little numbers I use in my name, I wonder if I should doubt all your numerical analysis:eek: . It is catcher24 , that's TWENTY FOUR. Anyway, I will attempt in my feeble way to address your continued concerns about the "walk adjustment". I still completely disagree that there should be any adjustment.

49,62,101,85,97,119,86,89,73,68 Eddie Collins BB 1910-1919

69,66,73,84,89,87,62 Eddie Collins BB 1920-1926

Eddie's walks remain almost constant, in fact are HIGHER during the teens than during the "explosive" twenties. He was a direct contemporary of Cobb.

88,78,98,117,80,112,118,75,80,79,75,73

Who is this? Donie Bush - his walk totals from 1909 to 1920. Donie Bush was a direct contemporary of Cobb, in fact played on the same team, yet he outdrew Cobb in walks EVERY YEAR BUT ONE - and that year he tied with Cobb.Bush's career OPS+ is 91, or 76 points below Cobb's.

86,99,64,118,110 - Would you believe Burt Shotton, 1912-1916, the only seasons he played over 140 games?

A few more.....

87,116,105,97,128,128,112,110,106,82 Walks for a player from 1925 to 1934. A tremendous slugger, right? Gotta be Gehrig, Foxx, somebody like that. How about Max Bishop, who got the above figures even though he never played more than 130 games in a season! Career OPS+? 102. I don't think pitcher's trembled in their spikes when Max stepped to the plate, and they sure didn't want to put him on with Cochrane and Foxx coming up, I wouldn't imagine.

OK.... Who are these players? Who are the sluggers? These are yearly walk totals.

1. 56,58,62,55,82,84,104,99,77
2. 114,119,149,103,106,122
3. 42,35,37,30,17,45,33,46,51,32,41
4. 82,95,119,57,75,53,86,85,94,82
5. 35,33,51,61,41,39

Here are the answers:

1. Duke Snider 1949-1957 OPS+140
2. Eddie Joost 1947-1952 OPS+ 99
3. Juan Gonzalez 1991-2001 OPS+ 133
4. Willie Randolph 1978-1987 OPS+ 104
5. Nomar Garciaparra 1997-2000, 2002-2003 OPS+ 135

Finally: 78, 98,117,99,112,119,111,94
97,103,84,98,102,90,116,109

Line 1 - Leading walk totals, AL, 1910 to 1917
Line 2 - Second place total, walks, AL 1920 to 1927

I did not include 1918 or 1919, since totals were unnaturally low those years due to the shortened seasons. Why did I list the SECOND place totals for 1920 to 1927? To eliminate Ruth, who was the ONLY ONE to draw incredible walk totals, due to the fear he placed on pitchers, I hypothesize. Please note that in four of eight years, the "desperately lower" walk totals from the teens EXCEED the post-1920 total. Once you take Ruth out of the equation, the walk totals are virtually the same! And, of note, the 84 walks in 1922 belonged to Ruth, who finished second to Whitey Witt, who had 89; and in 1925, the 90 led the league (Mostil and Kamm - this was the year of Ruth's great bellyache).

The point I am trying to make is that you cannot base a major theory like adjusting walk totals on a small sample size. I have shown you a player with a career OPS of 91, who not only was a contemporary of Cobb, but PLAYED ON THE SAME TEAM, AT THE SAME TIME, IN THE SAME PARKS, AGAINST THE SAME PITCHERS, yet outdrew Cobb EVERY YEAR in walks. I have shown you two other contemporaries of Cobb - one a HOF player, one who only members of this board ever heard of, who BOTH outdrew Cobb in walks. I have shown you hitters with little or no power who draw enormous walk totals, and feared sluggers who draw very few walks. I could find many more examples, but I think I made my point. Walks, in my opinion, are player dependant. You have some players who have tremendous plate discipline, even if not very good hitters, and look to draw walks (Bush,Bishop, Joost, Randolph - although Willie hit pretty well, Shotton). Some players, even though blessed with great power, who pitchers should be concerned about, draw few walks (Gonzalez, Garciaparra), because they go up there hacking. Some should probably draw a lot more than they do, based on team, era and ability (Snider), but again, they want to swing away.

My theory is that the short list of players you mention who were sluggers and didn't draw many walks were, basically, hackers. They wanted to hit, not walk. Conversely, the sluggers you mentioned were patient enough to take a walk if they didn't get a pitch they liked. I don't think it is possible to make an adjustment for player attitude.

I know I will not convince you, and you will not convince me. This is the last I will have to say on this subject, as I do not believe in beating a dead horse, or in wasting time I could use elsewhere on this board or others.

catcher24

03-09-2004, 07:10 PM

Bill - I was putting together the above reply, so did not see until afterwards your exchange with Zeth. What sites receive your ideas about the walk adjustments more favorably? Please advise.

RuthMayBond

03-09-2004, 07:10 PM

Originally posted by william_burgess@usa.net
(Bill - My credibility? What credibility? Every time I post, you chisel away at my every offering, demanding "good objective evidence".

If you wouldn't say stuff like Cobb being responsible for 30 wins himself per year, or double stolen bases pre-1920 or Bill Lange was in the top 25, you wouldn't get chiseled. I have agreed with you that some of the old-timers haven't gotten their due.

Zeth

03-09-2004, 07:34 PM

catcher24 -- In Bill's defense here, his argument is that power hitters got walked a lot more often after 1920 than before 1920. Pointing to Eddie Collins and Donie Bush and Maxie Bishop is really not addressing that particular issue.

However, your pointing to the 2nd place AL walk totals after 1920 compared to leading walk totals before 1920 is very instructive, and is relevant to that issue. I still believe it would be inappropriate to make any adjustment for OBP pre-1920 -- I still believe comparing players to their peers is the best way to go. Bill, what do you respond to catcher24's assertion that, aside from Babe Ruth, even power hitters weren't being walked any more often post-1920 than before 1920?

Also, Bill, I fear that you misunderstand me on one thing. I want to compare Cobb to his peers, and Ruth to his -- if Cobb's OBP was the highest in his league over his career, that makes him the best OBP man of his time, the same as Ruth was the best of his.

catcher24

03-09-2004, 07:55 PM

Zeth - My point in mentioning Bush,Randolph, Bishop, and others was to support my theory that some individuals will work at getting walks, even if inferior hitters, while others, who are great sluggers, just prefer to hack away and not take walks - they would rather hit. I think Bush is particularly relevant, as he was an exact contemporary of Cobb - same era, same team - yet he was able to surpass Cobb in walks every year. What I am trying to get across is that the PLAYER often times determines whether or not he gets a lot of walks. If he wants to hit, he will h ack away unless the pitcher won't even come close. I don't think the era or ball has as much to do with it as the individuals themselves. I suspect that is why the sluggers he mentions did not get a lot of walks while other, inferior hitters were - THEY WANTED TO HIT. Also, I attempted to show that some power hitters just won't take walks, while others are patient and will do so.

Bill Burgess

03-09-2004, 09:06 PM

Cacher24,

Sorry I forgot your name. So sloppy of me. I'll try to improve.
I actually liked your post. I saw how hard you worked. Must have taken you an hour or so. I know cause I post a lot. Your points were well taken and I knew them already but you didn't know I knew them, so thanks for all the hard work anyway.

Yes, of course I'm aware that both sluggers and certain kinds of contact hitters with plate discipline, (Sewell, P. Waner, Huggins, Henderson, Carey, Boggs, Ashburn, Carew, Bescher, McGraw), drew inordinate numbers. But that wasn't my point. I was making a much more focused narrow argument.

But I do see your argument. Perhaps an adjustment would be more involved than I anticipated. And I realize that Wagner & Lajoie were bad ball hitters, who lacked any plate discipline. I'm going to re-post my graph to refer to with convenience.

Lajoie:-----60, 47, 35, 33
Wagner:---67, 66, 59, 59,
Cobb:------118, 85, 78, 66, 65 (85, 66, 65 were all post '20)
Crawford:--69, 66, 61, 52, 50
Brouthers:--99, 87, 84, 1, 68
Delehanty:--86, 77, 65, 62
Cravath:-----86, 83, 70, 64, 55

Now, look at post '20.

Ruth:--------170, 148, 144, 144, 140
Gehrig:------132, 130, 122, 122, 117
Foxx:---------119,116, 114, 111
Greenberg:--119, 104, 102, 93, 91

But Cobb, Crawford were not bad ball hitters. And Cobb got 3 of his top 5 walk totals after the age of 30, which he shouldn't have. (Know you disagree & suggest he developed plate discipline.) Foxx, Gehrig, Greenberg, and Wilson, would not have gotten their high walk totals in the teens, and would have not, therefore had their OBP spiked by the lively ball. Seems as if you suceeded in ducking the sluggers component of my honest argument almost completely, by introducing the high walks of contact guys.

Those contact guys EARNED their walks by working the pitcher. Post '20 sluggers didn't. The lively ball did their work for them. And why does Ruth deserve omission, when he was the prime beneficiery of the lively ball. His HRs AND walks would have vaporized if he'd been forced to play in the era of Crawford, Lajoie and Wagner. His OBP would have headed spiraled down the toilet faster than anyone else. His walks were courtesy of LIVELY BALL. And as soon as the league caught up, starting in '27 with Gehrig, you discontinue your comparison! How convenient! How very damn convenient.

So even though I see your analysis has good basis, so does mine, Catcher24. So does mine. Walks did go up for the 20's, as did HRs, runs, hits, etc, and pitchers ERA went up, SOs went down.

These are the general established truths, supported by the stats, and even if you and I can find 100 exceptions to every single true pattern, it does not invalidate the pattern itself.

If Bill James can make up a timeline, completely unsupported by any stats except, "oldtimers look too good", anyone else can create one based on stat supported evidence.

Do you support James' timeline, and if so on what stat basis?

So OBP, where walks are concerned, with regard to pre and post '19, is UNRESOLVED. Sorry, catcher 22. We were isolating sluggers pre and post 1919.

And despite all of this, I do appreciate your talking to me and the very hard work you did to add to the debate. You're a good guy and I like debating with you.

Bill Burgess

Bill Burgess

03-09-2004, 09:37 PM

Zeth,

"However, your pointing to the 2nd place AL walk totals after 1920 compared to leading walk totals before 1920 is very instructive, and is relevant to that issue. I still believe it would be inappropriate to make any adjustment for OBP pre-1920 -- I still believe comparing players to their peers is the best way to go. Bill, what do you respond to catcher24's assertion that, aside from Babe Ruth, even power hitters weren't being walked any more often post-1920 than before 1920?

(Bill - What power hitters? From '20-26, there weren't any power hitters! (Partial exception of Hornsby, Ken Williams. But Rogers was not a true power hitter. He swung level. But the lively ball raised all his former numbers through the roof, including walks.) Why is that, you ask with incredulity? Because from '20-24, everyone thought Ruth was a fluke, and waited for the pitchers to figure him out. But after his '23-24 seaaons, he was finally accepted as "for real" and only then did everyone start looking for new Ruths. And then a few started to try to imitate him. But it took Foxx and Gehrig a little while to get the hang of powdering ML pitching. So there were no power hitters up until '27. The high numbers of walks were probably contact guys working the pitchers sucessfully. By '27, the Ruth clones had come of age, and THEIR walk totals were a function of the lively ball, just as Ruth's had always been. In '30 the gloves came off, and the sound of cannon fire didn't end until the last day of the season. Those pitchers that year should really have been entitles to combat pay. Their lives were in jeopardy.

I don't want anyone else to know the other sites I post on. That's personal. Sorry.

Re: Donnie Bush --
He was a contact guy who knew how to work the pitcher. A set-up guy, table setter, as they say nowadays. He got more walks than Cobb for a very good reason. He couldn't hit with Ty, so working the pitcher was his only card to play. On the other hand, pitchers didn't fear putting him on, so they could pitch to him as fine as they wanted and he was no threat on base.

Cobb, on the other hand, could NOT be put on, under any circumstances. EVER! So no hitter was pitched to more carefully than Ty Cobb. They would rather do anything else but have him on first. Perhaps, walking Bush was just tactical, so that his presence on the bags, acted as a stopper, prevented the terrible Tyrus from running, or performing any of his assorted tricks. It's a testiment to Cobb that he got any walks at all, seeing as everyone was trying anything but to put him on.)

Zeth,
"Also, Bill, I fear that you misunderstand me on one thing. I want to compare Cobb to his peers, and Ruth to his -- if Cobb's OBP was the highest in his league over his career, that makes him the best OBP man of his time, the same as Ruth was the best of his."

(Bill - No, I didn't misunderstand you whatsoever, Zeth. You were extremely clear and lucid. And I thank you for that. Please forgive my excited tone here. I'm in agitated mode because I cannot communicate with you clearly. This lack of communication is my fault, not yours. And this frustrates me SO much. So please bear with me.

In this one issue, indexing won't work. Relative on-base percentage doesn't solve the problem. Cobb, Crawford, Wagner, Lajoie, etc. would have received MANY more walks post '20. JUST LIKE BABE. And their On-base average would have soared. IF BABE, LOU, JIMMIE, HACK or HANK had hit pre-'19, their HRs would not have been there, and hence their walks would have crashed, bringing down their On-base average with it. So the same talent COULDN't have shown in the earlier era. Is there any way I could make it clearer? I don't know how. So it's not you. It's me. My lack of communications skills is what I'm shrill about, not you, Zeth.

Bill Burgess

ElHalo

03-09-2004, 10:13 PM

Originally posted by william_burgess@usa.net

By '27, the Ruth clones had come of age, and THEIR walk totals were a function of the lively ball, just as Ruth's had always been.

1927 HR leaders:

AL:

Ruth: 60
Gehrig: 47
Lazerri: 18
Williams: 17
Simmons: 15
Heilmann: 14
Goslin: 13
Cochrane: 12
Falk: 9
Fothergill: 9
McManus:9

NL:

Williams: 30
Wilson: 30
Hornsby: 26
Terry: 20
Bottomley: 19
Hafey: 18
Harper: 16
Herman: 14
Jackson: 14
Webb: 14

BB leaders:

AL:

Ruth: 137
Gehrig: 109
Bishop: 105
Heilmann: 72
Blue: ET 71
Kamm: 70
Lazzeri: 69
Cobb: 67
Harris: 66
Jamieson: 64
O'Rourke: 64

NL:

Hornsby: 86
Harper: 84
Bottomley: 74
Grantham: 74
Dressen: 71
Wilson: 71
Stephenson: 65
Carey: 64
Williams: 61
Waner: 60

How exactly do these numbers show that the "Ruth clones" had "come of age"? Other than Gehrig, arguably one of the top five hitters of all time, how are any of these players even REMOTELY close to Ruth?

Just for comparison's sake, let me look a little later... maybe you just picked too early of a year.

1929 AL home runs leaders:

Ruth: 46
Gehrig: 35
Simmons: 34
Foxx: 33
Alexander: 25
Averill: 18
Goslin: 18
Lazzeri: 18
McManus: 18
Haas: 16

No, no it still seems that by 1929, none of the competition was catching up with Ruth... but there was that offensive explosion in 1930, right, so everybody MUST have caught up to Ruth then, right?...

1930 AL HR leaders:

Ruth: 49
Gehrig: 41
Foxx: 37
Goslin: 37
Simmons: 36
Morgan: 26
Reynolds: 22
Alexander: 20
Averill: 19
Gehringe: 16
Jolley: 16
Kress: 16
Webb: 16

Wait, there was that HUGE offensive explosion in 1930, right? Home Runs left and right, right? Seems to me that other than Gehrig, an aforementioned ALL TIME great hitter, nobody was less than a DOZEN home runs from Ruth that year. And that you could get yourself into the top ten HR's by hitting 16... a number that guys like Sam Crawford, Frank Schulte, Gavvy Cravath, Socks Seybold, Dutch Zwilling, and Vic Saier had NO PROBLEM hitting during the "dead Ball" era.

Well, what about the walks? 1930 was an offensive bonanza for power hitters, right? Ruth MUST have been right in the middle of a pack of players with unbelievable walk totals, right?

1930 AL BB leaders:

Ruth: 136
Bishop: 128
Gehrig: 101
Foxx: 93
Blue: 81
Combs: 74
Dykes: 74
Cronin: 72
Gehringer: 69
Goslin: 67

Hm. So other than Gehrig again, and Max Bishop, a guy with plate discipline so unbelievable that he earned the name "Camera Eye," a guy who averaged an unbelievable 140 BB's per 162 games over his career, a guy who has an all time top 20 OBP despite a lifetime BA of .271... nobody was within the same stratosphere as Ruth. And Ruth was 35 that year... well into the downside of his career.

To compare: let's look at the leaders from 1912. Prime middle of the dead ball era.

1912 BB leaders:

AL:

Bush: 117
Collins: 101
Rath: 95
Shotton: 86
Speaker: 82
Hooper: 66
Hartzell: 64
Milan: 63
Wagner: 62
Louden: 58

NL:

Sheckard: 122
Paskert: 91
Huggins: 87
Bescher: 83
Titus: 82
Evers: 74
McDonald: 70
Snodgrass: 70
Moran: 69
Sweeney: 68

So the AL leaders would seem to have slightly fewer BB's in 1912 in than in 1930... same with the NL leaders. Overall, in the AL in 1912, there were 9.28 BB's per 100 AB's. In 1930, that number was 9.27. I.e., there were LESS BB's per plate appearance in 1930 in the AL in 1930 than in 1912. How does that mesh with your argument? In the NL, where the offensive explosion was supposedly far more severe? Hack Wilson and all that? In 1930, there were 8.45 BB's per 100 AB's. In 1912? 9.45.

So, if there were MORE walks, on average, in 1912 than in 1930... how does your argument hold up? Sorry, but it just doesn't.

Oh, and just for good measure... Ruth led the league in BB's again in 1931. And again in 1932. And again in 1933. In 1934, at the age of 39, Ruth finally slipped. He missed 29 games due to injury that year... and finished 3rd in walks, 7 behind Jimmie Foxx, and 5 behind Gehrig.

Seems to me that the "lively ball" NEVER helped anybody to anywhere near the same extent it helped Ruth. At least, not until after he was out of the league.

Bill Burgess

03-10-2004, 12:30 AM

ElHalo,

Well there. Looks like you finally got me, huh? You've been trying so hard to score your Big Gotcha. Well it looks like the old man has finally run out of gas. I'm just sputtering along on my last fumes. Hope I make it to my next destination.

Or maybe not. Wait. Let's see now. Ruth. Yes. I recall the name. Almost slipped my ancient memories. Hmm. Let me see.

Did I say that the league had finally caught up with Mr. Ruth? Oh yes, I remember it all now. It all seems like only yesterday.

Try these out for size.

Gehrig--1927
Foxx-----1932
Klein-----1930
Hornsby-1922
Wilson---1930
Simmons1930
Herman-1930
DiMaggio1937
Greenberg1937

There you go, ElHalo. Try these beauties on for size. I'm quite sure they will pass your tests. All of them for those years quoted posted numbers of runs, RBIs, TB, SA, OBP, etc. that are indistinguishable from those of Babe Ruth.

And yes, while it's true that it did take a while for the league to produce Ruth-a-likes, the fact is that they did do it. Both Foxx & Greenberg hit 58 HRs, Wilson 56. And they were all churning out 150 RBI seasons as if they were on an assembly line, especially Gehrig & Greenberg. And for some inexplicable reason, the spikot turned off after '38. As if someone had ordered it turned off. It was never found out if the ball was deadened or something else.

And oh, if someone had hit 16 big ones in the deadball era, they'd have appeared as God ITSELF. I think maybe 3-4 did it before 1918. Maybe. Probably less. Cravath was one.

So, by limiting your research to HRs & walks, (for god-knows what reason), you have left yourself wide open to the old canard that Babe was the Superman from Mars, come down from on high, and no one else could do what he did.

If you'd be so kind as to check out those seasons in their entirety, not just the glamour stat of HRs, the obvious might dawn on you.

"For what one can do, others are sure to follow". (Bill Burgess)

And through it all, the lively ball is the cause of all the noise and bother. If the fellows from 1900-20, had had the same ball, and the fellows from 1920-40 had had to play with THEIR ball, the results would have been reversed, run for run, hit for hit.

Cha-ching, cha-ching. Ring up another free game for the Old Fart.

Bill Burgess

Bill Burgess

03-10-2004, 12:44 AM

ElHalo,

I really shouldn't post with such free-wheeling abandon. I'm really not half as arrogant as I sound. But when you post with that baiting, challenging, sneering, snickering, swaggering, macho, bravado, it just brings out the warrior in me, when I'm really rather milktoast.

I'm rather passive and like to chat baseball. It's so hard for me to hold back the rising smell of napalm in my nostrils, and battle in my old heart, when Young Turks like yourself get so damn cocky.

I really can't fault you too badly, cause 80 yrs. of Ruth madness & rhetoric are almost impossible to defend against. You've never heard or seen anything else, so you can't be blamed for perceiving reality as you do. Or the others. So I hope I didn't rile your feathers too roughly this time. But these things wouldn't happen if you and RMB would stop shooting at me like Army snipers.

Bill Burgess

ElHalo

03-10-2004, 02:01 AM

Mr. Burgess,

All of the people I mentioned hit at least 16 HR's during the dead ball era. Some more than once.

And I limited my discussion to walks and homers because that was the topic of discussion above. I.E., that your contention that players got crazy insane levels of walks because they hit for power because they copied the Babe. That's what I'm trying to rebut. The idea that Babe's OBP shouldn't be viewed in the same light as, say, Ty Cobb's OBP, because walks were somehow used differently after 1920.

Let's look at your seasons (staying to BB's and HR's because that is the basis of the argument)

Hornsby in 22... 65 BB's, 46 HR's, OPS 1.181
Gehrig in 27... 109 BB's,47 HR's, OPS 1.240
Klein in 30... 54 BB's, 40 HR's, OPS 1.123
Herman... 66 BB's, 35 HR's, OPS 1.132
Simmons in 30... 39 BB's, 36 HR's, OPS 1.130
Foxx in 32... 116 BB's, 58 HR's. OPS 1.218

And though I really don't see how these are relavent, since they didn't occur while Babe Ruth was active, I'll throw them out anyway.

Greenberg in 37... 102 BB's, 40 HR, OPS 1.105
DiMaggio in 37... 64 BB's, 46 HR, OPS 1.085

Ok, so here we've got a bunch of numbers that are all well and good. You've picked out a bunch of player's single best seasons. While that's all well and good, let me point out that only the OPS' of Hornsby, Gehrig, and Foxx, three of the all time top ten hitters, from what you've chosen as their "best" seasons, even top Babe Ruth's CAREER OPS (1.164) So if Babe's the OBP king, and Cobb's the BA king... well, I can come up with a lot more than 3 guys who hit over .367 in a single year.

And the best you could give me there as far as walk totals go was 116 by Foxx. Babe Ruth topped this mark TEN TIMES in his career.

The argument was, that walks from post 1920 shouldn't be considered as as valuable as walks from pre-1920. I think I thouroughly debunked that myth: since walks were more prevalent pre-1920 than post 1920, it would seem that walks from both time periods are EQUALLY AS VALUABLE. Meaning that getting 150 BB's in 1930 is JUST AS VALUABLE as getting 150 BB's in 1912.

The argument was that Babe Ruth walked and hit homers a lot, and that flew for a few years, but then people caught up and hit homers and walked just like him. And that's an absolute, emphatic, NO. Obviously, offense as a whole was up, so runs scored and RBI rose, and one 1927 run isn't worth the same as one 1912 run. But BB's stayed constant, and HR's, while they increased, didn't increase at ANYWHERE NEAR the level Babe's HR's increased, and it really wasn't until after he had retired that they caught up with him.

RuthMayBond

03-10-2004, 07:38 AM

Originally posted by william_burgess@usa.net
(Bill - What power hitters? From '20-26, there weren't any power hitters! (Partial exception of Hornsby, Ken Williams. But Rogers was not a true power hitter. He swung level.

RMB:
Heilmann & Simmons may disagree with that

By '27, the Ruth clones had come of age, and THEIR walk totals were a function of the lively ball, just as Ruth's had always been.

RMB:
But walks went DOWN in '27 & AGAIN in '28

Cobb, on the other hand, could NOT be put on, under any circumstances. EVER! So no hitter was pitched to more carefully than Ty Cobb. They would rather do anything else but have him on first.

RMB:
Wouldn't they do the same thing to Rickey Henderson?

RuthMayBond

03-10-2004, 07:45 AM

Originally posted by william_burgess@usa.net
And oh, if someone had hit 16 big ones in the deadball era, they'd have appeared as God ITSELF. I think maybe 3-4 did it before 1918. Maybe. Probably less. Cravath was one.

Point taken, but you must be a polytheist, what with Chase, Cravath, Zwilling, Saier, Luderus, Schulte, Seybold, Crawford, Freeman

Bill Burgess

03-10-2004, 08:30 AM

RMB,

Nice homework. I'm impressed. Frankly, I'm amazed that that many hit that many. So I did glance them up.

Chase & Zwilling hit theirs in the Federal L.

Cravath & Luderus hit their for the Phillies. I think almost all of Cravaths were at home. Read something to that effect somewhere.

Crawford hit his in '01 and never hit even 10 again. Usuallly 5-7.

Socks Seybold hit his in '02 for the A's. Wonder if they used the Phillies park that season.

Buck Freeman hit 25 (!) in 1899. In that day, fouls didn't count as strikes.

But I'll give you your credit. You searched hard and came up with some good stuff. So you get your due credit.

But I also think my point is well-made. 16 HRs back then made your rep as a heman slugger. The lively ball changed all that, as it changed almost everything else.

ElHalo is just hangin' stubborn here, but he's in a shoot-out that can only end in his ending up on boot hill. But I'll get to him soon enough. Right now, I've gots to get me to work to bring home da pork.

Bill Burgess

RuthMayBond

03-10-2004, 09:25 AM

Originally posted by william_burgess@usa.net
Nice homework. I'm impressed. Frankly, I'm amazed that that many hit that many. But I'll give you your credit. You searched hard and came up with some good stuff. So you get your due credit.

I do have a question. I know scoring was up in the mid 1890's so I didn't know if it was still considered the deadball era so I stopped at 1899. Otherwise I'd have to add Thompson, Joyce, Duffy, Lowe, Delahanty, Clements, Tiernan, Stovey, Holliday, Duffee, Denny, Ryan, Pfeffer, Connor, O'Brien, Williamson, Dalrymple, AND Anson.

csh19792001

03-10-2004, 01:01 PM

Originally posted by RuthMayBond
I do have a question. I know scoring was up in the mid 1890's so I didn't know if it was still considered the deadball era so I stopped at 1899. Otherwise I'd have to add Thompson, Joyce, Duffy, Lowe, Delahanty, Clements, Tiernan, Stovey, Holliday, Duffee, Denny, Ryan, Pfeffer, Connor, O'Brien, Williamson, Dalrymple, AND Anson.

Excellent question. Not per se, since it would be an oxymoron to call anything from the 1890's "dead ball", with teams scoring near or at 1000 runs in 130 game seasons. 1900 is the benchmark for the beginning of the dead ball era, according to the literature I've read. The foul strike rule marked the end of a ridiculous decade, and the pitchers caught up, took hold, and got way ahead until 1919, when things went TREMENDOUSLY in the other direction until 1940, ironically enough.

ElHalo

03-10-2004, 01:03 PM

Originally posted by william_burgess@usa.net
ElHalo is just hangin' stubborn here, but he's in a shoot-out that can only end in his ending up on boot hill. But I'll get to him soon enough. Right now, I've gots to get me to work to bring home da pork.

Bill Burgess

What's with all the war and/or killing metaphors? You do realize that this is typing, not shooting, and that this is baseball, not geopolitics, right?

And sorry, but I've looked at the numbers, and there's really no way of getting around them. Did offense take off after Ruth? Absolutely. Did some players have great seasons? Absolutely. There's no arguing that.

But there's also no arguing that, in 1927, 9 home runs could put you in the top ten in the AL! In 1930, 16 home runs could put you in the top ten. So while home runs definitely trended upwards, Ruth was still far, far, far ahead of the pack even into his mid thirties. Did a player get close to him every now and again? Yeah, but when they did, it was guys like Hornsby and Gehrig, some of the greatest players of all time, or it was once Ruth was already into the downside of his career. And even THEN, Ruth was better than them.

And there's also no arguing that, despite what you've said, walks DID NOT skyrocket with Ruth. Ruth remained far, far ahead of the curve in walks (and, hence, OBP), and the fact that there walks were MORE frequent in 1912 than in 1930... that seems to me that there definitely wasn't a huge trend of sluggers getting walked left, right, and sideways. There was just Ruth.

Sorry, but I just don't see how you can argue against that point.

RuthMayBond

03-10-2004, 01:15 PM

Originally posted by csh19792001
Excellent question. Not per se, since it would be an oxymoron to call anything from the 1890's "dead ball", with teams scoring near or at 1000 runs in 130 game seasons. 1900 is the benchmark for the beginning of the dead ball era, according to the literature I've read.

RMB:
So "dead ball" doesn't refer specifically to the composition of the ball? Scoring for 1899 looks virtually identical to scoring in 1900, so it would seem to start more with 1901.

The foul strike rule marked the end of a ridiculous decade, and the pitchers caught up, took hold, and got way ahead until 1919, when things went TREMENDOUSLY in the other direction until 1940, ironically enough.

RMB:
Looks like it was leveling off starting about 1937.

csh19792001

03-10-2004, 01:22 PM

Originally posted by RuthMayBond

RMB:
So "dead ball" doesn't refer specifically to the composition of the ball? Scoring for 1899 looks virtually identical to scoring in 1900, so it would seem to start more with 1901.

As far as I know, the ball didn't change in 1900 or 01. I suppose you would be right, and that 01' was the year of the change in tides. Also, until 03', fouls were still not strikes in the AL, I'm fairly certain. Hence lajoie and a few others. The precipitous drop is marked afterwards.

RMB:
Looks like it was leveling off starting about 1937.

You're probably right, but for some reason I remember finding it odd that as soon as Gehrig left, the offense kind of died. I have to go to class, so I can't look it up, but i thought I saw offensive numbers drop sharply in 39 or 40 and then stay fairly low to even for quite some time.

Chris

RuthMayBond

03-10-2004, 02:05 PM

Originally posted by csh19792001
RMB:
Looks like it was leveling off starting about 1937.

You're probably right, but for some reason I remember finding it odd that as soon as Gehrig left, the offense kind of died. I have to go to class, so I can't look it up, but i thought I saw offensive numbers drop sharply in 39 or 40 and then stay fairly low to even for quite some time.

Chris

I should have been looking at runs, not rates. 1940 was the first decline in both leagues, although there was still a general decline until 1944 (change of material in baseballs)

YEAR NL AL
1936 5837 7009
1937 5567 6503
1938 5388 6581
1939 5472 6404
1940 5421 6147
1941 5266 5902
1942 4784 5211
1943 4898 4796
1944 5295 5058

Appling

03-10-2004, 03:49 PM

Originally posted by RuthMayBond
I should have been looking at runs, not rates. 1940 was the first decline in both leagues, although there was still a general decline until 1944 (change of material in baseballs)

YEAR NL AL
1936 5837 7009
1937 5567 6503
1938 5388 6581
1939 5472 6404
1940 5421 6147
1941 5266 5902
1942 4784 5211
1943 4898 4796
1944 5295 5058

Interesting numbers. Interesting also that the AL scoring started at a higher level, and continue to score many more runs than the NL until the war years (1943 and 1944). For your data the slope in the trend line is greater for the AL (-269.5 runs per year) than in the NL (-93.2 r/y) and correlaton with the time trend line is also much stronger for the AL (-.958) than in the NL (-.790). You could have continued your data at least one more year, at least for the AL (only 4774 runs in 1945).

But I think you can find other similar trends both before and after the nine years you selected. Look at the drop in NL scoring from 1930 thru 1933 -- although AL in these years stayed remarkably flat:
YEAR -NL- -AL-
1930 7025 6670
1931 5537 6355
1932 5680 6436
1933 4908 6080
1934 5695 6305
1935 5806 6220

(I confess there was a "slight reversal" in the NL trend thru 1934-35.)

csh19792001

03-10-2004, 05:28 PM

Originally posted by william_burgess@usa.net
Zeth,

This is Tuesday, March 9. Last Saturday I posted this message & was hoping to get your always thoughtful, measured response. So I've re-posted it with the hope you will address my arguments directly. So often my posts are deflected and only addressed in a token way. So below is the Saturday post.

Beautiful post. I do appreciate the way you post with relaxed, cordial, thoughtful prose. You manage to say in few words, what requires me many long-winded sermons. And sadly, this one will probably be no different.

If you weren't such a moderate, pensive, nice guy, I'd probably not try to influence you so much. But I do believe that you have missed some of my most incisively critical points. And strangely enough, points on your own turf, stats. So let us begin. I will re-print your remarks, so we have context.

Zeth:
"Chris, I have read the threads you listed, most of them, anyway; I have pretty limited time, and I read what I can when I can. I respect your great abundance of arguments relating to on-field performance. You have convinced me that Cobb probably was the second greatest player ever... well, I may still lean toward Willie Mays on that, but Cobb certainly is right there.
(Bill - Fair enough. No complaints here.)

Zeth:
"You and Bill have done an admirable job of presenting your arguments, and certainly I'm still listening. I still believe Ruth was the greatest ever, because the combined weight of his OBP and SLG -- even after adjusting as best we can for his era and park -- are so overwhelming, and I do believe hitting is more important than running or defense. That's another critical thing right there --

(Bill - Here is the critical point that I've been a failure at having you focus on. We too agree that hitting must be paramount in our analysis also. But you have overlooked a salient, all-important point, that makes all the difference, Zeth. We have been begging this thread, (and you by extension) to focus on walks & their distortion of OBP. OBP before & after 1919 are so bent out of shape, that they scream for an historical timeline adjustment. Walks pre-1919 have 2 times the value. After 1919, half the value. The same pitchers pitching to the same hitters are giving them MANY more walks. Is this not obvious? Pre-1919, the most feared sluggers (Brouthers, Delahanty, Lajoie, Cobb, Wagner, Cravath, Crawford), were averaging 40-70 walks per season. But sluggers post-1919 were averaging 80-150 (Ruth, Gehrig, Foxx, Greenberg, DiMag). And it was most definitely NOT because they were built better, were stronger men, looked meaner, or anything else. They probably could not bench press any more weight, could beat them in an arm wrestle, were taller, heavier, or anything other than had a more resilient ball, cleaner balls, no trick pitchers to flutter up to the plate, etc.

In my above posts, I've shown the actual number of walks both groups got. Cobb actully was walked more after the age of 33, during the 20's than when he was in his prime. Does that tell you anything. And it wasn't due to improved plate discipline, better eyesight, etc. It was because he could do more damage with a livelier ball.

So I hope you will focus on OBP, with this in mind. OBP, without an historical timeline adjustment is bogus, skews stats beyond fair recognition, and makes post '19 heavy hitters look like a different species of hitters, when they were not. They weren't super-hitters. Merely the priveleged recipients of unfair stat illusions.

Different issue. How is it that not one Babe Ruth supporter had questioned the creation of a timeline adjustment to make modern players "APPEAR" better than the numbers show them to be? Not a peep. Am I surprised? No, be discouraged and disillusioned. This group should have been in the vanguard as keepers of the Flame of BB Justice.)

Zeth:
"I see that you (and Bill) have convinced some people that running and defense are, in themselves, as important or more important than hitting. That, I'm not convinced of and doubt I ever will be. It's the weight I give to hitting that causes me to list Ruth as #1."

(Bill - We also give hitting precedence over fielding & running. It's your treatment of hitting stats where we part company. I've shown above that OBP and timeline adjustment are bogus, and the jack doesn't end there, Zeth. Noooooo, not by a long HR. I notice that whereever there is an opportunity to falsify the numbers by the co-efficients, it's always the same. Great multiplyers for Babe & HR hitters. Negligible, miniscual, infintestimal ones for pre- 1919 players. Examples?

Dave Kent told me that since running was more pronounced before 1919, Bill James gave them a multiplyer of .0000000001 advantage for before 1919, for SB. I'm exgaggerating, of course, but not by a lot. James was merely creating smoke to make it appear that he understood the paramount importance of running before and after live ball. Real big of him. Let's move on before I throw up.

Bill James also gives a very low numerical value to SB. You won't protest that, Zeth. Why not?

Bill James refuses to acknowlege that a HR is not worth 4.0 singles. Or same for triples or doubles. Linear weights are accepted in the entire stat community except for the man who created the modern stat revolution. Why? Same thing for indexing all stats to league ave. and park effects. The man who taught us that to not do that is to become irrelevant. And the first man to render his own work irrelevant is it's creator.

And where was the commotion? Where was the protest? Did Zeth see the Emporer had no clothes? Did Dave Kent? Did RBM, 4 Tool Player, ElHalo, Depstein? Of course not. Why? Because you can't critique or debate or object or protest a system which you don't understand!!!! So, the followers have followed the Leader right over the cliff.

No indexing, no linear weights, accept timeline adjustment, keep using OBP with its skewed walks, keep using neglible co-efficients for measuring pre-1919 game which depended on SB, bunts, hit & run, etc, etc, etc. So often, you fail to index career SLG, OBP, BA. etc. It becomes such a French farce.

And you guys were supposed to be the Keepers of the Flame of BB Truth & Justice. Were supposed to be able to turn our backs and know all was well. You were supposed to have our backs. What happened? Were we too naive? Too gullible? Too innocent?

This was supposed to be your very own terrain. Not ours. Yet even we can see the discrepantcies, betrayals of trust, etc.

Zeth:
"I don't sneeze at defense or running; they're important. But take a team of the nine greatest defensive players in history, and give them average hitting, average running and average pitching (ignoring the players' own skills at everything except defense). Run that team for 162 games under any conditions you like. Then take a team of the nine greatest baserunners in history, and give them average hitting, pitching and defense. Run that team for 1623.

Then get the nine best hitters at each position and give them average running, pitching and defense, and do the same. I think you would find that the hitters would come out on top, by far.

(Bill - We agree. But your analogy stops short of OUR argument. We field a team of world class hitters, who were also world class fielders & world class runners.

The modern team, which consists of Ruth, Williams, Gehrig, are all fine until they take the field. And I don't know how many times I've seen bothe WS and all-star games lost due to fielding errors, mental errors, sloppy running, bad bunting gone awry, etc. Even Babe Ruth once talked about how re-assured he felt knowing that Speaker backed him up in '15, and Lewis & Hooper for a few more seasons. If you discount state-of-the-Art fielding, just ask a pitcher, how valuable that is to winning. It's paramount to a pitchers ERA. And they will all tell you that.

Ultimately, your above analysis is false. We give no tolerance to average fielding, average hitting or average running. We insist on a team that has all it's strengths intact. That's why we insist on players without ANY weaknesses. Cobb, Wagner, Sisler, Ewing, Johnson, Speaker, Mays, Schmidt. Everyone was world class across the board. No strange gloves, no one who was thrown out as often as they were safe, no bad bunters, all could pull the trigger with the greatest of ease. Even Sisler, who many accuse of being a "singles hitter", came in 2nd to Babe in HRs in '20 (George had 19), and he came 2nd in HRs again in '19.

So, how can you accuse us of lowering the standards? Where have we failed. Cobb won 8 SLG. titles ( and came in 2nd 3 times, 3rd, 3 times, & 4th once). So where have we skimped on out hitting obligations? I'm beyond mystefied. I'm flabberghasted!

Since you've suggested that Chris or I have neglected our responsibilities for fielding a state-of-the-Art team in some abstract manner, I really need to know how you justify your assertion. Please, show us our errors. Where did we screw it up? Because we can't see it. We must be blind cause it escapes our radar.)

Zeth:
"So, to recap: Your research and debating are certainly quite excellent, and I've learned absolutely a ton of stuff I didn't know before. I still think Ruth is #1, because I still think hitting is more important than you do, and because Ruth in his prime was a good fielder and at least an adequate runner.

(Bill - Fair enough. Now you must justify your words. I don't think anyone rates hitting more important than I or Chris, which is why we load our teams with only world class guys. Can you show me "by the numbers, how Babe is a GOOD fielder, and an ADEQUATE runner. Please show me that by the numbers, if you'd be so kind.)

Not that Ty Cobb wasn't a great hitter; he was one of the best hitters in history, even independent of his other contributions. But again, Ruth is so far ahead of everybody else that it more than makes up the difference. I don't see my opinion on that changing, but I know you won't let that discourage you."

(Bill - Now let me be clear. I have no problems with those who rate Babe #1. But let's do it fairly. Whenever I disagree, every single poster requires me to show them why, by the numbers. So please show me "by the numbers", why OBP is not bogus. (if you'd be so good as to break this down, paragraph by paragraph, item by item, we'd see where we divurge.

Me. Not discourged. (Wink) You just have no idea.

Bill Burgess

PS. On re-reading this, Zeth, I can see that's it's way too intense. Please forgive the tone. I like you as a poster, and I just get way too out there when I'm in the midst of a post. I just fire away too quickly. But the content is right on, I think. Why wouldn't I? I wrote it. So please take no note of my style, just my content, OK? Thanks, Bill

Why didn’t I just do this earlier? Settles the whole issue of whether dead ballers are getting screwed because walks were issued more after 1920…..since we are talking of this in the context of Ruth and Cobb, we’ll do the American League disparity.

BB/G AL (1901-19)

2.73

BB/G AL (1920-39)

3.47

That’s a 21% increase in walks between the contrasting 20 year periods.

Walks were far more prevalent after 1920 because of the home run threat. Mr. Burgess is correct in his assumption that OPS and many other number systems (giving SO MUCH importance to OBP) are screwing old timers, because, unlike post 1920 players, they were given a free pass far less because of the context of the times, and not their relative threat as hitters.

csh19792001

03-10-2004, 05:48 PM

Originally posted by Appling
How can the hitter with the second-highest OBP of all time be accused of "poor plate discipline"? I can understand his frustration after not getting many good pitches to hit, but Ruth got record numbers of walks because he knew the strike zone.

Sure, he often led the lead in strikeouts -- but only because he was one of the first to dare take a full swing. Other hitters just tried to make contact, especially with two strikes. Ruth was able to maintain a high lifetime BA (.342) despite his daring to take a "full swing" on almost every pitch.

I think Ruth had (using TODAY'S context), very good-excellent plate discipline.

If we are talking of this in terms of walks drawn (batting eye), it is difficult to assess because he was intentionally walked/pitched around many times because of the live ball and his constant HR power. However, I've read he also had a very good eye also, which makes sense.

If we think of plate discipline in terms of striking out and swinging for the fences every time, than Ruth (by the standards of then) was atrocious. He broke the career strikeout record at 31 (despite being a pitcher for basically 4 full seasons) and held the record for a career (1330) for nearly 30 years. By today's standards, Ruth's K totals aren't bad at all.

By the way---(on his batting average) If you adjust Ruth's BA to a neutral context (with the league hitting .262 every year), it turns out to be .328 lifetime (still very good, but not nearly .342).

Adjust Babe Ruth's offensive numbers (walks, slg, homers, runs, RBI's, Runs), to a neutral context, (or to before 1920), and his numbers drop precipitously. He'd still be one hell of a player, but not the same Babe Ruth we know.

Ironically, they've adjusted Ruth to a 1905-28 (a somewhat neutral) context here... you can see the numbers for yourself.

http://www.exploratorium.edu/baseball/1905_BR.html

Since Babe was playing a different game than everyone else, he was WAY ahead of the curve on homers. Hence, in most of the eras, his homers go up, because it assumes he'd be producing at the same exalted level (compared to the league). But clearly, if everyone else was swinging for homers (which is pretty much the case now), it's safe to say he wouldn't be hitting more homers than entire teams.

Again (I've posted this before) here is Ty Cobb in an era VERY similar runs-wise, to Ruth's. Put him in an OFFENSIVE era, and ruth in a neutral or DEFENSIVE one, and we wouldn't be having this debate.

http://www.exploratorium.edu/baseball/1921_TC.html

catcher24

03-10-2004, 06:04 PM

Chris - As you will see when I post my longer reply, you have made a serious error in your TWO decade comparison. Walks increased 33.06% FROM 1911 TO 1920 - Cobb's prime years. A much smaller increase of 7.57% from 1921 to 1930, then an increase of 13.38% from 1931 to 1940. In other words, an increase of over 33% in the ten years Mr. Burgess wishes to adjust for (but hey, Ty played during those years!), then a COMBINED increase of about 21% over the next 20 years! If anyone is getting screwed, it is the poor schmucks who played from 1901-1910. If any adjustment is to be made (and I still don't buy it), it should be for this time frame.

Bill Burgess

03-10-2004, 06:08 PM

ElHalo,

Yo partner. Just arrived home. And many posts. I'll try to reel you in from the far pastures to which you have strayed. But I doubt I'll be able to keep you between the white lines of the topic at hand. This topic, I had tried to narrow down, was on how pre-1919 SLUGGERS had their OBP screwd IN COMPARISON with the post lively ball SLUGGERS. Narrow issue. But you went into Babe Ruth for reasons best left for you to explain. Now let's see if we can untie the Gordian Knot.

"Mr. Burgess,
All of the people I mentioned hit at least 16 HR's during the dead ball era. Some more than once.

And I limited my discussion to walks and homers because that was the topic of discussion above. I.E., that your contention that players got crazy insane levels of walks because they hit for power because they copied the Babe. That's what I'm trying to rebut. The idea that Babe's OBP shouldn't be viewed in the same light as, say, Ty Cobb's OBP, because walks were somehow used differently after 1920.

Let's look at your seasons (staying to BB's and HR's because that is the basis of the argument)

Hornsby in 22... 65 BB's, 46 HR's, OPS 1.181
Gehrig in 27... 109 BB's,47 HR's, OPS 1.240
Klein in 30... 54 BB's, 40 HR's, OPS 1.123
Herman... 66 BB's, 35 HR's, OPS 1.132
Simmons in 30... 39 BB's, 36 HR's, OPS 1.130
Foxx in 32... 116 BB's, 58 HR's. OPS 1.218

And though I really don't see how these are relavent, since they didn't occur while Babe Ruth was active, I'll throw them out anyway.

Greenberg in 37... 102 BB's, 40 HR, OPS 1.105
DiMaggio in 37... 64 BB's, 46 HR, OPS 1.085

Ok, so here we've got a bunch of numbers that are all well and good. You've picked out a bunch of player's single best seasons. While that's all well and good, let me point out that only the OPS' of Hornsby, Gehrig, and Foxx, three of the all time top ten hitters, from what you've chosen as their "best" seasons, even top Babe Ruth's CAREER OPS (1.164) So if Babe's the OBP king, and Cobb's the BA king... well, I can come up with a lot more than 3 guys who hit over .367 in a single year.

And the best you could give me there as far as walk totals go was 116 by Foxx. Babe Ruth topped this mark TEN TIMES in his career.

The argument was, that walks from post 1920 shouldn't be considered as as valuable as walks from pre-1920. I think I thouroughly debunked that myth: since walks were more prevalent pre-1920 than post 1920, it would seem that walks from both time periods are EQUALLY AS VALUABLE. Meaning that getting 150 BB's in 1930 is JUST AS VALUABLE as getting 150 BB's in 1912.

The argument was that Babe Ruth walked and hit homers a lot, and that flew for a few years, but then people caught up and hit homers and walked just like him. And that's an absolute, emphatic, NO. Obviously, offense as a whole was up, so runs scored and RBI rose, and one 1927 run isn't worth the same as one 1912 run. But BB's stayed constant, and HR's, while they increased, didn't increase at ANYWHERE NEAR the level Babe's HR's increased, and it really wasn't until after he had retired that they caught up with him."

(Bill - All of the above is all very nice, just doesn't rebut anything of my contention. In fact, all you've done is make my case. Your own sentences have done my work for me. Allow me to shed some light differently than you did.

My thrust is that the lively ball changed the ENTIRE offensive/defensive balance in the game. While the defensive aspects of BB held sway from 1900-18, from '19-38 was all in favor of offense. And for you to suggest otherwise is to just turn BB reality on it's head. I'm not merely referring to walks here, but to all other offensive stats. Pitching stats suffered by comparison and hitting stats benefited by comparison. That was my very simple point.

And within that context, walks were much higher from '19-38, than from 1900-18. That walks increased somewhat from '11-14 is a subplot in the bigger picture. In '11, they introduced the cork-cushioned center, whereas it was previously only a small rubber core. The '11 increase was a small taste of what happened in '19 with the tighter wound center.

The issue of contact hitters working the pitcher wasn't included in my contention. But I do recognize that if an historical timeline adjustment for walks might well give them an unwarranted benefit to which they weren't entitled. However, I contend that even those guys, such as light-hitting Miller Huggins, would have gotten even higher walks post '19. And why wouldn't they? Even they could have done more damage with a greatly more resilient ball.

You call Gehrig, Foxx, "top 10 all-time hitters". Did you ever pause to consider that if they & Crawford and Lajoie were to be switched in their playing careers, you'd be calling Crawford and Lajoie "top 10 all-time hitters", instead of just great hitters, but not top 10. Is it even remotely possible that their times had a huge amount to do with their numbers being so god-dang awesome? We can put Greenberg in there too.

Wagner was a MUCH greater power hitter than Greenberg, but you never know it to look at their OBP. Due to Wagner's lack of extra walks due to playing when walks were more rare, he ranks 33rd on the all-time list for Relative OBP. below such talents as
14th- Gehrig
29th-Foxx
32nd-Joe Morgan

Get that. Wagner a true top 10 all time hitter down in 33rd place, beneath the likes of Joe Morgan, a top 40 all time hitter! That is what I mean by looking punk in comparison to those who had much greater assess to the walks bonanza. Now I suppose you could argue that Morgan was as great a hitter as Wagner, but you'd lose and lose huge. But the present system allows Morgan to "appear" on a par with those who he isn't qualified to carry the jock-strap of. Ok, he can carry Wagner's jock. I lost my head there and went too far.)

RuthMayBond quote:
"If you wouldn't say stuff like Cobb being responsible for 30 wins himself per year, or double stolen bases pre-1920 or Bill Lange was in the top 25, you wouldn't get chiseled. I have agreed with you that some of the old-timers haven't gotten their due.

(Bill - You're right about the 1st two, I'm right about Lange, Ewing and Sisler. You're so kind to recognize that some old-timers haven't gotten their due. Many blessings on your house, sir.)

ElHalo:
So the AL leaders would seem to have slightly fewer BB's in 1912 in than in 1930... same with the NL leaders. Overall, in the AL in 1912, there were 9.28 BB's per 100 AB's. In 1930, that number was 9.27. I.e., there were LESS BB's per plate appearance in 1930 in the AL in 1930 than in 1912. How does that mesh with your argument? In the NL, where the offensive explosion was supposedly far more severe? Hack Wilson and all that? In 1930, there were 8.45 BB's per 100 AB's. In 1912? 9.45.

So, if there were MORE walks, on average, in 1912 than in 1930... how does your argument hold up? Sorry, but it just doesn't.

(Bill - I think you've paid off the umps. Prove your assertion. Tell us where you got your numbers. I'm not saying your wrong, yet, but they do smell mighty fishy.)

Oh, and just for good measure... Ruth led the league in BB's again in 1931. And again in 1932. And again in 1933. In 1934, at the age of 39, Ruth finally slipped. He missed 29 games due to injury that year... and finished 3rd in walks, 7 behind Jimmie Foxx, and 5 behind Gehrig.

Seems to me that the "lively ball" NEVER helped anybody to anywhere near the same extent it helped Ruth. At least, not until after he was out of the league.

(So what's your bottom line? You sayin' Ruth was the best in his league till '33? You got to be kiddin' me. Again, due to your lack of reading and awareness of how he was perceived at any given point, you betray your blindness. But, to the good guys of this thread, we can re-enter the time machine, known to all as Bill's File Cabinet of Forgotten BB Lore. So come with me back to July, 1931, when Babe bubble of fame, hovered at it's very pinnacle. And listen to the sage counsel of Mack, McGraw and Dan Howley.
As part of a survey, they were asked to name the 5 greatest players of all time. Remember, July, 1931.

John McGraw, manager of the Giants, the first man approached for his views, named Hans Wagner as the greatest. "Wagner could do everything required of a ball player." said McGraw as he sat in the Giants' dugout in the Polo Grounds. "He had tremendous hands, and in addition to his great playing ability, had a wonderful disposition and was easy to handle. I'll place Cobb second and Keeler third. Al Simmons is my next pick, as I consider him the greatest ball player of the present day. Like Wagner he is a right-handed hitter of power and can field his position splendidly and throw fast and accurately. Simmons is no dumb ball player, either. My own first baseman, Bill terry, is included in my selection. He is really a great ball player and the best first baseman I have ever seen."

While McGraw and McKechnie have been spending their lives in the National League, Connie Mack has been devoting his time to the American. "I haven't had the chance to see many of the great stars of the other league," the Philadelphia
Athletics leader said. "But picking the greatest player that ever lived is easy, I think. I pick Ty Cobb. I guess every one will do the same. Cobb was a good fielder, the greatest baserunner in the game's history, the fastest thinker and the most consistent hitter. How can you name any one else? Eddie Collins, the keystone of my great infield of the old Athletics, is my second choice. Eddie was a marvelous ball player. I can't say too much for him. I'll name Lajoie third. Of the present-day players I pick Al Simmons first, and he is my fourth man of all time. I hate to leave off Mickey Cochrane, but I must name Babe Ruth, so he goes fifth. If there was a sixth place in your selections, Cochrane would get it. When I picked my all-time team last year, I named Buck Ewing as the best catcher I ever saw. I put Buck ahead of Mickey because of the latter's comparatively brief service in the majors. But you can say for me, and this is the first time I've said it for publication, that I now consider Cochrane the greatest catcher that ever lived. You can't take it away from him."

Dan Howley, manager of the Cincinnati Reds and former leader of the St. Louis Browns and 1926 pennant-winning Toronto Leafs in the International League is another Cobb admirer. "Ty first without a doubt," he said. "No one ever approached him. I'll give Wagner second and that's all I'll name. I think Al Simmons is the best ball player in the game right now. I might name Al, but what about Mickey Cochrane, Frankie Frisch, Rogers Hornsby, Babe Ruth and Bill Terry among the present-day players, and Eddie Collins, Nap Lajoie and Tris Speaker among the older fellows? I can't include them all in your list, so I'll pick only Cobb and Wagner."

So there you have it. By 3 of the people who were there at the time, professionals giving their professional opinions. Babe wasn't considered the best player in July, 1931, regardless of how much you want & need to believe in your favorite fantacies, based on numbers that you are qualified to evaluate or assess. Someday, when your ego subsides, and you're more open to professional on the scene impartial witnesses, you will remember these words. -------- I told YOU So!----------------)

Ok, so here we've got a bunch of numbers that are all well and good. You've picked out a bunch of player's single best seasons. While that's all well and good, let me point out that only the OPS' of Hornsby, Gehrig, and Foxx, three of the all time top ten hitters, from what you've chosen as their "best" seasons, even top Babe Ruth's CAREER OPS (1.164) So if Babe's the OBP king, and Cobb's the BA king... well, I can come up with a lot more than 3 guys who hit over .367 in a single year.

And the best you could give me there as far as walk totals go was 116 by Foxx. Babe Ruth topped this mark TEN TIMES in his career.

The argument was, that walks from post 1920 shouldn't be considered as as valuable as walks from pre-1920. I think I thouroughly debunked that myth: since walks were more prevalent pre-1920 than post 1920, it would seem that walks from both time periods are EQUALLY AS VALUABLE. Meaning that getting 150 BB's in 1930 is JUST AS VALUABLE as getting 150 BB's in 1912.

The argument was that Babe Ruth walked and hit homers a lot, and that flew for a few years, but then people caught up and hit homers and walked just like him. And that's an absolute, emphatic, NO. Obviously, offense as a whole was up, so runs scored and RBI rose, and one 1927 run isn't worth the same as one 1912 run. But BB's stayed constant, and HR's, while they increased, didn't increase at ANYWHERE NEAR the level Babe's HR's increased, and it really wasn't until after he had retired that they caught up with him.

(Bill - We've did all this before, and suffice it to say, I disagree with almost every single sylable of the above with the exception of this one sentence.

"Obviously, offense as a whole was up, so runs scored and RBI rose, and one 1927 run isn't worth the same as one 1912 run."

Not all runs or walks are created equal. A run in 1908 is worth more than a run in 1930. A walk in 1908 or 1912 is worth more than a walk in 1930. You have posted many numbers here which I just don't believe. You claim that there were more walks in 1912 than 1930. I just don't believe it. Show me and I'll believe it.
Total Baseball says that in 1930, there were 3975 walks in the AL, while in 1912 there were 3794 & in 1908 there were 2803.

Now, is it possible that you went through the record book from 1900-1918, an picked out the highest number of walks and used that figure to defeat my over-all premise that walks were much more prevelant after '19 than before? Now you didn't do that right? Tell us you aren't that sneaky. Cause that would be PATHETIC! (wink) Boot Hill? Are you calling ElHalo? Just kidding you there, ElHalo.

You have gotten yourself into another Alamo situation here, just like your assertion on the WS are the endall and beall of life in BB, and all else are losers. Which of course makes all players big-time losers.)

What's with all the war and/or killing metaphors? You do realize that this is typing, not shooting, and that this is baseball, not geopolitics, right?

(Bill - Ah c'mon! Can we have a little fun here. I mean, your premise is so out of order with BB history, that you're a dead man walking and we're all out to save your fanny from Boot Hill. It's lonely up in them thar hills. "Gits lit'l quiet come nite fall."

And sorry, but I've looked at the numbers, and there's really no way of getting around them. Did offense take off after Ruth? Absolutely. Did some players have great seasons? Absolutely. There's no arguing that.

But there's also no arguing that, in 1927, 9 home runs could put you in the top ten in the AL!

(Bill - 10 yrs. earlier, it'd have won you a HR title!)

In 1930, 16 home runs could put you in the top ten.

(Bill - 11 yrs. earlier, Ruth's 29 HRs created a frenzy, and it was thought that no one, not even he, could ever hope to approach it ever again. While 13 HRs before '18, stamped one with the war club of THOR.)

So while home runs definitely trended upwards, Ruth was still far, far, far ahead of the pack even into his mid thirties. Did a player get close to him every now and again? Yeah, but when they did, it was guys like Hornsby and Gehrig, some of the greatest players of all time, or it was once Ruth was already into the downside of his career. And even THEN, Ruth was better than them.

And there's also no arguing that, despite what you've said, walks DID NOT skyrocket with Ruth. Ruth remained far, far ahead of the curve in walks (and, hence, OBP), and the fact that there walks were MORE frequent in 1912 than in 1930... that seems to me that there definitely wasn't a huge trend of sluggers getting walked left, right, and sideways. There was just Ruth.

(Bill - Well, it's clear that no one, especially not the humble likes of me, can, at this time alter your perceptions on any of this stuff.

I've provided 3 good quotes, from Babe's peers, all of whom liked him personally, by the way, (except McGraw), to show how his profession viewed him.

I've shown many times how the league resisted imitating BR until 1925, and then took till '27 to pull almost even with him, and by the late '27 onwards were posting similar stats. Babe was a competitive guy and fought very manfully to not allow them to catch up, but by '30, Simmons was thought of as the best player in the game. You won't believe this because all you have to guide you are Babe's bones (stats). I've given good testimony from the cavemen and we know how he played and how he was regarded. But a committed anthropologist cannot give up the bones. Pity. Perhaps, your starving men in your Alamo would like to surrender? We're prepared to accept your ceremonial sword in token of surrender. You will not be killed. Just sold into slavery in Mexico. These are good terms & we urge you to take them.

Bill Burgess

ElHalo

03-10-2004, 06:59 PM

Not all runs or walks are created equal. A run in 1908 is worth more than a run in 1930. A walk in 1908 or 1912 is worth more than a walk in 1930. You have posted many numbers here which I just don't believe. You claim that there were more walks in 1912 than 1930. I just don't believe it. Show me and I'll believe it.
Total Baseball says that in 1930, there were 3975 walks in the AL, while in 1912 there were 3794 & in 1908 there were 2803.

Now, is it possible that you went through the record book from 1900-1918, an picked out the highest number of walks and used that figure to defeat my over-all premise that walks were much more prevelant after '19 than before? Now you didn't do that right? Tell us you aren't that sneaky. Cause that would be PATHETIC! (wink) Boot Hill? Are you calling ElHalo? Just kidding you there, ElHalo.

Ok, let me get the numbers out, just to prove that I'm not pulling things out of thin air.

I picked 1912 because I wanted to pick a year that Ty Cobb was dominant, just for your sake. Ty's OPS+ was 200 in 1912, one of 3 times it topped 200 (1910 and 1917 being the other times... I took the middle year). (Oh, and not that it means anything to you, but Ruth's career OPS+ was 207...)

Now, as we both apparently agree, offense was up between 1912 and 1930. Runs were up, batting average was... and you know what? That means that you can't just look at the flat numbers of walks. Since batting average and runs were up, teams got more at bats per game. If a team gets 3 walks and 30 at bats, or 4 walks and 40 at bats, the rate of walks/ plate appearance are the same, right? Even though the second team got more walks? Ok, good. So since AB's were up, BB's were of course also going to be up, even if the RATE at which pitchers handed out BB's goes down. So we have to look at the RATE of BB's to get a true ID of how common walks were.

Now, the BB's per 100 AB number is very simple to get: Divide the total number of BB's by the total number of AB's, mulpitply by 100.

In 1912 in the AL, there were 3794 BB's. And 40,887 AB's. Go to baseballreference.com if you don't trust those numbers. So doing the math that I described above (I assume you know how to multiply and divide), we get 9.27923... Let's call it 9.28.

Let me repeat the process for some other years, what say?

1910 AL: 8.30
1910 NL: 9.91
1911 AL: 8.65
1911 NL: 10.41
1912 AL: 9.28
1912 NL: 9.45
1913 AL: 9.38
1913 NL: 8.55
1914 AL: 9.62
1914 NL: 8.81

So looking at that, if we include the two years before and the two years after 1912 for both leagues, we get that the BB rate for the AL in 1912 was third highest of the five year period, and the BB rate for the NL in 1912 was third highest of the five year period.

Nope, that would seem to make 1912 pretty typical. Not just "Pulling numbers out of thin air". And not picking the one year with the most walks.

Now let's look at 1930... and, for the sake of argument, the two years before and after it.

1928 AL: 9.09
1928 NL: 9.09
1929 AL: 9.61
1929 NL: 9.21
1930 AL: 9.27
1930 NL: 8.45
1931 AL: 9.54
1931 NL: 8.16
1932 AL: 10.14
1932 NL: 7.18

Ok... looks fairly similar to the previous numbers to me. Let's take the total averages.

For both leagues, from 1910 to 1914, the average number of BB's per 100 AB's (just adding them up and dividing by ten...) was 9.24.

For both leagues, from 1928 to 1932, the average number of BB's per 100 AB's (just adding them up and dividing by ten...) was 8.97.

So on average, in both leagues, walks were MORE common from 1910 to 1914 than they were from 1928 to 1932. You know, maybe there were fewer walks before 1910. I don't know, I haven't done the math.

And within that context, walks were much higher from '19-38, than from 1900-18. That walks increased somewhat from '11-14 is a subplot in the bigger picture. In '11, they introduced the cork-cushioned center, whereas it was previously only a small rubber core. The '11 increase was a small taste of what happened in '19 with the tigher wound center.

See, here's the problem. Maybe 1911 to 1914 had more walks than at other times in the dead ball era... but it also had more walks than that period, from 1928 to 1932, which you claim to be the prime middle of the "live ball" slugging era.

That's my point: Sure, offense as a whole was up after 1920. But the walks numbers that guys like Foxx, Ruth, Gehrig put up were not just factors of their era. If it was, then guys like Cobb, Joe Jackson, Speaker, etc., surely would have put up EVEN GREATER walk numbers, coming from an era where walks were more common... but they didn't.

So I've shown you that walks were more prevalent in 1912 than in 1930. Believe me now?

And please, PLEASE, don't offer me any more testimonials from contemporaries about how great everybody thought Babe Ruth wasn't. I put absolutely ZERO weight in them, and I never will. Sorry.

catcher24

03-10-2004, 07:00 PM

Mr. Burgess: I suppose I don't have to even type this reply, since you already know what I am going to present before I do it (your words). But I'll put this up anyway. I believe ElHalo has made the point I was trying to make, only he did it more eloquently and convincingly. I simply cannot comprehend how you can continue to ignore the evidence that your "walk adjustment" theory is incorrect. You cherry pick the greatest sluggers of the late 20's into the 30's, give their walk totals, and then expect us to accept your opinion (or perhaps you thought your tirade would cow us into agreement). You have obviously simply dismissed the charts I put up a few posts ago regarding walk totals per five year period. Breaking that down into decades:
Decade Walks Walks per Game % Increase
1901-1910 28209 2.39 N/A
1911-1920 37535 3.13 33.06%
1921-1930 40377 3.31 7.57%
1931-1940 45781 3.77 13.38%

Walks per game increased 1.5 times as much from 1910 to 1920 as they did from all of 1921 to 1940!! How can you then say we need to adjust for walks as a component of OBP in the teens? If there is ANY argument to be made for adjusting walks as a component of OBP, it can only be made for the period 1901 to 1910.

Walk leaders - American League

1915 1925
Collins 119 Mostil 90
Shotton 118 Kamm 90
Cobb 118 Collins 87
Bush 118 Bishop 87
Hooper 89 Blue 83

This is PRECISELY why I left Ruth's figures out of my chart in a prior post, and went with the second place finisher. Ruth was ill in 1925 and missed a lot of games. As you can see, ONCE YOU TAKE RUTH OUT OF THE EQUATION THERE IS NO HUGE ADVANTAGE. Once Ruth is removed, there is no 20's advantage. That's simply how much better than the rest of the league he was.

I think your assertion that Ruth would not do well in the teens is also a little off. In 1918, he tied for the league lead in HR and had 58 BB while playing in 95 games. 1919 - 29 HR, 101 BB in 130 games. Not too darn shabby once he began playing regularly.

I also happen to agree with Zeth (I believe) who said that the best way to determine real value of a player is to compare him to the league average for the same season. This really compares apples to apples, as it is comparing the same players,parks,field and ball conditions, gloves, etc. It is, IMHO, the best way to determine how valuable a player was at the time he played and in the league he played in. I could compare OPS+ from 1918 to 1923 or so between Ruth and Cobb, but I don't think you would like it - very ugly for Cobb. Going beyond that time frame would certainly not be fair, as Ty was getting on in years, was managing and so was stressed out, and Ruth was entering his prime. So we'll skip that exercise.

Also, if offense dropped off after 1938, as you mention, there is one little problem to account for:
107,96,147,145 - Ted Williams' walk totals his first four years in the league. I imagine we will have to make some type of adjustment, since he was drawing these outrageous walk totals during a period of lowered offensive output. And they only get bigger after the war.

As far as Bill James' timeline adjustment, I cannot comment. I have unfortunately not had the opportunity to read the New Historical Abstract, and so am not familiar with. If what you have said is true, and he is simply adjusting because the oldtimers look too good, I would tend to oppose any such adjustment. So without seeing the book and relying solely on your comments (I realize a VERY hazardous strategy), I would tend to agree with you on that.

Anyway, the debate will rage on and on. One side will not convince the other (I feel like I'm in the mideast). At any rate, this is my final post to this thread. I have limited time to spend on the internet, this site or any other, and there are other areas I would like to explore, and other threads and sites I would like to investigate further. And as I mentioned before, no sense in beating a dead horse. I will leave it to Zeth, RMB, ElHalo and others to carry on the good fight. Also, I didn't think you would tell me the other sites you visit, as you certainly wouldn't want it discovered that your theory isn't flying anywhere. I certainly am not trying to be uncivil, because I think this is a great forum for sharing ideas. Unfortunately, you tend to become a little belligerent when other posters disagree with you, and I think it has affected my attitude - although you have always been very civil to me. Anyway, keep up the good fight for Ty - someone needs to, because although he was a total jerk, he was a fabulous baseball player.

One last thing:

Bill Burgess posted:
All,

2Chance
fryj?
kelo80
Eddie Collins
Sandman
Tearforamariner
Chancellor
Zito75
mpacy
blighty baseball bloke
TXRangerfan
George Steinbrenner
Luke Appling
Chad

Your support is urgently requested on "Who Is the Greatest Player Ever? Presently, Ty Cobb is getting his ass kicked by Babe Ruth. Your support is urgently needed. Thank you.

And this thread also could use your support also.

Bill Burgess

Phil, you are so obsessed with Ty being the best that you go begging for votes in two polls on BF. It hasn't worked yet, as Ty is still "getting his ass kicked". Is it so important for you that he win the poll? If so, I would suggest PM to all your supporters and secretly lobby them harder, or maybe find ten friends with computers, log on from ten locations, and vote Ty to #ONE!!!
Then you can be happy. Talk about PATHETIC (your word)!

See you around the boards!!

csh19792001

03-10-2004, 07:17 PM

Originally posted by catcher24
Chris - As you will see when I post my longer reply, you have made a serious error in your TWO decade comparison. Walks increased 33.06% FROM 1911 TO 1920 - Cobb's prime years. A much smaller increase of 7.57% from 1921 to 1930, then an increase of 13.38% from 1931 to 1940. In other words, an increase of over 33% in the ten years Mr. Burgess wishes to adjust for (but hey, Ty played during those years!), then a COMBINED increase of about 21% over the next 20 years! If anyone is getting screwed, it is the poor schmucks who played from 1901-1910. If any adjustment is to be made (and I still don't buy it), it should be for this time frame.

That's fine. I just want things to be fair. Adjust and index it for EVERY PLAYER (if you truly want to be fair), because I doubt anyone played exactly from 1900-19 anyway. Guys who played their entire careers before 20' are unfairly maligned. We agree. This is a statistical fact. So were the numbers which I presented. The percentage increases are irrelevant; only the overall averages are germane.

I've made a serious error? That's ok, I'm happy to learn from them. I was just posting the numbers I found, showing that walks from the 1900-19 period (deadball, taken as a whole) were INDEED much more rare than 1920-39 because of the conditions.

csh19792001

03-10-2004, 08:03 PM

"Runs were up, batting average was... and you know what? That means that you can't just look at the flat numbers of walks."

No, don't look at the flat walks- and you don't need to look at the "walk rate" either. Walks/Game is designed to delineate what you are talking about above.

"Now, as we both apparently agree, offense was up between 1912 and 1930."

No, offense wasn't up between 12 and 1919. R/G during that era was 3.88.

Runs per game 1920-39- 5.08

No comparison. Deadball vs. Liveball. 32% more runs scored.

ElHalo

03-10-2004, 08:23 PM

Originally posted by csh19792001
"Now, as we both apparently agree, offense was up between 1912 and 1930."

No, offense wasn't up between 12 and 1919. R/G during that era was 3.88.

Runs per game 1920-39- 5.08

No comparison. Deadball vs. Liveball. 32% more runs scored.

Not sure what you're saying here. I was saying that offense was up between 1912 and 1930... i.e., there were more runs scored in 1930 than in 1912.

csh19792001

03-10-2004, 08:30 PM

Originally posted by ElHalo
Not sure what you're saying here. I was saying that offense was up between 1912 and 1930... i.e., there were more runs scored in 1930 than in 1912.

Gotcha. Miscommunication.

I thought you were saying that runs were up from 1912-30 vs. 1900-11 perhaps.

Why I thuoght that- some people think that since they introduced the cork centered ball for 2 years, that from then on the numbers were inflated. In fact, 1913-18 (encompassing Cobb's best years, I believe) were very run scarce years, with low batting averages, too.

I don't understand why "walk rate" is needed. What about walks/game? It's provided at baseball-reference.

Bill Burgess

03-10-2004, 08:58 PM

Mr. Catcher24,

Thank you for your friendly, cordial, relaxed tone. You're sweet. And I really appreciate that. I enjoyed your first extended post and out of respect, devoted a long time and extended post back.

However, as Zeth informed you, I was isolating sluggers, and you went your own way. I do understand why you walked your own path. I suggesed an historical timeline adjustment and thanks to you, I realized that it may confer value on contact guys that might not be warranted. So my idea may or may not be appropriate.

I have duly noted your opposition. What more can I note from you? I have never tried to personally lobby you. I, out of my routine respect for anyone who cares to talk to me, posted to you back. And I take pains to go over their stuff, item by item. A courtesy I seldom get returned.

So if my suggestion is half-baked, so be it, Mr. Catcher24, so be it. I still contend that if nothing happens, as it probably won't, that certain BB guys, got shafted. If you do too, great. You indicate perhaps you agree, but I'm searching for a solution. If in my ignorance, I propose ill-suited solutions, perhaps others can craft more focused solutions.

At least I'm out there trying to stimulate productive, useful, thoughtful exchanges with those who like to talk to me.

Don't feel bad if I don't agree with you 100%. No one agrees with me 100% either. My premise that the lively ball helped the On-base average of the slugger type of hitter, remain true & intact, regardless of your refusal to acknowlege it. It is BB history and accepted conventional wisdom. If you hate my suggestion of an adjustment, fine. Hate it. But not having one doesn't solve the problem.

Honus Wagner is 33th in all time Relative On-base average. Right below Joe Morgan. So to suggest he didn't get screwed royally, is to deny stat justice. So if you're content with that, serenity to you. May God bless you.

I asked for 14 posters who had already expressed their belief that Cobb was #1, for their assistance. So what? And for you to judge me for communicating with them, well, what does that say about your peace of mind? Why does that irk you? Not that I care. Just sounds bizarre on your part to care.

I think this last postings of yours is very uncharacteristic of you, since we have always been civil hithertofore. I'm frankly taken aback by your tone. But you know what? None of this is important. The percent of the world who believes Ty or Babe or Willie or Honus was/is #1 is so irrelevant to our lives here. Yes, I enjoy discussing Ty Cobb issues. But only if the other person gets something good out of it too. So if the over-all impression I've created is over-invested, that is unfortunate. Truly regretable, and a testament to my lack of communication skills.

Regardless how over-wrought I post, this is my recreation. My amusement. This is my fun. As an adult care-giver, I give physical rehab to severely handicapped people every day. That is how I make my living. It's my job. And if you saw what I see every day, your heart too might need a healthy outlet to distract you, let you forget. What I see is too real. So I like to vent about sports, because it's not real. We're not negotiating Jerusalem here. We just chatting sports.

I was invited to this site by my buddy, Chris, and my #1 purpose was to entertain you and make you feel happy. And also to enlighten with cool period flavor. With you I have obviously been an abject, miserable failure. And for that I'm sad. I had hoped for so much more. I had hoped to be perceived as engaging. Sorry I messed it up with you. If we never cross paths again, I hope you and your family are healthy, content, and prosperous. All else is wind & vanity. It was my pleasure to chat with you. You have influenced me, about the adjustment. Best regards,

Bill Burgess

ElHalo

03-10-2004, 09:18 PM

Mr. Burgess...

Hm, no response to my posting of numbers showing how walks weren't handed out at a higher rate during the live ball era than during the dead ball era? Interesting...

Bill Burgess

03-10-2004, 09:33 PM

ElHalo,

Huh? I just finished a while ago posting HUGE to you, and you cherry-picked a tid-bit and now ask where's my response? You've got to be kidding me?!

Where's MY appropriate proportionate response? Tou-che.

My work is as valuable as yours. You ignore the tough parts and focus on the easy stuff.

1900-10 is an integral part of the mix. And not a peep. Honus Wagner's all time OBP is 33th, just behind Joe Morgan!

We know that Wagner's Relative BA is 16th, with 123.1.
We know that Morgan's Relative BA is not in the top 100, which is 113.0.

So we know that it's not the BA component where Honus loses ranking. So it must be walks. Yes? This is what I meant when I say that certain player's OBP. looks punk.

I haven't gotten to your walks work, because I was posting to Mr. Catcher24. So please have some patience with me. OK?

There is time yet to dispatch you to Boot Hill. Just teasing.

Bill Burgess

ElHalo

03-10-2004, 09:47 PM

Mr. Burgess,

Of course, my apologies. Just seemed that my post was getting buried, and it would be a shame to have to do all that math again... as for the Honus Wagner thing; OBP does tend to rate walks rather highly. And for all the things Honus was; patient wasn't one of them. He ranked in the top ten in BB's only 4 times in his 21 year career, in the top 5 only once. That means that even for his day, he wasn't much of a walker.

Bill Burgess

03-10-2004, 11:13 PM

ElHalo,

Ok. Let's see what you're holding in your hand. Time to put our cards on the table. Looks somewhat surprising, I'll admit the tough calls. Nice homework, ElHalo. So let's take stock. Let's evaluate. What, if anything, have we actually demonstrated.

First of all, we have for no good reason, completely omitted the 1900-10 period, when perfectly good sluggers, like Wagner, Lajoie, Crawford, Cobb, had to cross the Desert of the Lost, in terms of Hitters Despair Death Valley. And I don't know why you focused on the period when they had just spiked the ball's resilancy, starting in '11. But I am impressed with your work, ElHalo. You most definitely have worked hard and shown not just me, but whoever is still following this thread, some surprising stuff! And so I MUST tip my hat to your warrior's heart and this stuff took a long time, because I've done this kind of stuff a million times. So much new respect to you, my man. What can I make of this surprising data? I must admit it does look, at 1st blush, startling to the point of almost impossible. Even with the new juiced ball, it's hard to understand how these numbers can truly be valid. And I am frankly having a hard time accepting their reality. How can this be possible? I'm shocked! And that's very good, to be shocked. Means I'm still learning somethings, which I love above all else. And for all your hard labor, I must thank you! So for the moment, I will not scorn or throw crap on your hard work with the calculator. Unless Chris or someone else puts this work in another light, for the moment, I'll accept & respect your work. OK?

I must conclude that the contact guys of that era were really working & milking those pitchers for all they were worth. My main premise & interest was "Were the "sluggers from '00-18, getting screwed in their OBP?" That was my focus and main thrust.

Now this might not make any sense to you, but if the sluggers of that era were to receive walks, it would have come through milking the pitchers via plate discipline. They did not inspire fear or undue respect, due to the fact that even if they connected and powdered the ball, it wasn't pre-ordained that the ball was going for a ride over the fence. Many, many great smashes became loud outs in deep OF.

Now can we say the same thing for the post '18 sluggers? I just can't see how that would be the same situation. Let's look at some of my examples too.

Speaker: top BB pre '18- 82, 82, 81; post '18- 97, 94, 93
I looked up Roush, Wheat, and they had hardly any walks either before or after. Collins had more walks before, but wasn't a slugger. He was working the pitchers via plate discipline, & did get a lot of walks. But I also realize that Speaker above wasn't feared as a power guy either. He simply had fantastic plate judgement, too. So I've come up empty in finding examples to donfirm my theory of guys from before increasing their walks after '18, except for Cobb, who was a true slugger.

1910 AL: 8.30
1910 NL: 9.91
1911 AL: 8.65
1911 NL: 10.41
1912 AL: 9.28
1912 NL: 9.45
1913 AL: 9.38
1913 NL: 8.55
1914 AL: 9.62
1914 NL: 8.81

So looking at that, if we include the two years before and the two years after 1912 for both leagues, we get that the BB rate for the AL in 1912 was third highest of the five year period, and the BB rate for the NL in 1912 was third highest of the five year period.

Nope, that would seem to make 1912 pretty typical. Not just "Pulling numbers out of thin air". And not picking the one year with the most walks.

Now let's look at 1930... and, for the sake of argument, the two years before and after it.

1928 AL: 9.09
1928 NL: 9.09
1929 AL: 9.61
1929 NL: 9.21
1930 AL: 9.27
1930 NL: 8.45
1931 AL: 9.54
1931 NL: 8.16
1932 AL: 10.14
1932 NL: 7.18

(Bill - I do still feel that the sluggers that I showed you, and to which you replaced with your own graphs, are valid. And I doubt if they could have piled up those walks during the deadball era any more than Crawford or Wagner or Lajoie could. Do you agree that that point is valid or not? (Narrow focus: Comparing Gehrig, Foxx, Greenberg & Wilson to Wagner, Lajoie, Crawford and Delehanty, could the former have achieved the same walk totals if they had been playing when the latter played?)

Upon seeing all your old-fashioned hard work, I just don't want to discourage you. If I don't acknowlege this, you & others will write me off as hopeless. You've worked the numbers real hard & it's time I give you your new respect. No Boot Hill for you! I was just teasing you, I hope you realize. I love to tease and have fun with colorful writing. Makes life more fun. Know what I mean? You're fun to debate, because you won't back down. And that's cool. As long as you're willing to do the work. A thoughtful poster fired on me today, not realizing how hard I've worked my ass off for this site for over a year now. I had thought we were all having fun. But I guess he wasn't where I am concerned. Silly me. My loss.

The only thing that this doesn't address is my sluggers focus. That was what I was originally trying to showcase. Your work, while great and revealing, incorporates ALL the hitters, including the Joe Sewells, when I was trying to focus on the famous heavy hitters.

While I veer too much into Cobb, everyone else veers into Ruth. And this exercise wasn't intended to be a reprise of Babe/Ty.

But I sill contend that those seasons that I put forward was an honest & sincere and objective representative sample of how the leagues did indeed catch up to the Babe. True, I used my sample which extended to 1938, for the only reason that many have always implied that no one else ever equalled or approached his level of productivity. And that's just not the way it played out. True, he was a pioneer of a new cutting edge technique, the grooved power swing, but once the world awoke to it, it was like copy-cat manufacturers putting out Sony or Dell lookalike computers. But Babe's imitators did finally arrive on the scene, before the powers that be, put a stop to the premium productivity era, around '37-40. And they never brought it back till the late '90's.

Before I found this site, on another site, I put all of Ruth's seasons plus 17 others from '20-38, on a file, and dared anyone to pick out Ruth's without consulting the record book. One picked out his top 4, by looking for the tell-tale numbers, 60, 59, .847, etc.

Even Bill James recognizes that the league caught Ruth. And not at the end of his career. (Hornsby, 1922, Gehrig, 1927).

"But it's also true that everything that Ruth did, somebody else almost duplicated within a few years. For example, Ruth's 1923 seaon, when he hit .393 with 41 homers and 131 RBIs is essentially duplicated by Hornsby's 1922 season, when he hit .401 with 42 homers & 152 RBIs, and even Ruth's 1921 & '27 seasons are almost matched by Hack Wilson's campaign in '30 and Foxx in '32.

Ruth was the first person to reach these levels and the most consistent at maintaining them, but the fact that other people were able to do basically the same things he had done shows that he achieved these levels not because he was some kind of superhuman athletic freak, but because he was a trail blazer, a man who had the courage to escape the fictions and falsehoods that constrained other men's talents, and show them what could be done.

. . . Napoleon said that "Without the Revolution, I am nothing." (Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract, 1988, pp. 422-423.)

In my opinion, in this case, the Revolution Mr. James refers to was the Lively Ball.

I posted to you huge, and whatever happened to my response, for all that hard work?

What happened to my quotes by Mack, McGraw and Howley?

Bill Burgess

Schadenfreuder

03-13-2004, 11:48 PM

So, yeah...I know this is a private chat line for stat-heads, but I just went through seven pages of walks-to-era-adjusted-My Ty's-better-than-Your Babe melodrama muck, and I felt that a reply from someone new and uninitiated was in order...
Just for that, and hopefully for the reams of statistical data that will come flooding through this thread, I say, without a doubt, that a possibly steroid-free Barry Bonds is the top man, All-Time.
Why?
Well, everything seems so obvious, but there has to be a place for a man with all his statistical achievements in this debate, and, unfortunately for all, this not only seems like it will be the only mention of Mr. Bonds in this thread, but I am looking forward to arguing with any comers as to the validity of my my statement.

...And, to be perfectly honest, it was probably the only way to get in any kind of semi-heated conversation around here.
I've been trying...Oh Lord, how I did try...

Bill Burgess

03-14-2004, 01:21 AM

Schadenfreuder,

Couple of minor fine-tunings in your boot camp.

1. Not all are stat-heads. We're holding our own against the stat analysts, thank you. Like the French said in WWI, "They shall NOT pass!"

2. Ty/Babe is a valid debate subject, even though we've beaten it to a bloody pulp.

3. I live nr. SF, and Barry my boy. Best guy active today, and I've said that BEFORE '01. But all-time, Ty's My Man.

So I'm not prejudiced, but when Barry achieves on the field what TC did, under much harder conditions, I'll raise his flag and salute.

But here's his burden.

1. Retire owning almost all the records there are to own.

2. Leave behind you a legacy of the most complete, well-rounded, balanced attack in history.

3. Have everyone convinced you were the best for at least 40 yrs.

See? Not a stat freak presentation. But tough, simple and honest.

Barry's burden to overcome.

1. Expansion diltuted both competition. He facing many minor league pitchers, and has many minor league hitters to contrast his stats against.

2. Barry's strike-zone, ending at his belt buckle, guarantees him home run cripples to belt, something Ty, Babe & Willie never had.

3. Steroids. That one remains to be played out. Awaiting developments on that front. No question, he's the man of these times.

Bill Burgess

Schadenfreuder

03-14-2004, 08:28 AM

AAAAAAAaaaahhhhh.....
That's right. Not a cry of anguish, but a sigh of relief.
This was what I was looking for in signing up!

Sure enough, Barry's strike-zone is the size of a quarter, but what really rankles is the seven pounds of body armour he wears on his right elbow...second only to Carl Everett's ten pounds so that he can stand directly on the plate.

I think I'm being wooed because no-one in my generation is putting on such an assault in regards to power records...Sure, Hot Dog Rickey walked his way to three somewhat large All-Timers, but Bonds is making it look easy...
...too (steroids? yes, please) easy.

If Barry somehow avoids the stigma of steroids (huge if), and baseball actuallys cracks down (also huge if), he'll have power/speed/defense numbers that would stand up to Ruth's offense/pitching numbers...like they should: apples and oranges.

I'm not going to lie to you; Willie Mays was probably the better all-around player than Barry is/was, Babe Ruth was better than Say Hey in offense/pitching, but not defense/speed, and Ty Cobb?
Well...
Ty Cobb played ball at its highest level in his era, but maybe valued bombs less than being on base to jaw with opposing sods, maybe he couldn't stand his average dropping for a prolonged attempt at moonshots, maybe, maybe...
Maybe I just like the ring of Mr. Willie Mays as Greatest Ever, over the title belonging to Cobb...
How about Greatest Tenacity?
I like poking bears with sticks, and it's always nice to have a bear turn and explain the Why's and Why Not's pertaining to Bear Poking, over one that tries to eat you...thanks. I'm going for coffee.
:waving :waving

Bill Burgess

03-14-2004, 11:09 AM

Ryan,

You've covered quite a lot of ground in so few words. I'll leave it to you. We can probe Willie/Barry, or look at Rickey, or take a peek at Willie/Barry/Ty. I'll let you choose your weapons.

What's your pleasure? Now Mr. Tenacity? That's a new one in these parts. Nice eye. You're showing nice plate discipline not swinging at the usual topics over the outside corner.

I would think if you're talking Greatest tenacity we'd have to discuss longevity. The old candidates of Anson, Eddie Collins, Cobb, Nolan Ryan, Satchel Paige, Spahnie, ect. are all fine subjects for guys who just wouldn't quit.

But I think you'd have to sneak a peak at Rose and Henderson also, when viewed in that light. Rose wouldn't have been allowed to last that long if he hadn't been manager, and played himself ahead of more promising bench-warmers.

Overall, I'd have to give Mr. Tenacity to ole Satchel Paige. They claim he was perhaps over 50 & still helping the Indians! Now that's what I'd call tenacious. I hear they finally had to cut his uniform off him while he was still in it. Hearsay, but I'd not bet my glove against it. Today, they will have to peel Rickey's uniform off him, cause I hear he's glued himself into it.

I'm gonna post Barry/Willie in a few minutes here, just to keep us rolling along nicely. First I gotta find it. It's buried here someplace. It's brief, but juicy. Someone's bound to chip in at some point, though.

It's great hearing your thoughts. You're thinking for yourself.

Bill Burgess

Bill Burgess

03-14-2004, 11:25 AM

Ryan,

When it comes to Willie/Barry, I have no other valid choice.
I vote for Willie on all-around offense and defense.

Barry's numbers are to a large extent a function of how the game is played now. I love the Barry man, but realize that he'd not be the same player if not for his cutting edge suppliments. And I say that sadly. But he is the best player of his time. He has preferred conditions that Willie didn't. Here are a few of the decisive factors.

Barry:

1. The expansion has lowered the over-all level of play. So Barry is hitting against inferior pitching AND inferior rival hitters to constrast his numbers to.

2. Barry is most probably using designer suppliments that were not available to Willie (or Willie's rivals) to extend his career with.

3. Barry has benefit of a strike zone which ends at his waist. Pitchers who are wild high aren't in the league. So Barry doesn't have to chase high strikes from his belt to his shoulders, as Willie did.

4. Barry has possible benefit of an enlivened ball. It's either the ball or the strike zone which has caused the runs per game to top 10 for the 1st time since 1930. Hard to say which is having more of an effect.

Willie:

1. Willie played in an era when BB was KING. It pulled in the best athletes. FB, basetball, soccer, etc. were not as developed as later. Track and Field was amateur until the 80's, so it couldn't compete with BB for the premier athletes.

2. TV came into living rooms in 1950 in living black & white, and Baseball was always the featured premier attraction. It got the PR, and hype. The color line had just been breached in '47, and although full integration would wait until the 70's, the black STARS were all in by 1960. The negro leagues, were probably gone by '60, or rendered moot fully raided & decimated. The ML owners never paid those black owners a dime for their player's contracts. Just raided them from top to bottom, like the disreputable hustlers they were. What a double standard!

3. By 1962, the strike zone had been raised from the letters to the tops of the shoulders. Which ushered in the deadball era 2. Suddenly all the teams had strong-armed kids who were now blowing the ball by the hitters, who were chasing the ball around their shoulders. It wasn't an accident that Koufax and Sam McDowell became terrors.

By constrast, Barry NEVER has to chase high fastballs. He's never had to see one in years. MAJOR difference in hitting condition.

4. Not only did Willie not have the body armour, but even if he had had it, I don't think it would have made him FEEL safe, so long as Drysdale and Gibson were in the league. With those guys, you needed a catchers mask to feel safe. Hips, ribs, faces, neck are all exposed. I distinctly remember watching Willie hit the dirt over and over by Drysdale. And then Marichal squaring accounts the next inning against Tommy Davis and Maury Wills. And the umps did NOTHING. But Koufax would never throw at a batter, but he would come inside and protect his inside corner, which is not the same thing, just good tactical ball.

Willie wasn't a "charge-the-mound" kind of guy. He was a "hit-the-next-good-one-out" kind of guy.

Another thing about Willie Mays which is not generally known. He was field captain of that team, and everyone always would look to CF to get their directions. And god help the player who missed his signs. I heard Willie talking about that a few years after he retired, on how he'd discipline the guys who got either too lazy, too proud, or too inattentive, to take his signs.

Verdict:

Offense: Willie
Defense: Willie
On bases: Willie
Dugout: Willie
Greater Player: Willie

I consider Willie Mays the greatest all-around player since 1925, with no apologies to Joe DiMaggio, and CERTAINLEY no apologies to Teddy Ballgame. Only Oscar Charleston could have possibly exceeded Willie Mays since 1925. In my humble opinion.

Bill Burgess

PS. Since you are new here, you are probably the only one here who doesn't already have my collection of files. They're quite entertaining and somewhat controversial. If you like, I'll email them to you, for your perusal. All I require is an email address that will accept Excel spreadsheets. If they disappoint you, you can always dump them by deleting them. Just let me know. Radical stuff, I assure you. Guaranteed to please or disgust.

RuthMayBond

03-14-2004, 08:37 PM

Originally posted by william_burgess@usa.net
1. Not all are stat-heads. We're holding our own against the stat analysts, thank you.

RMB:
You mean, only when you're bragging. When you want more support, you cry that you're getting beaten. Make up your mind.

But here's his burden.

1. Retire owning almost all the records there are to own.

RMB:
Easier to do when the game is in a relative infancy

3. Have everyone convinced you were the best for at least 40 yrs.

RMB:
And Bill really did ask everyone

Barry's burden to overcome.

1. Expansion diltuted both competition. He facing many minor league pitchers, and has many minor league hitters to contrast his stats against.

RMB:
There are a few more people in the nation than when Cobb played, not to mention that guys of ALL races are playing now.

3. Steroids. That one remains to be played out.

RMB:
So why is it being brought up already?

Bill Burgess

03-14-2004, 10:14 PM

RMB,

Do we have a problem here? Because the snide tone doesn't sound serious. You sound like you're just nit-picking.

1. Not all are stat-heads. We're holding our own against the stat analysts, thank you.

RMB:
You mean, only when you're bragging. When you want more support, you cry that you're getting beaten. Make up your mind.
(Bill - I letting another poster know that I'm not a statman. If that's alright with you? I use stats like the generic fan, to supplement general historic readings. Are you positive that I have your permission to be who I am?)

But here's his burden.

1. Retire owning almost all the records there are to own.

RMB:
Easier to do when the game is in a relative infancy.
(Bill - And hard to maintain. His records lasted longer than anyone else's.

His TB record lasted 38 yrs.
His SB record lasted 47 yrs. (single yr.)
His SB record lasted 59 yrs. (career)
His Hits record lasted 62 yrs. (career)
His Runs record lasted 79 yrs. (career)
He scored the highest % of H of F score, lasted 56 yrs.
Most hits in a month - 68 in July, 1912, still stands, 90 yrs. later
Most 5 hit games - 14 games, still stands, 76 years later
He set 90 records, more than anyone else in history.

He still retains around 30-40 unbroken ones.
1. 12 BA titles, .366, 54 home steals, Relative BA.,
7 times led league in consecutive g. hitting streaks

3. Have everyone convinced you were the best for at least 40 yrs.

RMB:
And Bill really did ask everyone
(Bill - No, it only FEELS that way. Let's see now. I have sat in my local library and went through the Sporting News, one page at a time, from 1918-1991. I have went through Baseball Magazine, 1908-54. Endless books, magazines, baseball guides, and now online databases via Proquest. Have I missed something vital, RMB, that YOU have purused? And I have the files to prove I didn't waste that time. Refer to my latest post on Ty Cobb General Thread, re: Charlie Gehringer)

Barry's burden to overcome.

1. Expansion diltuted both competition. He facing many minor league pitchers, and has many minor league hitters to contrast his stats against.

RMB:
There are a few more people in the nation than when Cobb played, not to mention that guys of ALL races are playing now.
(Bill - Yeah, I've heard the arguments. Barry benefitting from expansion is similar to Babe benefitting from lack of players playing the power game.)

3. Steroids. That one remains to be played out.

RMB:
So why is it being brought up already?
(Bill - Because the media are talking about it. I usually qualify myself by saying if, when addressing this issue.)

RMB, I don't see you arguing, challenging, and nit-picking too many others like this. Since these quibbles feel like my opinions, without being factually inaccurate. Is that possible? Barry is my favorite player today. I have license to my own opinions.

Bill Burgess

csh19792001

03-17-2004, 11:23 PM

Originally posted by william_burgess@usa.net
RMB,

Do we have a problem here? Because the snide tone doesn't sound serious. You sound like you're just nit-picking.

1. Not all are stat-heads. We're holding our own against the stat analysts, thank you.

RMB:
You mean, only when you're bragging. When you want more support, you cry that you're getting beaten. Make up your mind.
(Bill - I letting another poster know that I'm not a statman. If that's alright with you? I use stats like the generic fan, to supplement general historic readings. Are you positive that I have your permission to be who I am?)

But here's his burden.

1. Retire owning almost all the records there are to own.

RMB:
Easier to do when the game is in a relative infancy.
(Bill - And hard to maintain. His records lasted longer than anyone else's.

His TB record lasted 38 yrs.
His SB record lasted 47 yrs. (single yr.)
His SB record lasted 59 yrs. (career)
His Hits record lasted 62 yrs. (career)
His Runs record lasted 79 yrs. (career)
He scored the highest % of H of F score, lasted 56 yrs.
Most hits in a month - 68 in July, 1912, still stands, 90 yrs. later
Most 5 hit games - 14 games, still stands, 76 years later
He set 90 records, more than anyone else in history.

He still retains around 30-40 unbroken ones.
1. 12 BA titles, .366, 54 home steals, Relative BA.,
7 times led league in consecutive g. hitting streaks

3. Have everyone convinced you were the best for at least 40 yrs.

RMB:
And Bill really did ask everyone
(Bill - No, it only FEELS that way. Let's see now. I have sat in my local library and went through the Sporting News, one page at a time, from 1918-1991. I have went through Baseball Magazine, 1908-54. Endless books, magazines, baseball guides, and now online databases via Proquest. Have I missed something vital, RMB, that YOU have purused? And I have the files to prove I didn't waste that time. Refer to my latest post on Ty Cobb General Thread, re: Charlie Gehringer)

Barry's burden to overcome.

1. Expansion diltuted both competition. He facing many minor league pitchers, and has many minor league hitters to contrast his stats against.

RMB:
There are a few more people in the nation than when Cobb played, not to mention that guys of ALL races are playing now.
(Bill - Yeah, I've heard the arguments. Barry benefitting from expansion is similar to Babe benefitting from lack of players playing the power game.)

3. Steroids. That one remains to be played out.

RMB:
So why is it being brought up already?
(Bill - Because the media are talking about it. I usually qualify myself by saying if, when addressing this issue.)

RMB, I don't see you arguing, challenging, and nit-picking too many others like this. Since these quibbles feel like my opinions, without being factually inaccurate. Is that possible? Barry is my favorite player today. I have license to my own opinions.

Bill Burgess

Bill- Ty Cobb also has the record for times leading the league in hits (8). (75 years and running)

Also, I'd like to note that when he attained the highest percentage of Hall of Fame votes, he was going up against everyone who had ever played. Seaver was going up against a tiny fraction of that number.

Imapotato

03-17-2004, 11:35 PM

Originally posted by william_burgess@usa.net
Barry's burden to overcome.

1. Expansion diltuted both competition. He facing many minor league pitchers, and has many minor league hitters to contrast his stats against.

RMB:
There are a few more people in the nation than when Cobb played, not to mention that guys of ALL races are playing now.
(Bill - Yeah, I've heard the arguments. Barry benefitting from expansion is similar to Babe benefitting from lack of players playing the power game.)

and I guaran-damn-tee that a smaller percentage of today's population is playing baseball then in 1915, much less it's haydays in the 50's...too many sports, kids are freakin lazy and rather shoot some pretend opponent in online games than play baseball, and drive by your local ballpark (if there are any) and see it empty in the spring while the basketball court next to it is full.

csh19792001

03-18-2004, 09:29 AM

Originally posted by Imapotato
and I guaran-damn-tee that a smaller percentage of today's population is playing baseball then in 1915, much less it's haydays in the 50's...too many sports, kids are freakin lazy and rather shoot some pretend opponent in online games than play baseball, and drive by your local ballpark (if there are any) and see it empty in the spring while the basketball court next to it is full.

Absolutely. Baseball was KING. People don't understand that many of the greatest athletes now are drawn to media and other sports. If anybody wants perspective on how popular baseball was (vs. today, when the fervor is pathetic by comparison), read Henry Thomas' "Walter Johnson: Baseball's Big Train". I cant appropriately express how much more interest there was.

Suburbia is largely responsible for far less kids playing. Neighboorhoods where kids used to learn and play baseball all day, every day they werent in school were largely erased by the upper-middle classdom that took hold after the 50'sj.

That, combined with the fact that half of the players playing today would be in the minors, combined with the fact that baseball was SO MUCH more intense and vicious (the players, as were the rivalries), conspire to really cut into the common perception that the game is "infinetly better" today. With no free agency, no big money, no ridiculous 100 million dollar LONG TERM contracts, and 16 teams, the game was just played at a FAR higher level. Most guys had to earn their keep, and competition for every spot was vicious (because of arbitrage). Guys couldnt sit back on their laurels. It was play baseball, or your ass is back in the coal mines working for a pittance. (Wagner and Musial are good exemplars of this).

MURPH8283

03-18-2004, 04:08 PM

Hi all,

I am relatively new to this, but I voted.

For the Georgia Peach.

4191 hits, and leaving the game while he could still hit are enough for me. The name of the game as I see it, is to not make outs when your batting or on the bases and to make as many as you can when you are fielding/throwing in the field.

He may not have been the best slugger, he may not have been the best fielder.

That he was no slouch in the above two, while being at the very top of hitting and baserunning are enough for me.

csh19792001

03-18-2004, 04:50 PM

Originally posted by MURPH8283
Hi all,

I am relatively new to this, but I voted.

For the Georgia Peach.

4191 hits, and leaving the game while he could still hit are enough for me. The name of the game as I see it, is to not make outs when your batting or on the bases and to make as many as you can when you are fielding/throwing in the field.

He may not have been the best slugger, he may not have been the best fielder.

That he was no slouch in the above two, while being at the very top of hitting and baserunning are enough for me.

Exellent choice!! Believe me, I came to the same conclusion you did, but with years of tireless research about this man.

Ty actually was the best slugger for the first 15 years of his career- he led the league in slugging 8 times (truly incredible, considering maintaining a batting average of about .380 during those years, while almost NEVER striking out.) Add to that he was a top notch center fielder and the greatest baserunner ever.....

To play at the level he did for 24 years seems almost impossible to me.

MURPH8283

03-18-2004, 09:31 PM

I did not intend to say that Cobb was not a superb "slugger" but slugging per se became the rage in the 20s.

Example, Juan Pierre might be the best baserunner today, but with less emphasis on baserunning these days, it may be go unnoticed to a certain degree. Being the best at an aspect of the game, while that particular facet is en vogue will definitely have its rewards. Especially given the short attention span we seem to have in this country.

So while Cobb was for a time the game's preeminent slugger, it was at a time when slugging was not the name of the game.

Some folks might think Cecil Fielder was the Tigers greatest Slugger while still holding to the fact Cobb was the Motor City's greatest hitter. This is obviously wrong, but because Big Cecil was bopping em out at a time when HRs were a big deal- some could fallaciously hold that view, without so much as a second thought.

Man that didnt seem like so many words when I was thinkin' it:D

grieve

03-22-2004, 11:21 AM

Roberto Clemente was the best overall player to ever play the game. He had speed, power, and could throw anybody out at the plate...anybody. Clemente collected 3,000 hits in the age of the pitcher. He was the greatest.

RuthMayBond

03-22-2004, 11:29 AM

Originally posted by grieve
Roberto Clemente was the best overall player to ever play the game. He had speed, power

RMB:
So did several others

and could throw anybody out at the plate...anybody.

RMB:
Well, more than most outfielders anyway. He's almost in my all-time defensive outfield but he just missed, with Speaker, Ashburn and Carey.

Clemente collected 3,000 hits in the age of the pitcher. He was the greatest.

RMB:
So did Cobb, Lajoie, Collins, Wagner, Musial, Aaron

ElHalo

03-22-2004, 11:50 AM

Originally posted by MURPH8283
Some folks might think Cecil Fielder was the Tigers greatest Slugger while still holding to the fact Cobb was the Motor City's greatest hitter. This is obviously wrong, but because Big Cecil was bopping em out at a time when HRs were a big deal- some could fallaciously hold that view, without so much as a second thought.

No, nobody with half an ounce of baseball knowledge could possibly think that Fielder was the greatest Tigers' slugger ever. There was this guy named Hank Greenberg once upon a time.

MURPH8283

03-22-2004, 12:27 PM

good point , EH...I was just using a modern day example...

Hammerin Hank was the greatest live ball era slugger in Tiger history...

although Cecil was the greatest Fielder in Tiger history...nyuk nyuk nyuk..

catcher24

03-22-2004, 05:18 PM

Grieve - First, let me say that I think Roberto was a fantastic ballplayer. I enjoyed watching him play, both on TV and in person. Some of his throws were simply amazing. However, as to being the greatest player ever, I must beg to differ. RMB noted some players with all of the same attributes, and I agree with all of his choices. That said, there was a contemporary of Roberto's who was (IMHO) a better fielder, better baserunner, hit with more power, and could throw almost as good as Roberto. You may have heard of him - fellow by the name of Mays. And I think you could add Mantle to RMB's list, too.

Zeth

03-22-2004, 05:27 PM

As a lifetime Pirates fan I love Roberto Clemente to death, but what did he have that Vladimir Guerrero doesn't? Clemente was a little better than Vlad -- but not much. Clemente's arm was better, but they both made/make a lot of throwing errors. Clemente was faster. They're similar hitters. So, is Vlad Guerrero one of the best ever?

That said, there are few players that, as a fan, I would rather watch play baseball than Roberto Clemente.

kilithelong

09-24-2004, 08:03 AM

ok.. i didn't quite read all the posts.

but i did vote for babe ruth.

I did also notice how everyone said that babe ruth's era was a great era for hitting. Yes it was, for average. But as for home runs, NO. When the babe hit his 700th, second place only had 314. Which Bonds hit his 700th, second active was Slammin Sammy Sosa with 571.. Remember.. thats ACTIVE. RUTH DOMINATED HIS ERA. Not to mention he had over 100 Stolen Bases, and led all right fielders in fielding % in 1919.

RuthMayBond

09-24-2004, 10:36 AM

RUTH DOMINATED HIS ERA. Not to mention he had over 100 Stolen Bases, and led all right fielders in fielding % in 1919.Ruth's SB% wasn't that good, and there's more to fielding than fielding%. But I actually have Ruth winning hypothetical Gold Gloves in 1921 and 1923.

Bill Burgess

09-24-2004, 10:49 AM

What?! You forgot to mention that he would have been a Hall of Fame pitcher, if he had stayed on the mound! We're all agast. Did you forget his OF arm again? What's the matter with you? Would it have killed you to mention he also played 1B?

Bill Burgess

RuthMayBond

09-24-2004, 11:01 AM

What?! You forgot to mention that he would have been a Hall of Fame pitcher, if he had stayed on the mound! What do you mean, WOULD have been :laugh

RuthMayBond

09-24-2004, 11:17 AM

Bill Burgess

09-24-2004, 12:00 PM

Naw. I'm a born-again Bam fan. And you're minimizing his stuff. Shame on you. You forgot to add:

1. He saved BB.
2. He inaugered a MUCH more interesting edition of the game.
3. He was so loved.
4. He visited kids in hospitals.
5. He could sew and mend his own clothes. The Brothers had prepared him for a vocation as a tailor.
6. His homers were more beautiful than anyone else's. Pleasing aesthetic arches, like McDonalds.
7. Put the Yankees on the map, and paid for their stadium. But it would take Gehrig/DiMag to build the rest of the grandstands, after the Babe exited.
8. Gave Lou Gehrig a shot at lots of RBIs.
9. Broke the hearts of many Detroit pitchers.
10. Sold lots of merchandise by endorsements.
11. Assisted many houses of ill repute make it through the dry days of Prohibition.
12. He helped the psychiatrists of Miller Huggins and Joe McCarthy stay in business.
13. Gave the kids of America a new cultural icon, which made Paul Bunyon feel like warm milk.
14. Has gone a long way towards making fat people feel better about themselves. Previously, all they had was the Budda.
15. Gave Mantle/Maris a number 60 to shoot for. Sorry about that Mick. Sorry about the asterisk, Rog old bean.
16. Gave Hank #714 to shoot for. Gave Barryboy #.846 to shoot for.

So, without the old Babe around, we'd all had a lot less fun. So thanks for the memories, George Herman. Couldn't have even imagined the party without ya.

Now, why couldn't you have remembered all of these cool things, Jeffrey. Tired of all the fun? You need a sense of humor, my good lad!

Bill Burgess

RuthMayBond

09-24-2004, 01:09 PM

Naw. I'm a born-again Bam fan. And you're minimizing his stuff. Shame on you. You forget to add:

1. He saved BB.
2. He inaugered a MUCH more interesting edition of the game.
3. He was so loved.
4. He visited kids in hospitals.
5. He could sew and mend his own clothes. The Brothers had prepared him for a vocation as a tailor.
6. His homers were more beautiful than anyone else's. Pleasing aesthetic arches, like McDonalds.
7. Put the Yankees on the map, and paid for their stadium. But it would take Gehrig/DiMag to build the rest of the grandstands, after the Babe exited.
8. Gave Lou Gehrig a shot at lots of RBIs.
9. Broke the hearts of many Detroit pitchers.
10. Sold lots of merchandise by endorsements.
11. Assisted many houses of ill repute make it through the dry days of Prohibition.
12. He helped the psychiatrists of Miller Huggins and Joe McCarthy stay in business.
13. Gave the kids of America a new cultural icon, which made Paul Bunyon feel like warm milk.
14. Has gone a long way towards making fat people feel better about themselves. Previously, all they had was the Budda.
15. Gave Mantle/Maris a number 60 to shoot for. Sorry about that Mick. Sorry about the asterisk, Rog old bean.
16. Gave Hank #714 to shoot for. Gave Barryboy #.846 to shoot for.

So, without the old Babe around, we'd all had a lot less fun. So thanks for the memories, George Herman. Couldn't have even imagined the party without ya.

Now, why couldn't you have remembered all of these cool things, Jeffrey. Tired of all the fun? You need a sense of humor, my good lad!

Bill BurgessBorn-again Bam fan? Agreed, I can't be THAT funny. You make #7 sound like it's a GOOD thing :laugh

RuthMayBond

09-24-2004, 01:48 PM

If you're wondering why I sometimes have doubts about eyewitnesses remembering what happened, there's a great article on retrosheet about players not even remembering what THEY did THEMSELVES :laugh

Edgartohof

09-24-2004, 02:32 PM

Now come on guys....

....Friends wasn't that bad :laugh

Bill Burgess

09-24-2004, 04:29 PM

RMB,

"If you're wondering why I sometimes have doubts about eyewitnesses remembering what happened, there's a great article on retrosheet about players not even remembering what THEY did THEMSELVES"

But Jeffrey. C'mon now. Let's be honest about this. There has been many, many consensus' in BB, over the century. Many concerning the famous names. Many have happened to be true. Some may not have been true.

But I have not personally asked the house to take any other concensus serious, except one. And that is the over-whelming agreement in the BB community that Cobb was considered the greatest player from 1912-60. My work proves that the concensus existed in that time period.

One doesn't have to agree with that concensus, but it did exist, and man was it deep and wide. Babe Ruth was considered the greatest slugger, which was always a separate category, and the two co-existed in harmony. Neither encroached on the other's turf until a small group of stat-based re-visionists, decided that a balanced hitter, with a complete set of BB skills, who happened to be a red-neck, racist, Dixie cracker didn't deserved to be the greatest ever.

So, I only concern myself with that consensus of 250 players, managers, coaches, execs, umpires, owners, etc. I've found 28 pro-Babe supporters, and 34 pro-Wagner supporters. My only criteria was that they had to have seen the players personally with their own 2 eyes.

And another thing. Until you see my file, with their quotes, I can't accept your rejection of them as valid. That would be like if you had never seen the color green, and yet insisted to me that you hated the color, due to how it sounded. Sorry, this court has certain rules of conduct. You must abide by them if you want me to hear your case. You might think you reject my case, but until you've heard it, I can't award you your judgement.

When are you going to step up and hear MY case before you judge on it? I realize how valuable your time is, but I've always heard your cases.

Bill Burgess

Appling

09-24-2004, 04:58 PM

RMB,

But I have not personally asked the house to take any other concensus serious, except one. And that is the over-whelming agreement in the BB community that Cobb was considered the greatest player from 1912-60. My work proves that the concensus existed in that time period.

One doesn't have to agree with that concensus, but it did exist, and man was it deep and wide...

So, I only concern myself with that consensus of 250 players, managers, coaches, execs, umpires, owners, etc. I've found 28 pro-Babe supporters, and 34 pro-Wagner supporters. My only criteria was that they had to have seen the players personally with their own 2 eyes...

Bill Burgess
I can't dispute the authority of your sample (250 managers, coaches, etc.) but I vividly remember that in my own circle prior to 1960, there was agreement only that the THREE GREATEST PLAYERS of all time were Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb and Honus Wagner. There was some dispute about how to rank these three -- Wagner if you gave high value to fielding and all-around play, Cobb for batting average and base-running, and Ruth for pure power.

Everybody's list of greatest players began with these three icons.

Bill Burgess

09-24-2004, 07:17 PM

Am I wrong or is every thread seeking consensus on something? And that's fun, don'cha think?

Bill

csh19792001

09-25-2004, 03:22 PM

I can't dispute the authority of your sample (250 managers, coaches, etc.) but I vividly remember that in my own circle prior to 1960, there was agreement only that the THREE GREATEST PLAYERS of all time were Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb and Honus Wagner. There was some dispute about how to rank these three -- Wagner if you gave high value to fielding and all-around play, Cobb for batting average and base-running, and Ruth for pure power.

Everybody's list of greatest players began with these three icons.

WORD. And everybody's list still should. :)

RuthMayBond

09-27-2004, 08:27 AM

Appling

09-28-2004, 08:31 PM

Larry Doby? AL Rosen? or Lou Boudreau?

ElHalo

09-28-2004, 11:00 PM

I'm gonna guess Ralph Kiner... who, in my view, is a "major Hall of Famer."

csh19792001

09-28-2004, 11:10 PM

A little more about eyewitness testimony.

"There are Hall of Famers, and there are major Hall of Famers. <player's name deleted> is a major Hall of Famer," said Indians legend Bob Feller.

Feller was referring to a guy who has played for the Indians, and I'll take your guesses as to what "major Hall of Famer" Feller was referring to.

Well, either this is a ruse, RMB, (and the player isn't in the hall of fame) or he's talking about a team leader in his day like Lou Boudreau or Satch Paige (Feller always had great respect for Negro League pitchers, barnstormed with them, and has gone out of his way to laud them).

In any case, he's almost 86 years old, so if he said it recently it becomes a question of his senility, of which who knows. He could be far gone, or sharp as a tack.

RuthMayBond

09-29-2004, 07:33 AM

Well, either this is a ruse, RMB, (and the player isn't in the hall of fame) or he's talking about a team leader in his day like Lou Boudreau or Satch Paige (Feller always had great respect for Negro League pitchers, barnstormed with them, and has gone out of his way to laud them).

In any case, he's almost 86 years old, so if he said it recently it becomes a question of his senility, of which who knows. He could be far gone, or sharp as a tack.It's not a ruse, although the player isn't in the Hall yet, but this is a direct quote from the Cleveland Plain Dealer. Funny, if an eyewitness account agrees with one, it's indisputable, if it doesn't, the guy's senile. At any rate, Mr. Feller was referring to none other than ...
... Omar Vizquel :laugh

csh19792001

09-29-2004, 10:52 AM

It's not a ruse, although the player isn't in the Hall yet, but this is a direct quote from the Cleveland Plain Dealer. Funny, if an eyewitness account agrees with one, it's indisputable, if it doesn't, the guy's senile. At any rate, Mr. Feller was referring to none other than ...
... Omar Vizquel :laugh

The pick is funny, but the logic isn't- who ever said one or two eyewitness accounts meant anything (one from a guy in his 80's who never played or managed against the guy) ? Overwhelming ananimity across time, situation, and people is what matters.

RuthMayBond

09-29-2004, 10:56 AM

The pick is funny, but the logic isn't- who ever said one or two eyewitness accounts meant anything (one from a guy in his 80's who never played or managed against the guy) ? Overwhelming ananimity across time, situation, and people is what matters.Feller never played or managed against the guy but he DOES work for the Indians (and probably sees Vizquel play every day) and is PROBABLY qualified to evaluate baseball talent. I'd like to know where this overwhelming unaninimty is (I know, that Cobb was the best player ever ;)

Bill Burgess

09-29-2004, 03:30 PM

Jeffrey,

I am fully informed as to why you can't bear to view the Historical File, which contains all the eye-witnesses accounts which so totally contradicks your belief that Babe Ruth is #1. The real reason is because if they are right, you are wrong. And I realize that it is so very emotionally distressing to read 250 experts tell you, that you don't know what you're talking about.

But being deliberately unaware of what they said and how they said it, doesn't make them "go away". Just makes you unaware of BB history. And unable to confront those who are better informed. I've been trying to assist you and ElHalo to become better informed debaters. But one man is only able to do so much. I can't force your awareness open.

Even opposing lawyers insist on knowing what the other side is holding, to properly refute their opponents. You're in the position of a lawyer who refuses to read all the disclosure. What would lawyers think of a lawyer who refused to brief himself on the evidence.

Hint: A losing lawyer.

Bill Burgess

RuthMayBond

09-29-2004, 07:45 PM

Bill Burgess

09-29-2004, 08:12 PM

Silly one, I have 20, but only 4-5 I'd call fantastic.

And seeing one, isn't reading it. The long one on Cobb, would take around a week to read it. So just "seeing" it, without having it to work on it and digest it, well, it just ain't the same thing now, is it?

Bill Burgess

RuthMayBond

09-29-2004, 08:53 PM

Sily one, I have 20, but only 4-5 I'd call fantastic.

And seeing one, isn't reading it. The long one on Cobb, would take around a week to read it. So just "seeing" it, without having it to work on it and digest it, well, it just ain't the same thing now, is it?

Bill BurgessAnd you honestly expect people to spend a week on it? A little pompous?

Bill Burgess

09-29-2004, 09:32 PM

No! I don't expect just anyone to read my great Historical Files. Only serious baseball researchers, historians, and those with a more serious interests.

Those who can't bear reading stuff that disagree's with them, aren't seriously obsessed.

For my part, I've read many Ruth books, a Gehrig book, and tons of almost anything.

Told you you haven't read my big Historical File. Gotcha.

Bill Burgess

csh19792001

09-29-2004, 09:49 PM

double post here.

RuthMayBond

09-30-2004, 11:44 AM

Bill Burgess

09-30-2004, 03:47 PM

Whether or not a person reads my stuff does not and can not impact me. I've already read it.

When someone tells me they're not interested in exposing themselves to things I know for a fact is quality stuff, I feel sad that they restricting themselves.

But what can I do? I know the stuff I found will probably never be found elsewhere. I assembled it by ferreting through so many things, that it's too bad when someone makes such a decision based on personal reasons, such as not caring for the author.

You're a free person, and you will do what you do. But then don't ask me why I post what I do. Being widely and deeply read has it's advantages. I compiled the files so that all could read what I found. I didn't want to hoard rare information.

Bill Burgess

Gonzo

09-30-2004, 09:09 PM

It's Aaron. First in RBI's, third in hits, first in HR's. If you take away all of his home runs he'd still have 3000 hits.

csh19792001

09-30-2004, 09:43 PM

It's Aaron. First in RBI's, third in hits, first in HR's. If you take away all of his home runs he'd still have 3000 hits.

Aaron, when asked about those who say Willie Mays was greater than he: "To them, I say: 'My numbers do the talking'".

Aaron's numbers ARE slightly better......but why does EVERYONE (check their rankings in our poll and elsewhere) put Mays way ahead of him?

ElHalo

09-30-2004, 09:49 PM

Aaron, when asked about those who say Willie Mays was greater than he: "To them, I say: 'My numbers do the talking'".

Aaron's numbers ARE slightly better......but why does EVERYONE (check their rankings in our poll and elsewhere) put Mays way ahead of him?

Because Max Carey is in the HoF. And he wasn't as good as Mays.

csh19792001

09-30-2004, 09:54 PM

Because Max Carey is in the HoF. And he wasn't as good as Mays.

What? :noidea

It seems that people use numbers only when they're convenient or support their candidate.

ElHalo

09-30-2004, 10:10 PM

What? :noidea

It seems that people use numbers only when they're convenient or support their candidate.

I'll try and make it a little clearer.

Max Carey is in the Hall of Fame almost solely based on his reputation as one of the greatest defensive outfielders in the history of baseball. And his basestealing prowess. Ordinarily, outfielders with 107 career OPS+'s don't get a whiff.

Mays wasn't as great a base stealer as Carey, but he was certainly an amazing basestealer... much better than Aaron. And defensively, Mays leaves Carey in the dust.

So I'll say it again: Max Carey is in the HoF almost solely for his defense and baserunning. Combine the two categories into one, and Willie Mays is better at them than this HoF'er.

Add that to his hitting numbers, and that's why people rank him ahead of Aaron.

RuthMayBond

10-01-2004, 11:53 AM

It's Aaron. First in RBI's, third in hits, first in HR's. If you take away all of his home runs he'd still have 3000 hits.True but if you take away Cobb's or Rose's HR, they'd still have a, uh, LOT of hits :laugh

Bill Burgess

10-01-2004, 08:09 PM

ElHalo,

"And defensively, Mays leaves Carey in the dust."

Not so fast. Max Carey, along with Speaker, McAleer, Ashburn and Lange, are about the only defensive OFs, who Willie doesn't leave in the dust. As evidenced by the below.

Name------------PO's/g---------Assists/g------------DPs/g------Errors/g

Max Carey--------2.628----------.140----------------.035--------.097
Tris Speaker------2.515----------.166----------------.051--------.082
Eddie Roush-------2.455----------.120----------------.022-------.074
Ty Cobb----------2.168-(4of9)----.133-(5of9)--------.036 (2of9)-.092 (7of9)
Clyde Milan-------2.151----------.154----------------.030--------.113
Babe Ruth--------1.983-----------.091----------------.021--------.069
Duffy Lewis-------1.855----------.146----------------.027--------.085
Joe Jackson-------1.832---------.141----------------.027--------.077
Harry Hooper-----1.742----------.150----------------.035--------.066

Richie Ashburn----2.89------------.084----------------.021----------.052
Willie Mays--------2.49-----------.086----------------.021----------.049
Barry Bonds-------2.16-----------.073----------------.009----------.034

Jimmie McAleer----2.42------------.148-----------------.035--------.151
Bill Lange---------2.41------------.189-----------------.054---------.162
Dummy Hoy-------2.20------------.152-----------------.040---------.219

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

Key to understanding. OF assists/DPs were higher pre-1920, due to the deadball, slower ball allowing fielders to play closer to the infield.

POs should be higher post 1930's and especially post '55, due to better gloves. Errors should be way higher pre 1930, due to flat pancake gloves. Errors today shouldn't happen due to the nets they wear on their hands.

Bill Burgess

Gonzo

10-01-2004, 11:30 PM

Aaron's numbers ARE slightly better......but why does EVERYONE (check their rankings in our poll and elsewhere) put Mays way ahead of him?

Because Willie made us believe he's the best

csh19792001

10-02-2004, 11:37 AM

Because Willie made us believe he's the best

That's exactly my point- some things need to be seen to be realized. Numbers are very important, but obviously, aren't (and shouldn't be) the sole determiner of greatness- the Aaron-Mays example proves this.

Bill Burgess

10-03-2004, 12:20 PM

Tyrus Raymond got his ass kicked in this poll, cause half of the posters who support him didn't vote here. Below I've tabulated those who have expressed support for either one star or the other.

Cobb -27 posters-----------------Ruth -27 posters

Bill Burgess -BR-4----------------ElHalo--------TC-2
Chris--BR-3----------------------Four Tool Player--TC2
2Chance-------------------------Zeth------TC-2
fryj?-----------------------------Julusnc--TC-2
kelo80---------------------------BillyF29------TC-2
Eddie Collins--TC-1, BR-2---------Catfish--TC-2
Sandman-------------------------Edgartohof--TC-2
Tearforamariner-------------------ShoelessJoe3
Zito75----------------------------wrgptfan------TC-3
mpacy----------------------------BoSoxRule----TW-1, BR-2, TC--3
blighty baseball bloke--------------MikeCameron--TC-4
TXRangerfan----------------------Baseball Guru---TC-5
George Steinbrenner---------------Metsfan11--TC-6
Luke Appling----------------------depstein
Chad-----------------------------westsidegrounds
Brad Harris--BR-2-----------------Chisox73
Chancellor------------------------Dayton Dog
Murph8283-----------------------froshman2002
Dizzy (HS in '04)-----------------BABBMALLEY29--My.7,1939
LouGehrig--BR2-------------------bluezebra
Prof93--BR-2---------------------Santotohof
Tibber; TC over BR---------------WLH99raiders--
Impotato---TC-2-----------------RuthMayBonds
Dudecar00--Mays, Cobb, Ruth----torez77
DoubleX--------------------------Kilithelong
Splendid Splinter------------------Ytown Tribe fan
Windy City Fan--------------------leecemark, Wagner 2, Cobb 3

Looks as if All of Babe's supporters turned out. If anyone has an opinion, but isn't listed here, I'd appreciate hearing from them.

Bill Burgess

RuthMayBond

10-04-2004, 10:24 AM

ElHalo,

"And defensively, Mays leaves Carey in the dust."

Not so fast. Max Carey, along with Speaker, McAleer, Ashburn and Lange, are about the only defensive OFs, who Willie doesn't leave in the dust. If you want to believe that a seven-year guy who arguably was never the best outfielder any year he played was one of the all-time greatest

Bill Burgess

10-04-2004, 04:31 PM

One of my files is called:

Ewing, Sisler, Lange, McAleer, Archer, Bergen, Bennet

If you had opted to receive the package, you'd know enough by now, to not make ill-informed opinions like that.

Bill James' win shares gives Lange 2nd place as a defensive OF of the 1890's. And the list is just way too long to dismiss ALL the name players who raved about his fielding.

But just to reiterate a few:

1. Bill Lange's Sporting News obituary:
William A. (Big Bill) Lange, 79, regarded as one of baseball's all-time greats, . . . When informed of his death, Clark Griffith, president of the Washington Senator, said: "I played ball with Bill Lange on the Chicago National League club for some eight years. I have seen all the other great outfielders-Speaker, Cobb, DiMaggio--in action, and I consider Bill Lange the equal of, if not better than, all outfielders of all time. There wasn't anything he couldn't do."
2. Alfred Henry Spink, Aug. 24, 1854 - May 27, 1928; founder and editor of The Sporting News (1886), described Lange as "Ty Cobb enlarged, fully as great in speed, batting skill and base running."

3. Clark Griffith, Nov. 20, 1898 - Oct. 27, 1955; (ML pitcher,1891-14), (Senators manager,1901-20), Senators owner,1920-55 and I think that Milan is almost Lange's equal.

4. William B. Hanna, (Oct., 1956? - Nov. 20, 1930); (NY sportswriter, 1888-1930) "Bill Lange covered as much ground as Speaker and was a sure catch and fine thrower.

5. [B]Cap Anson, April 11, 1852 - April 14, 1922; (ML 1B, 1871-97), (ML man., 1875, '79-98) - "Bill Lange, who played for me when I had charge of the Chicago National League club, was in a class by himself as an outfielder. He was a better outfielder than Cobb or Speaker and a phenomenal thrower, and one year he stole 106 bases." (Washington Post, June 3, 1917, pp. S18)

6. J. Earl Wagner, (61) - Nov. 11, 1943, (Owned Philadelphia Phillies & Washington Senators in 1890's, for brief periods).
"Bill Lange, if he would cut out his monkey doodle business, as Chris calls it, would fit into my team as captain and I would pay a liberal price for the release of Lange from the Chicago club, and would give him a contract that would call for more money than is paid any player in the major leagues." (Washington Post, October 8, 1899, pp. 8)

Now, . . . To counterbalance the commentery of those who saw Bill Lange's level of play, I have . . . your reticense. Now, let me see. Whose opinions are more compelling, more credible, more viable. Hmm. This IS a tough one. I just don't know. Your defense is sure powerful. You just steam-rollered Bill James stat analysis. Oh yeah. I remember. The eye-witnesses are all biased. And their motive to speak well of a fellow opponent is . . .

Can you at least appreciate my problem here, Jeffrey? Seriously, not to disrespect anyone opinions, but neither will I let anyone here disrespect the eye-witnesses opinions either, which I've let happen too often here.

So, between Bill James' stat analysis on Lange's defensive work, AND the eye-witnesses, obituaries, I have absolutely no counterbalance to all that. Do you have a credible defense? So far, it appears your defense is naked on the Jay Leno show.

Bill Burgess

Appling

10-04-2004, 07:01 PM

Bill Lange?
I agree that eye-witness accounts are very important when judging defensive greatness. But for a player whose entire career was over before 1900 I would want a lot of evidence. My now-deceased father was my personal eye-witness expert, but Lange finished his career ten years before my dad was born.

Willie Mays' World Series catch is what earned his reputation. Brooks Robinson made flashy stops in televised World Series. Both of them had plenty of "eye-witnesses".

My understanding of other great centerfielders would put Tris Speaker and VINCE DiMaggion at the top of the list. Joe and Dom DiMaggio would also be high on my list, but behind Tris and Vince. Hard to put a 9-year player in with that class. And surely Lange's hitting doesn't put him in the "best ballplayer ever" class. He had a great hitting year in 1895, but what else?

Bill Burgess

10-04-2004, 08:32 PM

Hi Luke,

Bill Lange?
But for a player whose entire career was over before 1900 I would want a lot of evidence.

(Bill - So would I. Unlike most of the stat-based guys here, I can't just blow off 5-6 "name" experts. It's not the number of witnesses which creates a quality consensu, but the quality of the witnesses.

Recently, when I had 10 eye-witnesses here on Fever, who had seen Billy Cox play, RMB blew off the Sporting News obit and 4-5 others in the obit, on the grounds that they were all biased, due to they were New Yorkers, and hence had a rooting interest in lauding Billy Cox. Never heard such desperation in dismissing good testimoney in my life.

Willie Mays' World Series catch is what earned his reputation. Brooks Robinson made flashy stops in televised World Series. Both of them had plenty of "eye-witnesses".

(Bill - It's too bad we lacked TV back to 1776. Then we'd have a video record, and not need to argue over Ewing, Lange, etc.)

My understanding of other great centerfielders would put Tris Speaker and VINCE DiMaggion at the top of the list. Joe and Dom DiMaggio would also be high on my list, but behind Tris and Vince. Hard to put a 9-year player in with that class.

(Bill - At the top of my defensive OF list would be Jimmie McAleer, Tris Speaker, Bill Lange, Richie Ashburn, Willie Mays). Imapotato lobbies for Dummie Hoy, who deserves investigation. Why hard to put an OF, who all his peers insisted was the equal of Speaker? Why does a 9 yr. career affect the quality of those yrs. retroactivly?

And surely Lange's hitting doesn't put him in the "best ballplayer ever" class. He had a great hitting year in 1895, but what else?

(Bill - I would rate Bill Lange around 17th all time, but feel others might consider him for top 50 status. I have not tried to lobby his case too strenuously, except for defense. And I don't feel that by limiting my defense of his case to defense, I should be causing such a commotion. I mean really. We're talking defense! All I have advocated here, is that Bill Lange is well-qualified to be a part of a proposed permanent Hall of Fame exhibit, for commemorating non-Famers defensive excellence. And that's it! And the whole controversy comes out of RuthMayBonds challenging Bill Lange's right to be called a great fielder. So there we are. This has nothing to do with "great player" status.

Those blurbs which I posted, such as the Sporting News obit, did refer to him as a great all time player, which just goes to show I'm not blowing smoke. He WAS INDEED thought of in those exalted terms.

But, . . . the point is, I did not exalt him there. I'm presenting a rather focused campaign for Bill. His defense and running were both world-class, state-of-the-art, top-of-the-line. His hitting was merely very good. Came in top 10 often in hitting categories. Something like a much better hitting Max Carey.

Bill Burgess

Windy City Fan

10-04-2004, 10:15 PM

I had to throw in my support for Tyrus. The whole debate for Cobb, Ruth or Wagner comes down to how much do you value defense and baserunning, and how much do you discount Ruth's numbers because much of the league wasn't playing the same game as him.

I value defense, speed, contact hitting, and plate discipline a lot. Cobb wins 3 of the 4 against Ruth. Add to it, despite Cobb's inflamatory personality, Bill has shown time and time again that he was a good guy in the clubhouse - he taught his teammates how to play. Ruth never did that - at least to my knowledge.

I'm undecided on how much "adjustment" Ruth's relative stats need - since he was the only guy really going for the long ball for the first 5 years or more of the live ball era. Even in the 30's 10 or 15 HR would get you on the top 10 list for the league. A lot of players were still playing deadball with a live ball. Now I give Ruth credit for being playing his game his way, and excelling at it, but I can't take the fact that Ruth regularly out homered entire teams at face value. To put that in today's numbers, Bonds (or any other elite slugger you'd like to pick), would have to hit well over 100 HR.

On the flip side, I ask myself if Ruth was playing with all of today's advantages, with today's crackerjack parks, with today's juiced ball, against today's watered down pitching, could he out homer the Montreal Expos? Maybe. Could he account for the same unbelievable percentage of homeruns hit in the league as he did in the 20's? No. He'd need to hit over 200 to do that. So Ruth's relative stats have to be put into context.

However, the fact that he batted for such a high average, even when indexed, is amazing. Ruth was competion against guys going for singles and just trying to punch it. Ruth was swinging from the heels and hitting for just as good an average, and often better. Factor in Ruth's pitching and its really close.

I haven't even mentioned Honus Wagner's case yet. Offensively, he can stand with Cobb and Ruth - even if they both are slightly better, but then you have to rememeber he was a freakin' shortstop. As Bill has pointed out, there was a time when Honus was the best runner, fielder, and hitter in the league - as a shortstop!

Overall I go Cobb, Ruth, Wagner - but its a close race.

RuthMayBond

10-05-2004, 07:59 AM

Bill James' win shares gives Lange 2nd place as a defensive OF of the 1890's.

Yeah, Bill James doesn't know what he's talking about but you'll use him as evidence. I don't agree with everything Bill says but I have to make allowances that occasionally he must have smoked something.

But just to reiterate a few:

1. Bill Lange's Sporting News obituary:
William A. (Big Bill) Lange, 79, regarded as one of baseball's all-time greats, . . . When informed of his death, Clark Griffith, president of the Washington Senator, said: "I played ball with Bill Lange on the Chicago National League club for some eight years. I have seen all the other great outfielders-Speaker, Cobb, DiMaggio--in action, and I consider Bill Lange the equal of, if not better than, all outfielders of all time. There wasn't anything he couldn't do."

Except maybe lead a league in something once in a while

2. Alfred Henry Spink, Aug. 24, 1854 - May 27, 1928; founder and editor of The Sporting News (1886), described Lange as "Ty Cobb enlarged, fully as great in speed, batting skill and base running."

So Ty Cobb ISN'T the greatest player :laugh

3. Clark Griffith, Nov. 20, 1898 - Oct. 27, 1955; (ML pitcher,1891-14), (Senators manager,1901-20), Senators owner,1920-55 and I think that Milan is almost Lange's equal.

So what does this prove?

4. William B. Hanna, (Oct., 1956? - Nov. 20, 1930); (NY sportswriter, 1888-1930) "Bill Lange covered as much ground as Speaker and was a sure catch and fine thrower.

Another "impartial" witness, and of course people are going to say nice things after a guy's dead

5. [B]Cap Anson, April 11, 1852 - April 14, 1922; (ML 1B, 1871-97), (ML man., 1875, '79-98) - "Bill Lange, who played for me when I had charge of the Chicago National League club, was in a class by himself as an outfielder. He was a better outfielder than Cobb or Speaker and a phenomenal thrower, and one year he stole 106 bases." (Washington Post, June 3, 1917, pp. S18)

Exactly what year did he steal 106 bases?

6. J. Earl Wagner, (61) - Nov. 11, 1943, (Owned Philadelphia Phillies & Washington Senators in 1890's, for brief periods).
"Bill Lange, if he would cut out his monkey doodle business, as Chris calls it, would fit into my team as captain and I would pay a liberal price for the release of Lange from the Chicago club, and would give him a contract that would call for more money than is paid any player in the major leagues." (Washington Post, October 8, 1899, pp. 8)

But apparently he DIDN'T cut out his "monkey doodle business".

Do you have a credible defense? So far, it appears your defense is naked on the Jay Leno show.[/QUOTE]I call Bill Burgess to the stand.
Mr. Burgess, I am asking you if this is your recipe for one of the greatest defensive outfielders ever?
1893-Play 40 G in the OF, but even more games @ 2B than OF.
(Though I don't have all stats on ALL outfielders, I'm just saying that Lange was NO BETTER than the rankings I'll give. If it looked like there was no way a guy would have any consideration, I didn't even write his stats down, even though he may have been really good in at least one area.)

1894-End up NO BETTER THAN tenth among only CF (NBT thirteenth among OF) in putouts, NBT sixth only among CF in assists, NBT sixth only among CF in errors, and NBT seventh only among CF in Fielding Range

1895-End up NO BETTER THAN sixth among only CF (NBT eighth among OF) in putouts, NBT seventh among only CF in errors, and NBT fifth only among CF in Fielding Range.

1896-Aha, but I've got you. I managed to finish third (among only CF) in putouts, and tied for third (only among CF). Don't mention that I had the most errors of all CF.

1897-End up NO BETTER THAN tied for fifth among only CF (NBT tied for ninth among OF) in putouts, NBT tied for third among only CF (NBT tied for fifth among OF) in assists, NBT tied for eighth among OF for most errors, and NBT sixth among only CF in Fielding Range (NBT eighth among OF).

1898-End up NO BETTER THAN seventh among only CF (NBT eleventh among OF) in putouts, and NBT tied for fourth among OF for assists.

1899-Don't even be a starting OF at all, just fill in in the outfield. And then retire. So have only five full-time years as an OF. All in favor, say aye-yi-yi :laugh

RuthMayBond

10-05-2004, 08:03 AM

Recently, when I had 10 eye-witnesses here on Fever, who had seen Billy Cox play, RMB blew off the Sporting News obit and 4-5 others in the obit, on the grounds that they were all biased, due to they were New Yorkers, and hence had a rooting interest in lauding Billy Cox. Never heard such desperation in dismissing good testimoney in my life.
The number grows every day :laugh One of your eyewitnesses actually showed up and actually posted.

DoubleX

10-05-2004, 09:53 AM

I voted for Roy Hobbs. If didn't get shot by that harlequin, he would have been better than the Whammer!

BillyF29

10-05-2004, 12:20 PM

After further review, I've come up with a new Top 25 players of All Time. My method of choice is flawed at best, but its mine and that's all that matters to me. I add together a players career WHIP1+WHIP2+WHIP3 for their career total. The career total will be 45% of their total, with the player with the highest career total receiving 45 points. Then I take the career number and figure the players total per 162 games. The 162 game average is 55% of their total, with the player with the highest average receiving 55 points. Then I take the total and multiply it by what percent the player is to the top player of their position.

1. Babe Ruth
2. Barry Bonds
3. Ty Cobb
4. Honus Wagner
5. Willie Mays
6. Nap Lajoie
7. Roger Clemens
8. Tris Speaker
9. Eddie Collins
10. Walter Johnson
11. Ted Williams
12. Rogers Hornsby
13. Lou Gehrig
14. Mike Schmidt
15. Hank Aaron
16. Stan Musial
17. Johnny Bench
18. Mel Ott
19. Mickey Mantle
20. Joe Morgan
21. Jimmie Foxx
22. Cy Young
23. Wade Boggs (yeah, I know, from here on is pretty sketchy at best)
24. Bill Dickey
25. Gary Carter

RuthMayBond

10-05-2004, 12:28 PM

After further review, I've come up with a new Top 25 players of All Time. My method of choice is flawed at best, but its mine and that's all that matters to me. I add together a players career WHIP1+WHIP2+WHIP3 for their career total. The career total will be 45% of their total, with the player with the highest career total receiving 45 points. Then I take the career number and figure the players total per 162 games. The 162 game average is 55% of their total, with the player with the highest average receiving 55 points. Then I take the total and multiply it by what percent the player is to the top player of their position.

7. Roger Clemens

10. Walter Johnson
11. Ted Williams
12. Rogers Hornsby
13. Lou Gehrig
14. Mike Schmidt
15. Hank Aaron
16. Stan Musial
17. Johnny Bench
18. Mel Ott
19. Mickey Mantle
20. Joe Morgan
21. Jimmie Foxx
22. Cy Young
23. Wade Boggs (yeah, I know, from here on is pretty sketchy at best)
24. Bill Dickey
25. Gary CarterClemens over Walter, Schmidt over Aaron/Musial etc., Bench over Mantle, Morgan over Foxx/Young etc., and Carter over everyone save 24. That will stir some interest

RuthMayBond

10-05-2004, 12:34 PM

His hitting was merely very good. Came in top 10 often in hitting categories. Something like a much better hitting Max Carey.

Bill BurgessSince I assume we're not including stolen bases in hitting categories, how "often" would you say Lange came in the top 10 in hitting categories?

Bill Burgess

10-05-2004, 04:51 PM

Bill Burgess' recipe for one of the best fielding OF ever

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by william_burgess@usa.net
Bill James' win shares gives Lange 2nd place as a defensive OF of the 1890's.

Yeah, Bill James doesn't know what he's talking about but you'll use him as evidence. I don't agree with everything Bill says but I have to make allowances that occasionally he must have smoked something.

(Bill - Do I understand you correctly, Jeffrey? Everyone else has the right to use/quote Bill James, where he supports their premise, and criticize/correct him where they disagree with him. Everyone but me. Do I understand you correctly?

Even you reserve your right to critique me when I'm nuts, and agree with me if I ever stumble onto anything reasonable, if that ever happens. Have you ever found anyone else besides yourself, who is either always right or always wrong? So why can't I also differentiate?)

But just to reiterate a few:

1. Bill Lange's Sporting News obituary:
William A. (Big Bill) Lange, 79, regarded as one of baseball's all-time greats, . . . When informed of his death, Clark Griffith, president of the Washington Senator, said: "I played ball with Bill Lange on the Chicago National League club for some eight years. I have seen all the other great outfielders-Speaker, Cobb, DiMaggio--in action, and I consider Bill Lange the equal of, if not better than, all outfielders of all time. There wasn't anything he couldn't do."

Except maybe lead a league in something once in a while.

(Bill - The totally obvious reason he failed to lead his league in stuff, is he didn't play enough games, but the ones he played in sure left an indelable impression on his peers. They were still talking about him in 1930. If the numbers don't support a premise, there is a reason. We simply cannot agree on what the reasons are. Perhaps your computations are simply incapable of perceiving what the players of that time knew. Perhaps Bill James has found a way of perceiving things not obvious to us.

For example. Perhaps the White Sox had a terribly small OF territory. Less space to patrol, less traffic, fewer counting stats. Or perhaps the ChiSox pitchers were a well-known ground ball staff. Who's to say?

Not having been there, Jeffrey, I don't give myself license to blow off those who were. Especially not the VERY well-known "name" experts, like Anson, Griffith, Wagner, Hanna and Spink. And I really don't think you should either. To put your own judgement above those who saw Lange, men who gave their entire lives to BB, BTW, is a dangerous flaw that bespeaks of ego, and cataclysmic poor judgement. Your position is untenable, and I'm trying hard to pull you back from the precipice you're tettering on. No good bud would do less.)

2. Alfred Henry Spink, Aug. 24, 1854 - May 27, 1928; founder and editor of The Sporting News (1886), described Lange as "Ty Cobb enlarged, fully as great in speed, batting skill and base running."

So Ty Cobb ISN'T the greatest player

(Bill - I think that Spink here is taking a little license. He is obviously referring to running/defense. Spink can't be referring to hitting. He's using a little hype. But I hesitate to say that, lest you'll pounce. (Aha!! And isn't it possible that ALL your witnesses were hyping!!! Exaggerating, blowing smoke, embellishing, embroitering, LYING!!!) So you see my reticense.

3. Clark Griffith, Nov. 20, 1898 - Oct. 27, 1955; (ML pitcher,1891-14), (Senators manager,1901-20), Senators owner,1920-55 and I think that Milan is almost Lange's equal.

So what does this prove?

(Bill - It proves that a very experience observer felt that Lange was a better defensive OFer than Clyde Milan, an acknowledged great OF. Clyde Milan of the Senators was accepted as Speaker's closest rival in the 1910's as the premier defensive OF.

4. William B. Hanna, (Oct., 1956? - Nov. 20, 1930); (NY sportswriter, 1888-1930) "Bill Lange covered as much ground as Speaker and was a sure catch and fine thrower.

Another "impartial" witness, and of course people are going to say nice things after a guy's dead

(Bill - Hanna was a great writer, one of my favorites. He was not known to exagerate or embellish. Lange was Chicago, Bill Hanna was NYC. Why would he help "the ememy."

"Nice things after a guys's dead."
Is that right? I could list about a thousand average players, who, once they're gone, the less said the better. No need to be cruel and cruxify. Simply silence is enough for most journeymen performers. And it looks like your premise for Lange is that he was merely a journeyman player who could steal bases, but not much more. And I'm a silly man for paying attention to all these name experts raving about some mediocre journeyman.

Let me share a secret with you Jeffrey. Your defense of "bias" requires something more substantial, as to why one's peers not only rave about your play, but continue the drumroll for decades after your retirement. To overcome contemporaries opinions, you need something real that future fans can hold onto.)

5. [B]Cap Anson, April 11, 1852 - April 14, 1922; (ML 1B, 1871-97), (ML man., 1875, '79-98) - "Bill Lange, who played for me when I had charge of the Chicago National League club, was in a class by himself as an outfielder. He was a better outfielder than Cobb or Speaker and a phenomenal thrower, and one year he stole 106 bases." (Washington Post, June 3, 1917, pp. S18)

Exactly what year did he steal 106 bases?

(Bill - I think I can interpret that one. There were a few yrs., not very many, when they counted taking the extra base, as a stolen base. And so that is how that figure got in there. But obviously, they went back and re-converted those "SB" back to the real numbers. Leecemark once remarked on this. But I believe that Bill Lange's numbers as now recorded in Total Baseball are his real SB numbers, not padded by "taken extra bases.")

6. J. Earl Wagner, (61) - Nov. 11, 1943, (Owned Philadelphia Phillies & Washington Senators in 1890's, for brief periods).
"Bill Lange, if he would cut out his monkey doodle business, as Chris calls it, would fit into my team as captain and I would pay a liberal price for the release of Lange from the Chicago club, and would give him a contract that would call for more money than is paid any player in the major leagues." (Washington Post, October 8, 1899, pp. 8)

But apparently he DIDN'T cut out his "monkey doodle business".

(Bill - No he didn't. His monkey doole business was that he left BB to marry a woman, whose father wouldn't give his blessing to his daughter to marry a ballplayer. So Lange abandoned his career, went to work for his father-in-law, the marriage didn't work out, but Lange never returned to BB. What an idiot.)

Do you have a credible defense? So far, it appears your defense is naked on the Jay Leno show.[/QUOTE]I call Bill Burgess to the stand.
Mr. Burgess, I am asking you if this is your recipe for one of the greatest defensive outfielders ever?

(Bill - Bill Burgess reporting to the witness stand, sir. Yes, it is sir. This is my true recipe. You may use it if you'd like, sir.)

1893-Play 40 G in the OF, but even more games @ 2B than OF.
(Though I don't have all stats on ALL outfielders, I'm just saying that Lange was NO BETTER than the rankings I'll give. If it looked like there was no way a guy would have any consideration, I didn't even write his stats down, even though he may have been really good in at least one area.)

1894-End up NO BETTER THAN tenth among only CF (NBT thirteenth among OF) in putouts, NBT sixth only among CF in assists, NBT sixth only among CF in errors, and NBT seventh only among CF in Fielding Range

1895-End up NO BETTER THAN sixth among only CF (NBT eighth among OF) in putouts, NBT seventh among only CF in errors, and NBT fifth only among CF in Fielding Range.

1896-Aha, but I've got you. I managed to finish third (among only CF) in putouts, and tied for third (only among CF). Don't mention that I had the most errors of all CF.

1897-End up NO BETTER THAN tied for fifth among only CF (NBT tied for ninth among OF) in putouts, NBT tied for third among only CF (NBT tied for fifth among OF) in assists, NBT tied for eighth among OF for most errors, and NBT sixth among only CF in Fielding Range (NBT eighth among OF).

1898-End up NO BETTER THAN seventh among only CF (NBT eleventh among OF) in putouts, and NBT tied for fourth among OF for assists.

1899-Don't even be a starting OF at all, just fill in in the outfield. And then retire. So have only five full-time years as an OF. All in favor, say aye-yi-yi

(Bill - Sir, I may have a credible theory, sir, to cover all these seeming anomalies to OFing greatness. As I posited above, it was possible that Bill Lange played in a ballpark with a small OF territory. And smaller OF, less traffic, fewer counting stats. Or, . . . perhaps you've simply used counting stats of POs, Assists, DPs, Errors, when rate stats per g. might have given us closer to reality numbers.

Is it possible his smaller park gave him less traffic, but he was an acrobatic terror on what traffic came his way? Now, hear me well! I'm not saying that Lange's Chicago ball park WAS smaller! I'm seeking for an explanation of why his stats don't impress you. If anyone can find the dimensions of the Chicago Nationals ballpark for the 1890's, that would be great! So, who knows, Jeffrey? Maybe someone can find an explanation and help us out.

Now another issue:
You have often mentioned how few games Bill Lange played in. I hope you realize that the NL in the 1890's didn't use the same schedule that they used later. They played fewer games per season. Here is his games played, which of course, impacts on his counting numbers.

Year------# of Lange's games--------# of L. games
1893-----------117---------------------130
1894-----------111---------------------130
1895-----------123---------------------132
1896-----------122---------------------132
1897-----------118---------------------135
1898-----------113---------------------154
1899-----------107---------------------154
-7 yrs.---------811-total--(83%)--------967 total

The lesson I hope you learn out of all this Jeffrey is just this. Whenever there is a consensu of credible observers that cannot be made obvious by the numbers, you have no need to scorn/distain that consensus.

I'm sure that even a committed stat person like Dave Kent would agree that it takes a good understanding of fielding stats to interpret them without distortion. And that not all secrets are revealed by stats at first glance. Size of OF, type of pitching, quality of fielders around you, etc. all go to make the understanding of fielding statistics problematic. Hitting stats are the easiest to measure. Not so with fielding. So, if we could please work together to find out the mysteries of this game, things could go a lot smoother. What do you think?

Bill

Bill Burgess

10-05-2004, 07:36 PM

RMB,

"Since I assume we're not including stolen bases in hitting categories, how "often" would you say Lange came in the top 10 in hitting categories?"

Truthfully, it looks to me as if he played too few games for his hitting stats to climb into the top 5, except for 1895. In 1895, he hit these stats, which are rate stats.

SLG. -----------------4th place - .575
On-base % -----------5th place - .456
BA.-------------------5th place - .389
Production -----------3rd place - 1.032
Adjusted Production --4th place - 155
Runs Created --------5th place - 160

The totally obvious reason he failed to lead his league in stuff, is he didn't play enough games, but the ones he played in sure left an indelable impression on his peers. They were still talking about him in 1930.

Below are his number of games, which are a bit light to lead the league. To achieve leading the league, usually requires playing a lot of games.

Year------# of Lange's games--------# of L. games
1893-----------117---------------------130
1894-----------111---------------------130
1895-----------123---------------------132
1896-----------122---------------------132
1897-----------118---------------------135
1898-----------113---------------------154
1899-----------107---------------------154
-7 yrs.---------811-total--(83%)--------967 total

Bill James is the one who said that Bill Lange came in the top 10 often. All of my sources only list the top 5. And he only breaks into the top 5, in 1895, except for SB. I don't have the reference books to give me the top 5-10 of top League stats.

Bill Burgess

RuthMayBond

10-06-2004, 08:34 AM

Bill Burgess' recipe for one of the best fielding OF ever

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Bill - The totally obvious reason he failed to lead his league in stuff, is he didn't play enough games)

Then why wouldn't there be a totally obvious reason that a guy who couldn't play in enough games NOT be one of the best defensive OF ever?

2. Alfred Henry Spink, Aug. 24, 1854 - May 27, 1928; founder and editor of The Sporting News (1886), described Lange as "Ty Cobb enlarged, fully as great in speed, batting skill and base running."

So Ty Cobb ISN'T the greatest player

(Bill - I think that Spink here is taking a little license.)

Hence my reticence about witnesses

3. Clark Griffith, Nov. 20, 1898 - Oct. 27, 1955; (ML pitcher,1891-14), (Senators manager,1901-20), Senators owner,1920-55 and I think that Milan is almost Lange's equal.

So what does this prove?

(Bill - It proves that a very experience observer felt that Lange was a better defensive OFer than Clyde Milan, an acknowledged great OF. Clyde Milan of the Senators was accepted as <a href="http://www.serverlogic3.com/lm/rtl3.asp?si=1&k=speaker%20s" onmouseover="window.status='<a href="http://www.serverlogic3.com/lm/rtl3.asp?si=1&k=speaker%20s" onmouseover="window.status='Speaker\\'s'; return true;" onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;">Speaker\'s</a>'; return true;" onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;">Speaker's</a> closest rival in the 1910's as the premier defensive OF.

We don't in what capacity they're talking Milan's equal. You're assuming defense?

5. [B]Cap Anson, April 11, 1852 - April 14, 1922; (ML 1B, 1871-97), (ML man., 1875, '79-98) - "Bill Lange, who played for me when I had charge of the Chicago National League club, was in a class by himself as an outfielder. He was a better outfielder than Cobb or Speaker and a phenomenal thrower, and one year he stole 106 bases." (Washington Post, June 3, 1917, pp. S18)

Exactly what year did he steal 106 bases?

(Bill - I think I can interpret that one. There were a few yrs., not very many, when they counted taking the extra base, as a stolen base. And so that is how that figure got in there. But obviously, they went back and re-converted those "SB" back to the real numbers. Leecemark once remarked on this. But I believe that Bill Lange's numbers as now recorded in Total Baseball are his real SB numbers, not padded by "taken extra bases.")

Are you SURE they went back and recalculated SB? I'd be REAL surprised if they have that much info.
I call Bill Burgess to the stand.
Mr. Burgess, I am asking you if this is your recipe for one of the greatest defensive outfielders ever?

(Bill - Bill Burgess reporting to the witness stand, sir. Yes, it is sir. This is my true recipe. You may use it if you'd like, sir.)

1893-Play 40 G in the OF, but even more games @ 2B than OF.
(Though I don't have all stats on ALL outfielders, I'm just saying that Lange was NO BETTER than the rankings I'll give. If it looked like there was no way a guy would have any consideration, I didn't even write his stats down, even though he may have been really good in at least one area.)

1894-End up NO BETTER THAN tenth among only CF (NBT thirteenth among OF) in putouts, NBT sixth only among CF in assists, NBT sixth only among CF in errors, and NBT seventh only among CF in Fielding Range

1895-End up NO BETTER THAN sixth among only CF (NBT eighth among OF) in putouts, NBT seventh among only CF in errors, and NBT fifth only among CF in Fielding Range.

1896-Aha, but I've got you. I managed to finish third (among only CF) in putouts, and tied for third (only among CF). Don't mention that I had the most errors of all CF.

1897-End up NO BETTER THAN tied for fifth among only CF (NBT tied for ninth among OF) in putouts, NBT tied for third among only CF (NBT tied for fifth among OF) in assists, NBT tied for eighth among OF for most errors, and NBT sixth among only CF in Fielding Range (NBT eighth among OF).

1898-End up NO BETTER THAN seventh among only CF (NBT eleventh among OF) in putouts, and NBT tied for fourth among OF for assists.

1899-Don't even be a starting OF at all, just fill in in the outfield. And then retire. So have only five full-time years as an OF. All in favor, say aye-yi-yi

(Bill - Sir, I may have a credible theory, sir, to cover all these seeming anomalies to OFing greatness. As I posited above, it was possible that Bill Lange played in a ballpark with a small OF territory. And smaller OF, less traffic, fewer counting stats. Or, . . . perhaps you've simply used counting stats of POs, Assists, DPs, Errors, when rate stats per g. might have given us closer to reality numbers.

Is it possible his smaller park gave him less traffic, but he was an acrobatic terror on what traffic came his way? Now, hear me well! I'm not saying that Lange's Chicago ball park WAS smaller! I'm seeking for an explanation of why his stats don't impress you. If anyone can find the dimensions of the Chicago Nationals ballpark for the 1890's, that would be great! So, who knows, Jeffrey? Maybe someone can find an explanation and how us out.

I'm sure that even a committed stat person like Dave Kent would agree that it takes a good understanding of fielding stats to interpret them without distortion. And that not all secrets are revealed by stats at first glance. Size of OF, type of pitching, quality of fielders around you, etc. all go to make the understanding of fielding statistics problematic. Hitting stats are the easiest to measure. Not so with fielding. So, if we could please work together to find out the mysteries of this game, things could go a lot smoother. What do you think?

Bill[/QUOTE]Since there were few over the fence HR back then, I'm not sure why the size of a field would matter. But if you've got enough time to write something that takes a week to read, I'd figure you would have found out about the Chicago park.