Ted Williams vs. Left-handed Pitchers

[HitchedtoaSpark]

In another of my lengthy perusings of SABR's treasured Home Run Encyclopedia, I was surprised at coming across this fact--namely, that a scant 12.3% of Ted Williams' lifetime home runs came against left-handed pitchers. Further analysis yielded this equally surprising fact--to wit, that of all the LH sluggers in the game's history with at least 300 lifetime home runs to their credit, only Duke Snider (who was frequently sat down against lefties) has a worse percentage of his home runs off of lefties.

The breakdown is as thus (list is as of 1995, when the book was published):


Name Total Vs. RHP Vs. LHP %*
Babe Ruth 714 495 219 30.7
Reggie Jackson 563 384 179 31.8
Willie McCovey 521 421 100 19.2
Ted Williams 521 457 64 12.3
Eddie Mathews 512 418 94 18.4
Mel Ott 511 400 111 21.7
Lou Gehrig 493 350 143 29.0
Stan Musial 475 320 155 32.6
Willie Stargell 475 372 103 21.7
Carl Yastrzemski452 374 78 17.3
Billy Williams 426 325 101 23.7
Darrell Evans 414 317 97 23.4
Duke Snider 407 374 33 8.1
Graig Nettles 390 281 109 27.9
Norm Cash 377 316 61 16.2
Johnny Mize 359 274 85 23.7
Yogi Berra 358 273 85 23.7
Dave Parker 339 237 102 30.1
Boog Powell 339 270 69 20.4
George Brett 317 229 88 27.8
Fred Lynn 306 246 60 19.6
Harold Baines 301 243 58 19.3
Chuck Klein 300 241 59 19.7

* - Percentage of total home runs hit against LHP.


If that wasn't provocative enough, further research turned up this (http://www.baseballmusings.com/archives/003016.php).



Category AB H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO BA OBA SA
Total 4005 1339 261 27 259 895 1048 383 .334 .473 .607
vs left 928 276 58 3 33 174 193 127 .297 .422 .473
vs right 3077 1063 203 24 226 721 855 256 .345 .488 .647

Career 7706 2654 525 71 521 1839 2019 709 .344 .482 .634


Although admittedly the above analysis only samples a minority portion of Williams' numbers, it seems evident from the above figures that Williams was a noticably weaker hitter, as well as slugger against lefties. This is in marked contrast to the numbers against lefties put up by his most prominent rivals for status of greatest hitter--Ruth, with his power numbers; Cobb, with his efficiency (lifetime .347 against lefties).

[leecemark]

Hitch, I was wondering why you used only half of Williams AB's in your analysis? I expect LHB to do less well against LHP and by your own account, Cobb hit 20 points less than his overall BA vs LHP. As his BA vs RHP would have to be higher than his career BA to balance the shortfall vs LHP that would put his split somewhere in the neighborhood of 30 points. I admit I'm a little surprised by the size of Williams split, but only a little. And I wouldn't read too much into it without knowing what portion of Teddy's career you choose not to include and why.

[HitchedtoaSpark]

Originally posted by leecemark
Hitch, I was wondering why you used only half of Williams AB's in your analysis?

Follow the link in my post above.


Originally posted by HitchedtoaSpark
If that wasn't provocative enough, further research turned up this (http://www.baseballmusings.com/archives/003016.php).

[leecemark]

Hitch, I followed the link to the article and it said "based on his career totals his stats were better in virtually every category for the missing years". Without seeing any numbers I would have assumed Williams, like virtually every other LHB, didn't do as well against LHP. He was still pretty damn good against them though. I think modern LHB might be expected to do a little better against LHP than old timers for this reason - There are alot of left handed pitchers in the majors today who don't belong there. Everyone knows that LHP have an advantage over LHB, but bad lefties aren't really a better option than good righties when you've got a tough left handed batter to retire. The new conventional "wisdom" that you need a couple lefties in the pen as specialists goes against all logic. Sorry to have diverged from your topic, just a pet peeve of mine.

[HitchedtoaSpark]

Originally posted by leecemark
Without seeing any numbers I would have assumed Williams, like virtually every other LHB, didn't do as well against LHP. He was still pretty damn good against them though.

While fully cognizant of the fact that left-handed batters tend to do rather worse against left-handed pitching than they do against right-handed pitching, my point is that Ruth's and Cobb's markedly superior numbers against lefties seem to present for them a compelling case as greatest hitter of all time over Williams. I wouldn't say Williams was neutralized against lefties, but he certainly seemed somewhat less than the greatest hitter who ever lived when facing left-handed pitching--something that can't be said about Ruth or Cobb.

Hopefully, someday we can get complete RHP vs. LHP splits for Williams.

[shlevine42]

Originally posted by HitchedtoaSpark
In another of my lengthy perusings of SABR's treasured Home Run Encyclopedia, I was surprised at coming across this fact--namely, that a scant 12.3% of Ted Williams' lifetime home runs came against left-handed pitchers. Further analysis yielded this equally surprising fact--to wit, that of all the LH sluggers in the game's history with at least 300 lifetime home runs to their credit, only Duke Snider (who was frequently sat down against lefties) has a worse percentage of his home runs off of lefties.


There are two obvious reasons why Snider had such a low percentage of his HR against left-handed pitchers:
1. He actually did poorly against lefties
2. He faced substantially fewer lefties in his career.

Most likely…a combination of both.

With regard to Reason #1: Having seen Snider play for his entire career in Brooklyn, I can confirm that he often looked inept against the league’s best lefties…Brecheen…Simmons…Haddix…Antonelli…Spahn. And it’s certainly true that he was occasionally benched when he was swinging poorly and when a tough lefty was scheduled to pitch against the Dodgers.

As for #2: As you know, for most of his Brooklyn career, Duke was the ONLY lefty in the Dodger starting lineup (Hermanski, Amoros and Rube Walker batted left, but were mostly part-time players), and benefited from the fact that opposing teams SELDOM threw a lefty against the powerful right-hand batting Dodger lineup. And even more seldom in Ebbets Field. So he probably had one of the lowest career ABs against lefties of any of the sluggers on the list. And therefore the fewest opportunities to hit a home run against them.

It would seem that an accurate conclusion about Snider could be drawn if we knew how many ABs he had against lefties vs. righties…similar to the table shown for Williams.

[Appling]

I believe Ted Williams hit more homeruns against Right-handed hitters mostly because he faced mostly RHG pitchers. The Red Sox in his day had a strong lineup of RIGHT HANDED HITTERS (tailored to take advantage of that short LF fence at Fenway) and so at least in Boston few visiting teams dared to use a left-handed pitcher.

For a pull-hitter like Williams, the short field in left was not an advantage. But I do believe his career BA was helped because he got to face mostly RH pitchers. Other Boston LH hitters may also have enjoyed better Batting Averages because they faced mostly RH pitchers (e.g., Yaz and Boggs).

But the career breakdowns you displayed are disturbing because they show RH or LH pitcher data only for about half his career at-bats. (Probably the last half of his career?)

There must be site somewhere that gives "splits" information for all of Ted's seasons.

[csh19792001]

There are two obvious reasons why Snider had such a low percentage of his HR against left-handed pitchers:
1. He actually did poorly against lefties
2. He faced substantially fewer lefties in his career.

Most likely…a combination of both.

With regard to Reason #1: Having seen Snider play for his entire career in Brooklyn, I can confirm that he often looked inept against the league’s best lefties…Brecheen…Simmons…Haddix…Antonelli…Spahn. And it’s certainly true that he was occasionally benched when he was swinging poorly and when a tough lefty was scheduled to pitch against the Dodgers.

As for #2: As you know, for most of his Brooklyn career, Duke was the ONLY lefty in the Dodger starting lineup (Hermanski, Amoros and Rube Walker batted left, but were mostly part-time players), and benefited from the fact that opposing teams SELDOM threw a lefty against the powerful right-hand batting Dodger lineup. And even more seldom in Ebbets Field. So he probably had one of the lowest career ABs against lefties of any of the sluggers on the list. And therefore the fewest opportunities to hit a home run against them.

It would seem that an accurate conclusion about Snider could be drawn if we knew how many ABs he had against lefties vs. righties…similar to the table shown for Williams.

Your recollections are incredibly accurate.

Over a sample size of about 1,000 games, Duke Snider's line against left handed pitching was .206/.295/.375...however he had 2500+ PA against right handed pitching, and 161 against lefties. This is incredible to me.

Incidentally, I just noticed that retrosheet posted all the PBP data, matchups, and splits for the 1954 National League.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

This is why I love BBF. I never knew Williams fared that poorly against lefties. If Williams played today the other teams would platoon him to death with lefty relievers!

[csh19792001]

This is why I love BBF. I never knew Williams fared that poorly against lefties. If Williams played today the other teams would platoon him to death with lefty relievers!

Assuming those figures are accurate, we have just over half of Ted's PA's covered, and unlike Ruth and Cobb, indeed he was not remotely close to as great against lefties. We're missing the early years of his career. He was just a very good hitter with a very good OBP and above average power.

The other proposition- and this was raised by Shlevine in talking about Snider, is how much better would he have been had he faced left handed pitching more often (as today's hitters do). I don't know that we can say he'd definately hit better than a paltry .297/.422/.473...but is it very likely that he would have? It's a somewhat circular argument, when you think about it..... What do you guys think? Incorporating your reading on his adaptiveness, approach to hitting, and other biographical/statistical information....

If Williams had a natural weakness for submarine pitchers or guys that threw certain types of pitches, for instance, he might be "specialized" to death in today's game.

Perhaps akin to when they brought in a guy like Chuck McElroy to face Barry Bonds.

Looking at his late career splits alone (which I stumbled upon originally) was telling, but more limited. I think these 5000+ PA builds a much stronger case.

[ChrisLDuncan]

Ehh, I think if Ted played to day they'd tell him to slap the ball the other way but according to him "People don't come to Fenway to see me hit singles off the wall"

[Sultan_1895-1948]

The other proposition- and this was raised by Shlevine in talking about Snider, is how much better would he have been had he faced left handed pitching more often (as today's hitters do). I don't know that we can say he'd definately hit better than a paltry .297/.422/.473...but is it very likely that he would have? It's a somewhat circular argument, when you think about it..... What do you guys think? Incorporating your reading on his adaptiveness, approach to hitting, and other biographical/statistical information....


Not much at all imo. Its about approach, not being familiar. He'd faced enough lefties to know what was up. Pitchers are smart fellers...as you know, they'll go to the same well over and over again if you prove you won't make an adjustment. Once you do, then its up to them to counter that. Doesn't seem like Ted ever bothered to concede and make them changeup their approach.




Perhaps akin to when they brought in a guy like Chuck McElroy to face Barry Bonds.

Or when Bonilla was intentionally walked twice during one game in the '91 series, so they could get to Bonds. Had to have been a lefty throwin', probably either Mercker or Stanton, but yeah, it worked both times. :D

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Not much at all imo. Its about approach, not being familiar. He'd faced enough lefties to know what was up. Pitchers are smart fellers...as you know, they'll go to the same well over and over again if you prove you won't make an adjustment. Once you do, then its up to them to counter that. Doesn't seem like Ted ever bothered to concede and make them changeup their approach.

One current player I have watched closely is Hank Blalock. He has really stuggled against lefties in his career. Early on the Rangers would bench him against lefties. I always thought if he never faces lefties how will he learn how to hit them? But later in his career he got more chances to face lefties and has still struggled. For his career:

vs righties: .291/.358/.498
vs lefties: .221/.273/.344

He did have one good year vs lefties in 2004: .282/.344/.436 but in 2005 he totally tanked: .196/.228/.356. I guess the lefties figured him out in 2005.

[dl4060]

I think if Williams had faced enough lefties he would have adjusted. I really don't put too much stock into this. Williams was probably the most intelligent hitter of all-time in terms of recognizing pitches, and making adjustments at the plate. The only thing he didn't do was hit the ball the other way against the shift, although he certainly could have. Williams preached never being beaten the same way twice, so I think if anyone could have avoided being specialized to death, it was him.

[ChrisLDuncan]

Perhaps akin to when they brought in a guy like Chuck McElroy to face Barry Bonds.

Looking at his late career splits alone (which I stumbled upon originally) was telling, but more limited. I think these 5000+ PA builds a much stronger case.

Yeah but Barry reamed Unit in the NL.

[538280]

I think if Williams had faced enough lefties he would have adjusted. I really don't put too much stock into this. Williams was probably the most intelligent hitter of all-time in terms of recognizing pitches, and making adjustments at the plate. The only thing he didn't do was hit the ball the other way against the shift, although he certainly could have. Williams preached never being beaten the same way twice, so I think if anyone could have avoided being specialized to death, it was him.

I tend to agree. I think this is very interesting info but I don't think it's somehow damning to Williams. Like Ubiquitous said on the other thread, Williams did do truly awful against LHP in his really old and oft injured years, past age 38. Take out those years and his BA/OBP/SLG is .319/.440/.519. This is still missing the most of the first half of his career when overall he hit better than he did later. Add that on and I think just his BA will get up to at least .325 or so. He hit .350 career through age 38 so there's a difference, but it's not huge. According to the same member who wrote the pice being referenced Cobb hit 20 points below his career average against LHP. I don't think a 25 or so point difference is such a huge thing. He still has the huge amount of walks too. I think the biggest thing is that he appeared to hit for less power against LHP. Oveall I think Williams probably did have a bigger split against LHP than other left handed batters but I don't think it's somehow damning to his rep as perhaps the greatest hitter ever.

[csh19792001]

Williams was probably the most intelligent hitter of all-time in terms of recognizing pitches, and making adjustments at the plate.

He faced lefties plenty- even in this partial portion of his career- we still have over 1,000 PA's against LHP. And if he was the most intelligent hitter of all time, and constantly made adjustments, he wouldn't have had a VAST discrepancy in LH/RH splits, and wouldn't have had a glaring weakness in hitting against LHP in general.

[leecemark]

--What glaring weakness? We only have data for the back half of his career and he put up an 895 OPS vs LHP then. There can be little doubt it was well over 900 in his prime. That is hardly "paltry". Williams was not somebody who any sane manager would consider platooning or even moving down in the order vs LHP.

[csh19792001]

--What glaring weakness? We only have data for the back half of his career and he put up an 895 OPS vs LHP then. There can be little doubt it was well over 900 in his prime. That is hardly "paltry". Williams was not somebody who any sane manager would consider platooning or even moving down in the order vs LHP.

First, that's not park adjusted. A proper park adjustment would knock that raw OPS down quite a bit.

Second, he was a sub .300 hitter with a .473 slugging average against lefties.

1) Compared to his overall career line, yeah, that's paltry. It's also paltry compared to his line against RHP. He hit about 50 points higher, and slugged 180 points higher against right handed pitching.

2)Viewed in light of the fact that people consider him the greatest ever, it's a glaring weakness. He has the second lowest HR% against LHP of any great to alltime great hitter in baseball history. I think the reasonable people here would expect the greatest hitter ever to be at least great- if not outstanding- against left pitching as well as right handed pitching...not necessarily as good as they were against righties, but certainly better than .297 with a .473 slugging.

But maybe our standards are different when we say best ever. I dunno.

[Appling]

I see that retrosheet splits information is not available for the first half of Ted Williams' career. I also know that the crack of his bat somewhat disappeared after his 1950 injury (although he could still hit for average).

I will be VERY surprised if further research shows Williams to hit below .300 against LH pitchers prior to that 1950 season. But I also know that LH pitchers rarely threw against the Red Sox IN BOSTON, because most of the Red Sox power hitters (other than Wiliams) were RH hitters who drove the ball over the Green Monster.

[Appling]

I According to the same member who wrote the pice being referenced Cobb hit 20 points below his career average against LHP. I don't think a 25 or so point difference is such a huge thing.
We all know that LH hitters hit better against RH pitchers, and RH hitters hit better against LH pitchers. The great majority of pitchers throw right-handed. Therefore it shouldn't surprise us that most of the players with high career BA were left-handed hitters (as were Cobb and Williams).

That is what makes Rogers Hornsby's stats so amazing. He was a right-handed hitter who had to face mostly RH pitching, yet he has the #2 career batting average of all time!

Eight of the top ten hitters (lifetime BA) were left-handed hitters.

[Appling]

While fully cognizant of the fact that left-handed batters tend to do rather worse against left-handed pitching than they do against right-handed pitching, my point is that Ruth's and Cobb's markedly superior numbers against lefties seem to present for them a compelling case as greatest hitter of all time over Williams. I wouldn't say Williams was neutralized against lefties, but he certainly seemed somewhat less than the greatest hitter who ever lived when facing left-handed pitching--something that can't be said about Ruth or Cobb.

Hopefully, someday we can get complete RHP vs. LHP splits for Williams.
How is it that you can find RHP vs. LHP splits data for the full careers of Cobb and Ruth, but not for Ted Williams?

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Here are some numbers of Williams vs left handed pitchers pitching complete games. Small sample but here are some seasons.

-----------------AB----------Ba.-------Hrs
1939------------30----------.267------2
1940------------50----------.308------2
1941------------31----------.333------1
1942------------11----------.273------0
1946------------36----------.139------1
1947------------47----------.255------1
1948------------40----------.275------1
1949------------23----------.348------2
1950------------46----------.109------1
1951------------55----------.255------2
1952 Did not face a LH pitcher that pitched a completer game.
1953-----------10-----------.300------0
1954-----------33-----------.242------0
1955-----------19-----------.316------2
1956-----------37-----------.378------3
1957-----------15-----------.133------1
1958-----------27-----------.111------0
1959-----------11-----------.182------1
1960-----------17-----------.176------0

[538280]

We all know that LH hitters hit better against RH pitchers, and RH hitters hit better against LH pitchers. The great majority of pitchers throw right-handed. Therefore it shouldn't surprise us that most of the players with high career BA were left-handed hitters (as were Cobb and Williams).

That is what makes Rogers Hornsby's stats so amazing. He was a right-handed hitter who had to face mostly RH pitching, yet he has the #2 career batting average of all time!

Eight of the top ten hitters (lifetime BA) were left-handed hitters.

Of course, which makes this, again, not that huge a deal. The big difference seems to be in power, where Williams' career SLG vs. LHP was probably 100-150 ponts below his overall SLG. It still was probably .500 or close to it though so I don't think it's a huge weakness.

[SABR Matt]

Not sure what that was designed to illustrate other than the fact that pitchers who throw complete games are usually having a good day on the mound. :)

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I've seen you mention this before and I don't get it.

When comparing Ted against players who didn't play in Fenway, the park's foul territory matters. Being a fan of Reggie, you should understand that. You've mentioned the Coliseum's huge territory as a pro for Reggie. The opposite should apply with Ted. Stay consistent ;)

[EvanAparra]

When comparing Ted against players who didn't play in Fenway, the park's foul territory matters. Being a fan of Reggie, you should understand that. You've mentioned the Coliseum's huge territory as a pro for Reggie. The opposite should apply with Ted. Stay consistent ;)

Right, but i still dont think that offsets what Fenway does to a lefty pull hitter. Not the nicest place to hit in unless you can take it the other way.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I know it was changed during Williams time, but this is where I think OPS+ underrates him. I dont think Fenway gave him what it gave everyone else.

Don't under-estimate the change. And it was basically for him to enjoy. Seen his splits lately?

Can you elaborate on the OPS+ part though. Why didn't Fenway give him what it gave everyone else. What's the theory there?

[EvanAparra]

Don't under-estimate the change. And it was basically for him to enjoy. Seen his splits lately?

Can you elaborate on the OPS+ part though. Why didn't Fenway give him what it gave everyone else. What's the theory there?
Fenway is basically a right handed hitter's paradise. The wall helps them out immensly. However, Williams is a left hander and doesnt get that benefit, but still gets the same discount as right handers that hit in Fenway. Correct me if you disagree.

[csh19792001]

Here are some numbers of Williams vs left handed pitchers pitching complete games.

Joe:

That's a what, .245 career average against LHP in CG's? Just another (albeit much smaller) piece of evidence to add to the pile that's already been mounting against Williams.

[SABR Matt]

csh...that's not evidence. Not evidence at ALL. What's the league BA against lefties throwing CGs? .230? And who the hell cares anyway?

[Sultan_1895-1948]

csh...that's not evidence. Not evidence at ALL. What's the league BA against lefties throwing CGs? .230? And who the hell cares anyway?

This is a guy some have touted as the greatest hitter ever. Why isn't he capable of going 3-4 against a lefty who's going good and throws a complete game.

[SABR Matt]

There's a natural platoon split...even good hitters have that problem...more importantly, good pitchers on their best days have .100 and .200 BAA...seriously...you really think this goofy non-data matters?

[SHOELESSJOE3]

csh...that's not evidence. Not evidence at ALL. What's the league BA against lefties throwing CGs? .230? And who the hell cares anyway?


Is that an estimate or factual numbers. Even if factual it's really not a good comparison, the whole league and how they do compared to a great hitter and how he did. Does anyone have some numbers on any other the better hitters, say any top ten or fifteen career batting average LH hitters with any splits. That is splits on their batting average against RH and LH pitchers.

I haven't given it much thought but I will say I'm a bit surprised at Ted's gap in batting against LH and RH pitching. I'll hold my thoughts on this until I can find or see some of the same comparison of some of the other greats, RH and LH hitters against pitching from both sides.

Maybe when I see more comparisons, other hitters, Ted's split numbers will not look that out of the ordinary.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Maybe when I see more comparisons, other hitters, Ted's split numbers will not look that out of the ordinary.

That's all fine and dandy Joe, but these "other hitters" never wanted people to say "There goes the greatest hitter who ever lived." This is friekin' Teddy Ballgame we're talkin' about. We should hold him to a higher standard. If those splits hold true, that's a huge chink in his armour as second greatest hitter ever in my book. Then again, if he did that poorly against lefties and still put up the career numbers he did, then that's pretty impressive. I can kinda see both sides to the argument. Holding off judgement until more info is available.

[Ubiquitous]

I;ve said it before but we really have no way of knowing that he did that poorly against lefties. The limited data we have shows a pretty good to great hitter against lefties before 1957 and that doesn't include the data from the 40's. His power is down against lefties but his AVG and OBP were very good, and when I say his power was down I mean compared to his power against righties.

[SABR Matt]

Joe, Sultan et al...you might as well try to build a case against Ted Williams using split data against lefties pitching on Tuesday night games on the road while it was raining and the pitcher was wearing a red jock strap. GET REAL. You obviously have an agenda inmind to discredit Ted Williams and are grasping at straws.

[Tango Tiger]

Just picking some lefties at random:

Steve Carlton in wins: .201 opposing BA, compared to .240 career.
Glavine: .216/.256
RJ: .188/.217
Zito: .200/.232

That's a 15%-20% difference

If I looked only at CG, I'm sure the gap would be even wider. Maybe a 30% difference? So, if Teddy was a .230 or whatever he was, hitter against Lefties in a CG, that's probably a .300 hitter overall against lefties.

This sample and the estimate off the sample, is still pretty tiny.

As is the end-of-career splits.

His career average is .344. I wouldn't be surprised if that breaks down as .360 against RHP and .296 against LHP. Or if it was .350 against RHP and .326 against LHP.

I fail to see what it matters. He could have been .460 against RHP and .000 against LHP, and he'd still be just as valuable as if he went .344/.344. (In-game reliever strategies notwithstanding.)

This reminds me of the silliness surrounding how much better Vladimir could be as a hitter if he would quit hacking at those outside pitches. It's very possible that Vladimir is hitting optimally, and any change in approach, however logical it looks to us, will simply make him less effective.

[Ubiquitous]

Dave Smith provided some data for Ted, unfortunately it is mostly data from the 50's.



Category AB H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO BA OBA SA
Total 4005 1339 261 27 259 895 1048 383 .334 .473 .607
vs left 928 276 58 3 33 174 193 127 .297 .422 .473
vs right 3077 1063 203 24 226 721 855 256 .345 .488 .647

Career 7706 2654 525 71 521 1839 2019 709 .344 .482 .634


Using that data and looking at pre-1957 years (since we know what he did in 1957 and after) we have this line against lefties:
.319/.440/.519.

I had to guess on the OBP a bit since they didn't provide HBP and SF. Of course that doesn't include Ted's best years in the 40's so in all probability his line would probably be even higher then that.

Ted in 1957 hit lefties fairly well. His OPS against lefties would have placed him third overall in the league that year. His batting average third as well, his OBP second and his SLG 4th. Yet people want to say he didn't hit well against lefties that year.

In 1958 he did not hit lefties well

In 1959 he was injured and didn't really hit anybody well. Righties and lefties.

In 1960 he again didn't hit lefties well

So Ted from the age of 39 to age 41 didn't hit lefties all that well that isn't really damning him and his entire career.

[Ubiquitous]

Stan had a similar batting average but his OPS for his career is over 100 points when hitting against lefties. His age 39+ seasons are way down as well from his career norms against lefties.

[Ubiquitous]

George Brett for his career had a 140 point difference, and his old age lefty stats are not pretty. Whereas in his younger days he actually had better stats against lefties at times.


Basically what I am trying to say is that it is almost impossible to make the claim that Ted Williams is this or that based on a small amount of at bats when he was very old and oft injured.

I've said it before but I am willing to bet that before Ted's 1958 season his line against lefties is somewhere around .325/.450/.550. That isn't bad that is great, especially for a left handed hitter facing left hand pitchers.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Joe, Sultan et al...you might as well try to build a case against Ted Williams using split data against lefties pitching on Tuesday night games on the road while it was raining and the pitcher was wearing a red jock strap. GET REAL. You obviously have an agenda inmind to discredit Ted Williams and are grasping at straws.

I don't get it Matt, no bias, no agenda on my part.
I was not selective in posting certain years with some numbers, Ted's batting average against LH pitchers that pitched complete games, 1939 to 1960. Thats the young Ted and the older Ted. If you look you will notice that I made the point in bold letters that it was a small sample, that was post #626.

I would think that the writer pointing out it was a small sample would be taken by the readers that they should not to put too much into the numbers.

In post #652 I did say that I would like to see some splits on other great hitters, LH and RH hitters and see how they did with some splits facing pitchers LH and RH and than I might conclude that Ted's split numbers might not be out of the ordinary.

Just not enough numbers on Ted or others at this time. But I will stand by what I also said, I am a bit surprised at what the small sample showed. Again no real conclusion from my end, not until I see some real numbers.

[Tango Tiger]

It's not only a small sample, it's a biased-sample. If you look at all Redsox in those CG, they'd all look bad. If you look at all Yankees in CG, theyd also look bad. That's the point.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

It's not only a small sample, it's a biased-sample. If you look at all Redsox in those CG, they'd all look bad. If you look at all Yankees in CG, theyd also look bad. That's the point.

Agreed Tango but those are the only LH/RH pitching splits I could find, complete games pitched against the Bosox. I have already given that some thought, if the games were complete it's obvious in most cases the pitcher was on that day. Even if the Bosox looked bad when a complete game was thrown against them were talking about Ted Williams, not just another average or even above average hitter,

[SABR Matt]

Thanks for providing sanity Tango. Oy. The misuse of split data of all types is my biggest frustration with current baseball thinkers. It's a well known fact that most left handed batters have an increasing lefty/righty split differential as they age into their late thirties. It has to do with losing reaction time because the swing slows down.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Thanks for providing sanity Tango. Oy. The misuse of split data of all types is my biggest frustration with current baseball thinkers. It's a well known fact that most left handed batters have an increasing lefty/righty split differential as they age into their late thirties. It has to do with losing reaction time because the swing slows down.


Who is talking about a player in his late 30's. I am completely ignoring Ted's split numbers in his late 30's, I know he was human, just like many others, he slowed down.

First, I am not here to say or try to prove that Ted Williams had a real flaw a weakness at the plate, never said or tried to post numbers saying he did. I pointed out the sample was small and in fairness to Ted, I could not come to a conclusion.

I did say and still do, I'm a bit surprised that in what I was aware of, that the small sample showed a wider gap than I would have thought, Ted's average against LH pitchers, pitching complete games against the Bosox.

So now you raise the issue of age, understandable but even when young Ted hit lower against some LH pitching, not terrible just lower than I would have guessed.

1939 to 1951------Ted was 32 years old in 1951.
369 at bats----Ba.256

369 at bats is still rather small but a better comparison than pointing out some single seasons where he had 30 or 50 at bats and age was not a factor here.

So can I say it again, the sample above is small but age does not figure in.
Can I say this again, if you read my posts I think it's evident I'm not knocking Ted's hitting against LH pitchers.

[csh19792001]

I;ve said it before but we really have no way of knowing that he did that poorly against lefties.

We have over 5000 PA's worth of information. We have a very good idea how he did because that's more than half of his career represented.

Post (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=161295&postcount=1)

You're right, Ubi, he was a "pretty good" hitter against lefties. .297 hitter with a .473 career slugging percentage. Certainly befitting of the greatest hitter who ever lived. Guy with only a very good average and a VERY mediocre slugging percentage.

He drew lots of walks, but so do lots of players with decent averages and low slugging. That doesn't make them awesome hitters. We're talking about Ted Williams as the so-called "greatest hitter who ever lived".

Meanwhile he went .345 with a .647 slugging against RHP. He had 855 walks and only 256 strikeouts vs. righties. Versus lefties, 193 walks vs. 127 strikeouts. So again, unless there's some drastic, vast turnaround for the years we don't have yet available, it's quite clear that Ted Williams was very much neutralized by left handed pitching. The disparity in production is simply vast.

His OPS against RHP is 1.135, which would but him a scintilla behind Babe Ruth for the #1 spot alltime.

His OPS against LHP for the years we have available is .895, which puts him outside of the top 60 alltime, right near guys like Mickey Cochrane, Hal Trotsky, and Indian Bob Johnson. True, it's more his later years, but it's also true that the OPS isn't park adjusted, which mitigates much of the difference anyway.

And what we just learned here, coutesty of ShoelessJoe, is that in another full season's worth of AB's- his entire career against left handers pitching CG's, he hit an incredible .244. It's a comparatively small piece of information, but congruous with and supportive of everything else that's come to light.

[csh19792001]

It's not only a small sample, it's a biased-sample. If you look at all Redsox in those CG, they'd all look bad. If you look at all Yankees in CG, theyd also look bad. That's the point.

5100 PA's of one career is a small sample? Oh, ok. Fair enough.

[Ubiquitous]

I think you are purposefully putting on blinders and I have no idea why. You ignore data, you ignore reasoning. you ignore practically everything to push some oddball agenda of yours.

We do not have 5000+ PA of Ted Williams hitting against lefties. What we do have is a hitter who while playing past his prime was a great hitter against lefties and then when he got older and more injured declined. For whatever reason you wish to ignore these facts and instead focus on a couple hundred at bats when Ted was 38+ years old and act like it means something. I've have already shown several times now that Ted in the 50's up until 1958 was a very very good against lefties. You wish to ignore this because it doesn't fit your world view.

[SABR Matt]

5100 PA's of one career is a small sample? Oh, ok. Fair enough.

5100 PAschosen carefully representing only at bats garnered in the least favorable platoon split against only pitchers having their best days.

[csh19792001]

5100 PAschosen carefully representing only at bats garnered in the least favorable platoon split against only pitchers having their best days.

Read the post. It's not pitchers having their best days. It's against all left handed pitching.

[RuthMayBond]

This is a guy some have touted as the greatest hitter ever. Why isn't he capable of going 3-4 against a lefty who's going good and throws a complete game.The same reason Ruth didn't routinely :rolleyes: Do you and csh have to attempt to tear down Williams to make Ruth seem better?

[Ubiquitous]

Read the post. It's not pitchers having their best days. It's against all left handed pitching.


No it isn't. It is against all pitchers.

[csh19792001]

No it isn't. It is against all pitchers.

It represents his splits for more than half his career. That's not statistically significant to you, though, right?

[Ubiquitous]

I never said that. What I am saying is that you fail to understand what is you are looking at. We probably have around 50% of Ted's PA against lefties. It just so happens that that data is for the back half of his career. We also know due to some limited data at the very back end of his career what his splits are at the very end and therefore what his splits are just before that. We know that his numbers just before his decline in 1958 are very good to great. You want to ignore that, so in effect you wish to damn him twice for his last three seasons. Once on the seasonal level and then again at the career level.

We know two things. We know in the 50's when Ted was healthy and younger he hit lefties very well. We also know that Ted in the 40's was a better player then he was in the 50's. So should we assume that his splits should go downhill in the 40's? Or should we assume that he probably hit lefties better in his prime then when he was older?

On top of all that you have very little to no data at all for any left handed hitter (or right handed hitter) before 1957 and you have basically nothing to compare Ted Williams too. You can't compare him to Babe you can't compare him Lou.

[538280]

I agree with Ubiquitous here totally.

I think this is very interesting info but I don't think it's somehow damning to Williams. Like was said Williams did do not so well against LHP in his really old and oft injured years, past age 38. Take out those years and his BA/OBP/SLG is .319/.440/.519. This is still missing the most of the first half of his career when overall he hit better than he did later. Add that on and I think just his BA will get up to at least .325 or so. He hit .350 career through age 38 so there's a difference, but it's not huge. According to the same member who wrote the pice being referenced Cobb hit 20 points below his career average against LHP. I don't think a 25 or so point difference is such a huge thing. He still has the huge amount of walks too. I think the biggest thing is that he appeared to hit for less power against LHP. Oveall I think Williams probably did have a bigger split against LHP than other left handed batters, but not by an insane margin like it's being made out to be I don't think it's somehow damning to his rep as perhaps the greatest hitter ever.

And as far as the info with LH pitchers pitching a CG I again don't see how that is such a big deal. This is Williams in selected games throughout his career against LHP who were having a very good day (pitching a CG). That is the very definition of "finding" data to prove a preconceived notion. Go out and find how Ted did against LH pitchers pitching extremely well if you can't find evidence elsewhere.

[csh19792001]

I never said that. What I am saying is that you fail to understand what is you are looking at. We probably have around 50% of Ted's PA against lefties. It just so happens that that data is for the back half of his career. We also know due to some limited data at the very back end of his career what his splits are at the very end and therefore what his splits are just before that. We know that his numbers just before his decline in 1958 are very good to great. You want to ignore that, so in effect you wish to damn him twice for his last three seasons. Once on the seasonal level and then again at the career level.

I'm not ignoring it. The seasons "before his decline in 58'" are incorporated into the .297/.473 line that covers over half of his career PA's. I'm not looking at three seasons or ignoring anything. His last four seasons, which we discussed originally before this new info came to light, was 1730 PA's. This is 5100 of his 9700.


We know two things. We know in the 50's when Ted was healthy and younger he hit lefties very well.

Where do "we" know that he hit lefties very well in the 50's? We know he was lousy against them his last four years, lousy against them in CG's, and for the years we have available, very mediocre overall against them, that is, for the supposed greatest hitter to ever live.


We also know that Ted in the 40's was a better player then he was in the 50's.

Actually, Ted's OPS+ during the 40's was 193, from 1950-60 it was 185. So he really wasn't that much better in the 40's as a hitter in terms of OPS (which is what we've been looking at). We're not examining overall playing output, we're talking about hitting splits.


So should we assume that his splits should go downhill in the 40's? Or should we assume that he probably hit lefties better in his prime then when he was older?

What do you mean by his splits "going downhill"? If anything, after accumulating nearly a decade of experience against left handed pitching prior to the 50's, he should actually have learned how to hit LHP better, relatively speaking, in comparison to his youth. We're comparing Ted to himself, and I see no reason why we should presume that he should have hit lefties better (again, compared to himself) in the 40's than the 50's.



On top of all that you have very little to no data at all for any left handed hitter (or right handed hitter) before 1957 and you have basically nothing to compare Ted Williams too. You can't compare him to Babe you can't compare him Lou.

I'm looking into Ruth, Cobb, and Lou, since you brought it up. I'm interested to see how they did and I'll dig as deep as possible.

Saying that it's only useful to compare him to pre 1957 players is somewhat misleading- yes, we don't have the splits available, but unless you're going to just blindly assume that most left handers playing roughly in Ted's timeframe ALSO performed much worse against left handed pitching (ergo making it largely attributable to his era), than it doesn't factor into this discussion.

Also, in terms of homeruns (yet another piece of the puzzle), and it includes old timers and everyone that ever hit 300 homeruns. In case you guys missed it.


In another of my lengthy perusings of SABR's treasured Home Run Encyclopedia, I was surprised at coming across this fact--namely, that a scant 12.3% of Ted Williams' lifetime home runs came against left-handed pitchers. Further analysis yielded this equally surprising fact--to wit, that of all the LH sluggers in the game's history with at least 300 lifetime home runs to their credit, only Duke Snider (who was frequently sat down against lefties) has a worse percentage of his home runs off of lefties. How many left handed hitters are there with 300 career homeruns? There are over 100 total....

The breakdown is as thus (list is as of 1995, when the book was published):


Name Total Vs. RHP Vs. LHP %*
Babe Ruth 714 495 219 30.7
Reggie Jackson 563 384 179 31.8
Willie McCovey 521 421 100 19.2
Ted Williams 521 457 64 12.3
Eddie Mathews 512 418 94 18.4
Mel Ott 511 400 111 21.7
Lou Gehrig 493 350 143 29.0
Stan Musial 475 320 155 32.6
Willie Stargell 475 372 103 21.7
Carl Yastrzemski452 374 78 17.3
Billy Williams 426 325 101 23.7
Darrell Evans 414 317 97 23.4
Duke Snider 407 374 33 8.1
Graig Nettles 390 281 109 27.9
Norm Cash 377 316 61 16.2
Johnny Mize 359 274 85 23.7
Yogi Berra 358 273 85 23.7
Dave Parker 339 237 102 30.1
Boog Powell 339 270 69 20.4
George Brett 317 229 88 27.8
Fred Lynn 306 246 60 19.6
Harold Baines 301 243 58 19.3
Chuck Klein 300 241 59 19.7

* - Percentage of total home runs hit against LHP.


As a corrolary to this, look at the players with weakest LHP homerun percentage totals we do have most of Eddie Mathews' career documented. His line against LHP was .232/.335/.401. Yaz was a .244/.321/.371 career hitter against LHP.

And as a sidenote...presumably Babe Ruth's percentage of AB's against LHP was not only vastly lower than it is today, but also lower than Ted's %.

And yet he managed to hit almost a third of his homeruns off of left handed pitching.

[Ubiquitous]

I'm not ignoring it. The seasons "before his decline in 58'" are incorporated into the .297/.473 line that covers over half of his career PA's. I'm not looking at three seasons or ignoring anything. His last four seasons, which we discussed originally before this new info came to light, was 1730 PA's. This is 5100 of his 9700. Yes and taking his decline out and looking at him when was not in decline we find that he was a better hitter.



Where do "we" know that he hit lefties very well in the 50's? We know he was lousy against them his last four years, lousy against them in CG's, and for the years we have available, very mediocre overall against them, that is, for the supposed greatest hitter to ever live.

What are you kidding? You can't do simple subtraction? Secondly he wasn't lousy against lefties in his last 4 years. In 1957 his lefty splits would make him one of the top 3 hitters in the league. In 1959 Ted was lousy all around and injured. 1958 and 1960 he wasn't good against lefties.

Finally unless you got documentation about other hitters against pitchers with complete games you have nothing on whether or not Ted was sub-par in those games.



Actually, Ted's OPS+ during the 40's was 193, from 1950-60 it was 185. So he really wasn't that much better in the 40's as a hitter in terms of OPS (which is what we've been looking at). We're not examining overall playing output, we're talking about hitting splits.

So he wasn't better like I said then?



What do you mean by his splits "going downhill"? If anything, after accumulating nearly a decade of experience against left handed pitching prior to the 50's, he should actually have learned how to hit LHP better, relatively speaking, in comparison to his youth. We're comparing Ted to himself, and I see no reason why we should presume that he should have hit lefties better (again, compared to himself) in the 40's than the 50's.


Experience does not trump age



I'm looking into Ruth, Cobb, and Lou, since you brought it up. I'm interested to see how they did and I'll dig as deep as possible.

Saying that it's only useful to compare him to pre 1957 players is somewhat misleading- yes, we don't have the splits available, but unless you're going to just blindly assume that most left handers playing roughly in Ted's timeframe ALSO performed much worse against left handed pitching (ergo making it largely attributable to his era), than it doesn't factor into this discussion.

No i didn't say to only compare him to pre-1957 players.




Also, in terms of homeruns (yet another piece of the puzzle), and it includes old timers and everyone that ever hit 300 homeruns. In case you guys missed it.



As a corrolary to this, look at the players with weakest LHP homerun percentage totals we do have most of Eddie Mathews' career documented. His line against LHP was .232/.335/.401. Yaz was a .244/.321/.371 career hitter against LHP.

And as a sidenote...presumably Babe Ruth's percentage of AB's against LHP was not only vastly lower than it is today, but also lower than Ted's %.

And yet he managed to hit almost a third of his homeruns off of left handed pitching.


Is Ted Williams Eddie Mathews? Are they similar players? Do they have similar styles? No, so then what does it prove? We know players have platoon splits. The evidence does not suggest that Ted had a huge platoon split for the majority of his career like you assume.

[SABR Matt]

This is an entirely pointless conversation anyway. Who cares what his splits were in the 40s...the fact is that when you add it all up, he was a SENSATIONAL hitter. There's really no way to impugn that fact without losing the forest to examine the moss on the side of a tree.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

The same reason Ruth didn't routinely :rolleyes: Do you and csh have to attempt to tear down Williams to make Ruth seem better?

I honestly don't give a rats arse. This has nothing to do with Ruth so why bring him up. This is about Ballgame. I was surprised at the numbers, that's all. I did mention that even if he did struggle against lefties, to put up the numbers he did is that much more incredible. No bias here.

And Matt, your Frankenstein comment was pretty funny but completely off-base. :(

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Matt, digglahhh I figured you two out to have more class than your showing. Talk about my frankenstein numbers and that chime in with that remark, me building my case on nothing.

Don't know what your talking about, I presented the best numbers available that give splits on Ted and LH pitchers with complete games. Than it's pointed out that it's to be expected of LH hitters to slow down in their late 30's. So I omit those splits in Ted's late 30s and list 369 at bats up to the age of 32 and "only say" that I am a bit surprised at that .256 batting average.

I'm not here to beg any more for your approval. I stated it was only a small sample, no where do I even hint that Ted was mediocre or below average against LH pitchers, stated that to be fair to Ted I would have to see a higher number of split stats.

It appears you guys are a bit touchy about Ted, try to make the case that I am playing with numbers to reinforce an agenda ( your words), go back on my posts and read my words that deal with the numbers I posted, don't know what you two are talking about.

If you want to disagree with me go ahead but your off base stating that I use skewed numbers to present a false case.

[SABR Matt]

I habben't saud you intentionally skewed numbers...I've said you pesented numbers that have no real world meaning and you allowed a gaggle of other folks to run with them to unreasonable conclusions. I have no agenda here...I was wrong to say you did...you got lumped in with several others who CLEARLY do and for that I am sorry...but I will again emphasize that splits against only lefties ho had complete games are essentially meaningless for the purposes of asserting anything larger about Williams as a hitter and that I fail to understand why even if the worst claims here were true it would matter in Williams' overall appraisal as a hitter. For overall appraisals...use overall numbers...and those numberes are unimpeachably brilliant.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Matt, digglahhh I figured you two out to have more class than your showing.

I believe they do Joe. This is just a touchy subject for whatever reason. Part of it might be because it involves a favorite player, or more likely, it involves numbers that mean something to some and not to others. All you can do is present information. That alone doesn't signify bias, especially when you've been pretty evenhanded in your posts. You're always one of the more fair posters on here. So are they though. Just hit a button. No worries.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

For overall appraisals...use overall numbers...and those numberes are unimpeachably brilliant.

I tried to make that point when I posted....


Then again, if he did that poorly against lefties and still put up the career numbers he did, then that's pretty impressive.

Let's say that a golfer was a horrible putter but still won tournaments. Overall he was a great golfer because of the results but in examing his actual game, the putting would be a weakness. His results are still the same though, and in reality, are probably more impressive considering the weakness. That is the angle I'm approaching this from. Not attacking what he did in his career, just a specific part of his game.

[SABR Matt]

SHOLESSJOE didn't hit a button...csh is the main source of frustration mouthing off at me as though I'm the one ignoring "facts" when he's the poster using extremely limited data to support a hypothesis that's utterly indefensible (that Williams should be considered in lower regard because hit lefties a little worse than righties).

He hasn't changed one bit. This militant anti-science position is really growing tiresome.

[SABR Matt]

Fair enough Sultan...if you want to claim that Williams was a great hitter in spite of his "problems" against lefties, I don't have a problem with that aside from the fact that I don't think he had any problems hitting lefties (other than perhaps not being as prolific a power hitter)...it's probable that Williams had a platoon split...he probably hit 80-100 OPS points worse against lefties overall...that's not abnormal.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

SHOLESSJOE didn't hit a button...csh is the main source of frustration mouthing off at me as though I'm the one ignoring "facts" when he's the poster using extremely limited data to support a hypothesis that's utterly indefensible (that Williams should be considered in lower regard because hit lefties a little worse than righties).

He hasn't changed one bit. This militant anti-science position is really growing tiresome.

I honestly don't think you two fully understand where eachother is coming from in general. Maybe you don't care to. :noidea The sensitivity level seems to be on code-red no matter what with you guys. Oh well, that's not my business.

[Ubiquitous]

I'll take your word for it but can you show examples? Also could you include BA, not just OPS? Remember this is Teddy friekin' Ballgame here, not just some schlub. So the better the players the better examples obviously.
Take a look at:
Jim Thome
Barry Bonds
Larry Walker
Jason Giambi
Carlos Delgado
Ken Griffey Jr.
Jim Edmonds
or basically any left handed hitter who ever played.

Even Tony Gwynn has a 20 point difference in batting average and a 62 point difference in OPS.

[SABR Matt]

I'm away from my PBP database for a couple more days, but Tango's book "THE BOOK: Playing the Percentages in Baseball" has a whole section on platoon splits...the average platoon split is 15-20% according to work he did using 1999-2002 data (correct me if I'm wrong on those years and percentages, Tom!) though there are types of hitters who defy that (Ichiro for example has a reverse split, which makes sense because lefty pitchers are only a disadvantage for lefty hitters if their game involves trying to get in front of the ball...Ichiro can play pepper aaaaaaalllllll day against those lefties!).

Examples abound...

Here's Barry Bonds:

.304/.457/.628 vs righties (1.084)
.290/.415/.571 vs lefties (.986)

Here's Ken Griffey Jr:

.297/.386/.575 (.961) RHP
.277/.347/.520 (.867) LHP

Carlos Delgado:

.291/.406/.596 (1.002) RHP
.262/.351/.465 (.816) LHP

I could keep going if you'd like. Those are the first three "big name" lefty sluggers that popped into my head. :)

[SABR Matt]

Here's a guy you might not expect to have a split:

Bobby Abreu -
.312/.426/.549 (.975) RHP
.277/.376/.399 (.776) LHP :)

[Ubiquitous]

A couple of things on Teddy we do know.

From 1957 on he had 350 PA against lefties. 209 PA away. 141 at home. He faced 42 left handed pitchers. He faced Billy Pierce 46 times, Bud Daley 31 times, and Dan Mossi 30 times. He got into 171 games against lefties. In 86 of those games he got one PA.

[Tango Tiger]

I posted an analysis of the Teddy data on my site:
http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/comments/how_did_ted_williams_do_against_lefties/

[Ubiquitous]

TAngo you are right in that Ted did face significantly less lefties at home then on the road. I posted that data just above your last post. Also and i think this is important at least for the data at the end is that a big chunk of his PA against lefties was of the one PA variety. I believe in your own book PH tend not to fare as well as starters, do they not?

[Ubiquitous]

Ted has 141 PA at Fenway against lefties in 75 games. 41 of those games he got one PA.

He faced Billy Pierce 12 times, Bud Daley 11 times, Dan Mossi, Herb Score, Dick Tomanek, and Chuck Stobbs 8 times. He got 30 hits and 26 walks.

He got 209 PA against lefites in 96 away games. 45 of those were one PA games.

He faced Billy Pierce 34 times, Dan Mossi 22 times, Bud DAley 20 times, Bobby Shantz 16 times, and Billy O'Dell 11 times. He got 40 hits and 34 walks.

I believe his avg at home against lefties was .268 and in away games it was .234. Though he hit 8 of his 9 homers off lefties in away games, but hit 7 of his 11 doubles at home.

[Tango Tiger]

There is a huge PH penalty.

Here is Andy's analysis for 2005:
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=5404

In that year, they lost 28 points on their BA and 59 points on their SLG. In "wOBA speak", that's around a 27 point drop in performance, enough to turn an average hitter into an almost replacement-level hitter.

[csh19792001]

For overall appraisals...use overall numbers...and those numberes are unimpeachably brilliant.

Matt:

We're using all of the (available) overall numbers. And they show that, in more than half of Ted's career PA's, he significantly less productive against left handed pitching than against right handers. He had an obvious weakness against left handed pitching, and we're talking about that in the context of people summarily labeling him "the greatest hitter who ever lived".

It is clearly germane to his case.

I'll again refer you back to Hitchedtoaspark's original post with the data, if you missed it.

[SABR Matt]

I of course did NOT miss the post, csh. But thanks for assuming I can't read.

More important to reply to is your assertion that a lefty (gasp!) not hitting lefties quite as well as righties (who'd have thought!!) could not possibly be among the three or four greatest hitters of all time. I ask you...why the heck not? If he'd never collected a single hit against a left but still got to the same career numbers he has, I would still consider him the second most talented hitter (by production rate) and the fourth greatest hitter of all time.

[digglahhh]

Matt, digglahhh I figured you two out to have more class than your showing.

Joe, I think you misunderstood.

I've stayed out of this for the most part. But in that post, I was trying to "defend" you. Matt was saying that you were making a big case and interpreting a lot from limited data. To me, it didn't seem as if you were making bold statements so much as throwing out possible interpretations. That post was directed at Matt because I thought he was coming down on your statements as if you were stating them as gospel, which I didn't think you were.


Now that I'm posting, I think that Ted's splits are getting a lot of scrutiny, perhaps more than they deserve (though I was somewhat surprised when I saw them too). But, at the same time Matt, I think you are losing the fact that we are talking about this only in terms of Williams holding the honor of "best hitter ever." He is on his own scale.

I also think that these type of splits have more meaning for the all-time great lefties. With the majority of pitching being right-handed, lefties have the platoon advantage on their side in the majority of their ABs, righties are at a disadvantage. So, it would be nice if the greatest hitter of all time (as a lefty) had a less than average drop off against the platoon disadvantage. This way, you counter the argument that the lefty wasn't as good and was masking his true level of talent by feasting on the frequently enjoyed platoon advantage.

By the way,

Pujols (career)
vs LHP: .331/.426/.625
vs RHP .333/.416/.630

[Ubiquitous]

Matt:

We're using all of the (available) overall numbers. And they show that, in more than half of Ted's career PA's, he significantly less productive against left handed pitching than against right handers. He had an obvious weakness against left handed pitching, and we're talking about that in the context of people summarily labeling him "the greatest hitter who ever lived".

It is clearly germane to his case.

I'll again refer you back to Hitchedtoaspark's original post with the data, if you missed it.

How is batting .325/.450/.550 an obvious weakness against hitting left handed pitchers?

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Joe, I think you misunderstood.

I've stayed out of this for the most part. But in that post, I was trying to "defend" you. Matt was saying that you were making a big case and interpreting a lot from limited data. To me, it didn't seem as if you were making bold statements so much as throwing out possible interpretations. That post was directed at Matt because I thought he was coming down on your statements as if you were stating them as gospel, which I didn't think you were.


Sorry, perhaps I did misread your post.

[SABR Matt]

By the way,

Pujols (career)
vs LHP: .331/.426/.625
vs RHP .333/.416/.630

Right handed hitters have less of a platoon bias than lefties historically (because they are forced to hit more righties as a kid)

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Right handed hitters have less of a platoon bias than lefties historically (because they are forced to hit more righties as a kid)

True, that right handed hitting and throwing was handed down. Does anyone remember as a kid. Your dad or some one older putting a bat in your hands and then standing behind you, showing you how to swing. It was almost always the RH stance since there was more RH swingers that came before you.

Throwing, same thing far more RH throwers and mitts that you had put on your left hand so you had to throw with the right hand.

[four tool]

Half a career is not enough evidence to draw conclusions from. If it were, there would be 2 camps on Frank thomas, and diametrically opposed camps at that.

[Appling]

True, that right handed hitting and throwing was handed down. Does anyone remember as a kid. Your dad or some one older putting a bat in your hands and then standing behind you, showing you how to swing. It was almost always the RH stance since there was more RH swingers that came before you.

Throwing, same thing far more RH throwers and mitts that you had put on your left hand so you had to throw with the right hand.
I don't think the two are alike at all. Anyone can LEARN to hit either way (and many do well both ways, as switch-hitters); but I don't know of anyone who changed from LH throwing to RH throwing just because of a glove.

[iPod]

I'm glad you chimed in because your point was exactly what I was trying to highlight. CSH took one line from some documentary and built a gigantic mountain out of it. He is doing the same here with Ted. Taking a small stone and running around acting like he found the Alps.

I agree that "BA vs LHP when throwing CG" isn't very persuasive. Williams also went hitless in games when the opposing pitcher threw a no-hitter.

Still, though, it seems intuitively that the BEST HITTER EVER should somehow be above mere mortal weaknesses like dramatic L/R splits, H/R splits, and an inability to beat a shift. It seems intuitively that the BEST HITTER EVER should be absolutely terrifying no matter what you do.

[SABR Matt]

Ted Williams wasn't any more dramatically prone to a L/R split than any of the other left handed superstars in the game's history. It's a fact of biology that it is hard for left handed hitters to hit with as much power against left handed pitchers. His OPS split was likely the same 80-100 points that just about everyone else has.

And His H/R splits weren't that bad either.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

I don't think the two are alike at all. Anyone can LEARN to hit either way (and many do well both ways, as switch-hitters); but I don't know of anyone who changed from LH throwing to RH throwing just because of a glove.


I don't think or know of anyone doing so, I agree on the throwing. All I'm saying is as far as there being more RH batters it's because they were most likely taught from an early age, put into that stance by the teacher, I'm positive of that one.
If it were not so than why have there always been a greater number of right handed batters, that is in the public, maybe not to that degee in MLB.

Am I reading you correctly, or is it just my comment on the throwing that you disagree with. I'm with you on that one, I doubt a LH thrower would switch simply because of a glove. I do believe that there are from an early age more RH throwers because they followed their parents lead. Am I showing my age, throwing not included, when in the Catholic school I attended you were discouraged from writing with the left hand. At times the nun would persuade you to use the right hand with the help of a ruler.
I should add my comments on RH batters was meant to be taken not only for MLB but the general public. For sure for reasons that we on this board are all aware of your going to see more of a mix RH/LH batters in MLB than you would find in the public population.

[Ubiquitous]

The reason there are more RH batters is the same reason why there are more RH throwers then LH throwers. It is a rather simple answer that has nothing to do with being taught early on. The simple answer is that the population is overwhelmingly right handed, therefore the mass majority of people are going to throw right handed and swing right handed.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

The reason there are more RH batters is the same reason why there are more RH throwers then LH throwers. It is a rather simple answer that has nothing to do with being taught early on. The simple answer is that the population is overwhelmingly right handed, therefore the mass majority of people are going to throw right handed and swing right handed.

I don't agree with your nothing comment, it does have something to do with it, maybe not all but for sure something..
I thought thats what I said about RH swingers. Since there were and still are far more RH swingers your either gong to be put into that stance early or do it because your following what you see, more RH batters. I see it as a combination of both.

I'm sure you know as I do, in the end impossible to prove which is the case with no doubt, either way.

My experience, I've seen more that a few dads put the bat in their sons hands for the first time and stand behind them in the stance that they used right handed. I can't say this is always the case but it is a part of it, the other as you say, influenced by what we grew up in, far more right handed swingers.

[Ubiquitous]

A child does not choose whether he is naturally right or left handed. A parent knows at an early age whether or not his/her kid is right or left handed. The overwhelming majority of people are right handed so it follows that most kids at an early age are taught to bat right handed. If a child is left handed he is generally taught to bat left handed.

The very first baseballers batted right handed, this wasn't a fluke. It is the natural side for right handed people to swing from.

[Tango Tiger]

Here is some useful data:
http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/article/switch_hitters/

If you click the link in there, you'll get my file on Google Docs with the complete handedness data by year.

We see in the very early years of baseball, when no one knows about platoon advantages, the % of LHP is around the 10%, pretty much mirroring society at large. My guess as well is that these days in little league, 10% of pitchers are LHP.

The % of LHH however was around 25% in the early years. So, unlike the likely extremely strong relationship between writing and throwing, we find likely just a strong relationship between writing and hitting.

As the platoon advantage became apparent over the years, and in a bid to stop those LHH, more LHP came on board.

But, since there was still so many more RHP (80% RHP), there was still an advantage for bringing in LHH, to the point that in 1900, 50% of at bats were by LHH!

For hitters, it has been pretty much reached as 40% of PA are by LHH, and 60% by RHH. For pitchers, there is still some bouncing around, but it's pretty much around 25-30% of pitchers are LHP.

So, in both cases, hitters and pitchers, there is more LH than the population at large. If we treat the early years as the general society of today, then 10% of people are LHP, but 25% of MLB are LHP. And 25% of people are LHH, but 40% of MLB are LHH.

What's also interesting is the rise of the switch hitters, since the early 80s, likely as the pitching staff increased in size, thereby making the importance of a switch hitter greater, for flexibility.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

A child does not choose whether he is naturally right or left handed. A parent knows at an early age whether or not his/her kid is right or left handed. The overwhelming majority of people are right handed so it follows that most kids at an early age are taught to bat right handed. If a child is left handed he is generally taught to bat left handed.

The very first baseballers batted right handed, this wasn't a fluke. It is the natural side for right handed people to swing from.

Not sure where we're going with this one Ubi. I think we're on different pages. I said that in the beginning, just what you say, most kids at an early age are taught to bat right handed, that all I said and thats what your saying.

The only difference is you preface that with the words that the overwhelming majority of people are right handed so they would most likely bat right handed and there is no disagreement on that.

We both say that, most kids at an early age are taught ot bat right handed. The only difference is that your giving the reason why most of those doing the teaching stress batting right handed because they are right handed, not swinging but just right handed so they would naturally bat right handed and pass it on. I pretty much said what you did only I gave no reason why the teaching RH swingers swung from that side.

Wrap it up, I never gave a reason why those doing the teaching teach right handed batting I only said that most of them taught batting right handed swinging because that was what they were.

[Appling]

[/B]

Am I reading you correctly, or is it just my comment on the throwing that you disagree with. I'm with you on that one, I doubt a LH thrower would switch simply because of a glove.

I do believe that there are from an early age more RH throwers because they followed their parents lead. Am I showing my age, throwing not included, when in the Catholic school I attended you were discouraged from writing with the left hand. At times the nun would persuade you to use the right hand with the help of a ruler.


Yes it was only the throwing part I disagreed with. Not only the glove; I think we all learn to throw before we ever play baseball. If you want to be a shortstop or a catcher you need to throw right-handed -- but I doubt that any "Naturaly left-handed" person learned to become right-handed so he could play shortstop.

I understand that teachers often "forced" a left-handed child to write with his right hand. My father-in-law was forced to write with his right hand; but he was also a talented artist who drew pictures only with his left hand. I don't know of any similar "two-handedness" learned because of baseball.

[digglahhh]

I don't really see the two situations as being all that similar.

On a side note, I agree with Shoeless on the right-handed thing. I don't think it's a pre-determined gene or whatever. It's taught imo. Most parents put stuff in their kids right hand at a very early age and/or the kid watches their right handed parents do stuff and it has an influence. The kids become comfortable using that dominant hand in actions that require strength and coordination. It carries on. That's my take on that but believe me, if I ever have a kid, his right arm might be tied behind his back for a couple years to drive home the point :) Quickest road to the show, right. Left handed pitcher or catcher?

I have a friend who just had his second child (first boy) a little over a year ago. He's basically the only one of us with kids so hang out at his house, play cards there and stuff because he doesn't get to go out all that much. He's constantly yelling at one of us, who's drunkenly playing with the baby, letting him grab our fingers, etc.

"HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO TELL YOU, ENGAGE THE LEFT!!!" :laugh :laugh

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Yes it was only the throwing part I disagreed with. Not only the glove; I think we all learn to throw before we ever play baseball. If you want to be a shortstop or a catcher you need to throw right-handed -- but I doubt that any "Naturaly left-handed" person learned to become right-handed so he could play shortstop.
I understand that teachers often "forced" a left-handed child to write with his right hand. My father-in-law was forced to write with his right hand; but he was also a talented artist who drew pictures only with his left hand. I don't know of any similar "two-handedness" learned because of baseball.
I think the same, can't imagine a lefty learning to now throw with the right hand so he could play another position that is played by right handers.

I thought, not sure of the name but I believe I once heard that Max Surkont a pitcher from years ago was quite capable of throwing with both hands. He being RH, I doubt his ability to throw with the left hand was even near what he could do with the right hand.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

I don't think it's a pre-determined gene or whatever. It's taught imo. Most parents put stuff in their kids right hand at a very early age and/or the kid watches their right handed parents do stuff and it has an influence. ?
I do recall seeing that years ago, I think it's probably done less today.
Nothing new discouraging use of the left hand goes way back, even in words left handedness looked upon in a negative light.

Encarta dictionary gives a number of definitions of left handed.
One of the definitions, clumsy. Another, when one compliments another and it is believed the compliment may not be sincere, called a left handed compliment. Supposedly this description of the insincere left handed compliment dates back to 1600.

Don't know how much to put into the following I really believe it would be difficult to conclude with certainty. Stone age impliments and cave wall drawings appear to those studying that time period that humans at that time were about equal in using the right and left hand.

Back to the game.

[TonyK]

Why isn't the rest of Ted's career vs LHP compiled? If we know how he did Home vs Away (.361 to .328) over his ENTIRE career, then what is preventing us from knowing how he did LHP vs RHP?

[Ubiquitous]

Why isn't the rest of Ted's career vs LHP compiled? If we know how he did Home vs Away (.361 to .328) over his ENTIRE career, then what is preventing us from knowing how he did LHP vs RHP?


It is a lot easier and quicker to compile home and away splits then it is handeness and base situation splits. For home and away it doesn't matter what inning, who is pitching, how many outs, who is on base, and so forth. all you need is the daily line.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

"HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO TELL YOU, ENGAGE THE LEFT!!!" :laugh :laugh

:clapping :laugh Classic!

[csh19792001]

I'm glad you chimed in because your point was exactly what I was trying to highlight. CSH took one line from some documentary and built a gigantic mountain out of it. He is doing the same here with Ted. Taking a small stone and running around acting like he found the Alps.

One line from some documentary? :noidea

I did post a few historical articles about Ruth's difficulties against certain pitches (and a few pitchers, Pruett and Cicotte being most notable) as perceived by some writers and people inside baseball.

And there, I wasn't making some giant deal of anything. We were talking about Ruth's profile, style, and proclivities as a hitter. I believe Randy opined that Ruth had no weaknesses as a hitter, and I found historical sources that certainly challenged that position. Just as you've been posting really interesting articles that enrich the historical/biographical discussions and facilitate learning, I did the same.


How is batting .325/.450/.550 an obvious weakness against hitting left handed pitchers?

Whose actual platoon splits are those? If that's his actual career line, than obviously it would change things, but I've never seen that information presented.

From what I've read thus far, going by the data revealed here:

Ted's career line is .297/.422/.473 against left handed pitching.

.345/.488/.647 against right handed pitching.

Once again, especially given that some people have thrown out terms about him being a perfect hitter, and so many consider him the greatest hitter that ever lived, I see this as significant. The moniker was self ascribed by Ted himself in his old age, and resoundingly affirmed after the Ted Williams adulation ceremony at the All Star Game at Fenway few years back.

Honestly, take a look at the homerun chart again in the first post of this thread. That's everyone who ever hit 300 homeruns, and Williams has the second lowest HR% of all time. The guy was merely an average HR hitter against LHP. And that's his entire career, not a portion.

And again, it just seems that given a cross section encompassing over half the guy's career, that "the greatest hitter who ever lived" would be a little better than .297 with a .473 slugging against all the lefties he ever faced. But then, again, your standards for greatest ever may be a little different than mine.....

I was just looking at the platoon splits of truly great left handed hitters of the past 50 years.

(against RHP)
(against LHP)


Barry Bonds
BA OBP SLG
.304 .457 .628
.290 .415 .571

Tony Gwynn
.345 .397 .471
.325 .371 .435

Stan Musial 1957-63
.307 .397 .522
.298 .362 .454



Gwynn is one of the greatest pure hitters in history, and probably the best average hitter in history, Ty Cobb aside. That's why he was included here. It's just over a third of Musial's career, true, but nothing drastic there. Then there are other guys like George Brett, obviously a tier below, but even Brett's average was only 28 points lower, and his slugging 88 points. Ted's differentials were 48 points in average, and an enormous 174 points in slugging.

I even looked at guys like Griffey, Carew, Reggie Jackson..nothing close to the power/average platoon differentials of Williams. (But again, he's held to a different standard than those guys anyway).

So basically, going on the most complete data we have at the moment, against RHP Ted Williams was approaching Babe Ruth in terms of greatness, and against LHP he was Al Kaline in terms of the ability to hit and hit with power, but with a higher walk rate. To me, that's an obvious weakness/disparity in quality. Moreover, since we’re talking about the validity of Ted as the greatest hitter who ever lived (no insignificant title), I’m certainly not “taking a small stone and running around acting like he found the Alps”.

It's pertinent and significant information when discussing his status as the supposed all time greatest.

[SABR Matt]

Even .297/.429/.497 is not a bad hitting line against lefties. Given the biased and IMHO flawed nature of the dataset from which those numbers came, I would call that line (the line of a CHAMPION even by modern contexts...let alone by 1940s/50s contexts) a CONSERVATIVE estimate of his left handed platoon split...

He had no discernably abnormal left handed pitching difficiency. He was a worse hitting against lefties but not by more than is customary for a left handed batter.

[Ubiquitous]

Ted's career line is .297/.422/.473 against left handed pitching.


That isn't Ted's career line. That is a biased sample of Teds line against lefties. It includes all of his last years and none of his best years, or at the very least a small smattering of his best years. I have already shown you what that data looks like without his last years. you for whatever reason wish to ignore that and only look at the whole incomplete picture that the data provides you. It is like only looking at Babe's years as a pitcher and making huge assumptions about Babe based on that limited data.


That's everyone who ever hit 300 homeruns, and Williams has the second lowest HR% of all time.


Yet you have no idea how many opps he had.

Stan Musial-Age 38 LHP-.219/.279/.344
Stan Musial-Age 39 LHP-.259/.350/.412
Stan Musial-Age 40 LHP-.234/.287/.403
Stan Musial Age 41 LHP-.333/.391/.415
Stan Musial AGe 42 LHP-.206/.250/.320

Thank God Stan Musial started 2 years later then Ted or else you would be saying Stan Musial couldn't hit lefties either.

What you don't seem to understand is that baised sample sizes are just as useless as small sample sizes and no samples.

You look at Stan's splits and say "It's just over a third of Musial's career, true, but nothing drastic there".

[csh19792001]

Even .297/.429/.497 is not a bad hitting line against lefties. Given the biased and IMHO flawed nature of the dataset from which those numbers came, I would call that line (the line of a CHAMPION even by modern contexts...let alone by 1940s/50s contexts) a CONSERVATIVE estimate of his left handed platoon split...

Did anyone here say it was a bad line? No. You're still missing the point here.

What's the flawed nature of the dataset? That's it's incomplete?

What are the 1940's-50's platoon contexts you speak of? You say it as if you have that information.



He had no discernably abnormal left handed pitching difficiency. He was a worse hitting against lefties but not by more than is customary for a left handed batter.

Well first, what is "customary" for a left handed batter against LHP? You say it as a fact, again, as if you're privy to a meta-analysis on platoon splits. Personally, I'd love to see that information presented here. I looked at plenty of lefites. No great left handed hitter of the past half century I found slugged 175 points higher against RHP than LHP. If they did, it'd clearly be a weakness, IMO. So even judged against guys who aren't even close to Ted Williams overall, it's a relative weakness.

But once again, no one is comparing him to a customary left handed batter. We're talking about Ted Williams as the greatest hitter who ever lived. As Diglahhh and myself have stated here, and was stated originally as part of the premise of this thread (along with Hitchedtoaspark's presentation of Ted's pathetic HR% against LHP), the standards and thresholds are different when we're assessing the greatest ever. I'm not sure how many times people have to explicitly state that before you'll see what the point of contention here continues to be.

[csh19792001]

That isn't Ted's career line. That is a biased sample of Teds line against lefties. It includes all of his last years and none of his best years, or at the very least a small smattering of his best years. I have already shown you what that data looks like without his last years.

So the .325/.450/.550 you presented wasn't your own creation based on what you think Ted MIGHT have done over the missing PA's?

If that's his actual career line against LHP, what's your source?

[Ubiquitous]

Here is post #33 which is basicallyt what I have said now in I think three different threads.

Using that data and looking at pre-1957 years (since we know what he did in 1957 and after) we have this line against lefties:
.319/.440/.519.

I had to guess on the OBP a bit since they didn't provide HBP and SF. Of course that doesn't include Ted's best years in the 40's so in all probability his line would probably be even higher then that.

Ted in 1957 hit lefties fairly well. His OPS against lefties would have placed him third overall in the league that year. His batting average third as well, his OBP second and his SLG 4th. Yet people want to say he didn't hit well against lefties that year.

In 1958 he did not hit lefties well

In 1959 he was injured and didn't really hit anybody well. Righties and lefties.

In 1960 he again didn't hit lefties well

So Ted from the age of 39 to age 41 didn't hit lefties all that well that isn't really damning him and his entire career.

[csh19792001]

Here is post #33 which is basicallyt what I have said now in I think three different threads.

Yes, I saw that already. You say "in all probability", and "I have to guess". So presumably you're creating a line which you think Ted might have had over the course of his caree against left handed pitching? Do you have a source with Ted's actual career numbers against LHP, or are you just making a complete guess here?

If not, than the line provided by Smith, which we've been working off of is by far the most complete data set that is available to date.

[Appling]

One line from some documentary? :noidea


From what I've read thus far, going by the data revealed here:

Ted's career line is .297/.422/.473 against left handed pitching.

.345/.488/.647 against right handed pitching.

Splits data is available now only for about half of Ted's playing career -- the last half. The numbers quoted above certainly don't represent "Ted's career line" since his lifetime totals (against RH and LH pitching combined) are .344/.482/.634. The RHP data shown above just about match his overall numbers.

I would love to see Ted's RHP/LHP splits data for the 1941 season.

His HR numbers are low compared to most other "great hitters" -- but he played in an era of relatively low HR numbers. Careet numbers for Ted compared with those for Joe DiMaggio, the other great hitter of his day:

player / AB / HR / HR per 100 AB
Ted W / 7706/525/ 6.76 per 100 AB
Joe D / 6821/361/ 5.29 per 100 AB

[Ubiquitous]

Yes, I saw that already. You say "in all probability", and "I have to guess". So presumably you're creating a line which you think Ted might have had over the course of his caree against left handed pitching? Do you have a source with Ted's actual career numbers against LHP, or are you just making a complete guess here?

If not, than the line provided by Smith, which we've been working off of is by far the most complete data set that is available to date.


Yes I said I had to guess a bit on the OBP since he didn't include HBP and SF. But yes by all means ignore the data because OBP might be off by .002.


As for Smith/Pinto for some oddball reason you can't seem to understand how to use that data. You want to lump it all together ignore when and how it happened. You don't want to actually look at it and break it apart and see how it is achieved. You for whatever reason wish to ignore the fact that what Ted did when he was old and injured has a huge impact on the data you are looking at.

[digglahhh]

So, his total (vs. both LHP and RHP) for the known part of his career is below his overall rates.

Somebody can do the math to see what his rates/splits would have been over the missing portion of his career. You would have to set compare his efficacy against LHP to RHP and set the RHP at one. Then you would have to replicate the same distribution of ABs (roughly three to one). What would the missing numbers need to be in order to get the combined career line?

That would be a rough approximation based on two huge assumptions.

1) The level by which his performance dropped against lefties maintained the same (in relation to his performance against righties) throughout his entire career.

2) He faced lefties at the same frequency rate throughout the earlier part of his career.


Is this what you did Ubi?

[Ubiquitous]

The part where I did .325/.450/.550 is far from exact.

I basically moved his AVG and SLG up a tick due to the fact that the data we had was lower then his overall and that in all probability the missing data was from his higher avg years. The SLG went up the most because I believe the data is missing more of his homers against left then expected. I'm at work right now so I can't get into totals and break them down. But it is certainly possible that his SLG before that data set is lower or higher then my number. I personally believe that my number might actually be conservative due to the slider not being as common place in the 40's as it was in the 50's. Ted himself said that he had trouble with the slider for a very long time and that he couldn't get that pitch up when he hit it, and finally that everybody was throwing the slider at him and for the most part at everybody else as well.

[digglahhh]

What we know for sure is this:

We have data for slightly more than half (52%) of Williams ABs. His composite numbers for those ABs were -.10 in BA, -.09 in OBP and -.027 in SLG, relative to his overall career numbers.

The rest of his numbers have to be substantially better to produce the overall numbers. So, it is probably reasonable to assume that Ted hit lefties better over the course of those other ABs. The question is how much better. Did he hit righties at about the same clip and the decline come from decreased production against lefties? Did maintain the same differential (percentage-wise) in his splits, but the raw numbers were higher?

Somebody, more willing to do the math than I, can extrapolate the numbers and post his splits based upon the assumptions in my last post. I assume on that level, we'll see Ted hit something like .310 against LHP and worse and maybe somewhere near .370 against righties.

Rounding everything off you would get 310/1000 against LHP and 1110/3000 against RHP. for a total of 4000 ABs w/ a .355 AVG and 1420 hits.

Combine that half with the known and you get 2759 hits in 8005 ABs at for a .345 AVG.

Ted's real numbers were 2654 hits in 7706 ABS for a .344 AVG.

So, the rough guesstimate is pretty close. The AVG, should probably be slightly higher than .310 b/c I assumed a more even split between the missing and given ABs. The difference between the rates would have to be greater b/c the unknown quantity is fewer than the known. That means it is not effecting the other half on a 1 to 1 basis. in this case on .96 to 1 basis. But the LHP vs RHP exposure isn't exactly 3:1 either. This is just a guess to try to make the math work out reasonably well.


Somebody else can do the exact math. I gotta start drinking...

[digglahhh]

Of course the other possibilities are that either the splits were closer (higher than .310-.315ish vs. LHP and lower than .370ish vs. RHP) and that his skills against lefties went first while his righty skills endured longer.

The other option is that the ratio of RHP to LHP he faced was different for the missing part. If that is the case, then we really can't do any guessing until we have those splits.

In order to make any estimates we have to assume the ratio of LHP to RHP and his performance against each. relative to each other remained static for the missing periods.

I've said that like ten times already...off the fridge for a cold one.

[TonyK]

It is a lot easier and quicker to compile home and away splits then it is handeness and base situation splits. For home and away it doesn't matter what inning, who is pitching, how many outs, who is on base, and so forth. all you need is the daily line.

Are the years 1939-1942 & 1946-1948 all that are missing?

I assume that someone at sometime took a close look at Ted's 1941 season as it is the last .400 season. They maybe wrote down his game by game results including which pitchers that he faced. There were only 9 LHP in the 1941 AL who hurled more than 50 innings. During Joe D's 56 game hit streak from May 15th to July 17th, Ted hit .412. It appears to me that someone recorded how he did game by game. In the 22 games vs the NYY Ted hit .470. Lefties Lefty Gomez and Marius Russo started 50 of NY's 154 games, or 1 in 3. They completed 25 of the 50 games they started. Maybe Ted faced them in 7 or 8 games?

This is not a difficult study to complete and I'd love to know how Ted fared vs LHP in 1941 as well as those other years. My hunch is he hit between .305 and .310 vs LHP in his complete career.

[digglahhh]

Very good points, Tony.

This is the problem though, here is the disclaimer from the original source of the stats:

The games not included are mostly from the early part of
his career. For example, there is no information here
from 1939 or 1941. Comparison to his career totals shows
that in the games not included his performance was better
in virtually all categories.

So, we know that 39-41 is missing. But the rest of the implication implies that we don't really know what is missing and what is included, just that more of the missing data comes from his earlier career than the later. It doesn't appear to be a linear thing like we are missing data from before a certain date.

[csh19792001]

Very good points, Tony.

This is the problem though, here is the disclaimer from the original source of the stats:

The games not included are mostly from the early part of
his career. For example, there is no information here
from 1939 or 1941. Comparison to his career totals shows
that in the games not included his performance was better
in virtually all categories.

So, we know that 39-41 is missing. But the rest of the implication implies that we don't really know what is missing and what is included, just that more of the missing data comes from his earlier career than the later. It doesn't appear to be a linear thing like we are missing data from before a certain date.

Derek:
I emailed the author about the details of his study. Hopefully he'll take the time to write back.

[TonyK]

Very good points, Tony.

This is the problem though, here is the disclaimer from the original source of the stats:

The games not included are mostly from the early part of
his career. For example, there is no information here
from 1939 or 1941. Comparison to his career totals shows
that in the games not included his performance was better
in virtually all categories.

So, we know that 39-41 is missing. But the rest of the implication implies that we don't really know what is missing and what is included, just that more of the missing data comes from his earlier career than the later. It doesn't appear to be a linear thing like we are missing data from before a certain date.

Thanks. Not very scientific, is it?

I wonder if the Hall of Fame would know whether someone has done the LHP/RHP split for him? The weekly Sporting News used to have box scores of all the games. A quick run through it's 1941 microfilm looking for LHP's facing Ted wouldn't take that long. Then questions about whether or not a lefty reliever faced him could be answered through the Boston newspapers. I'd be surprised if someone hasn't already done this for 1941.

[JamesWest]

Here are some of Ted Williams numbers from his 1941 season. These are taken from The Last .400 Hitter by John Holway:

HOME G BA HR
vs NY 11 .457 2
vs PHI 10 .469 4
vs WAS 11 .484 3
vs DET 11 .333 2
vs CLE 11 .474 2
vs STL 11 .394 2
vs CHI 11 .405 4
TOTAL 76 .426 4

AWAY G BA HR
at NY 11 .485 0
at PHI 9 .407 4
at WAS 11 .281 0
at DET 10 .342 3
at CLE 7 .300 1 (please note that these are not broken down between Municipal Stadium and League Park)
at STL 10 .464 7
at CHI 9 .333 3
TOTAL 67 .380 18

TOTAL G BA HR
NY 22 .470 2
PHI 19 .431 8
WAS 22 .381 3
DET 21 .338 5
CLE 18 .414 3
STL 21 .426 9
CHI 20 .377 7
TOTAL 143 .406 37

PIT AB H BA HR
vs LH 84 36 .429 1
vs RH 372 149 .401 36

Williams only HR against a LH was against Lefty Gomez

D/N AB H BA HR
Day 450 183 .407 37
Night 6 2 .333 0

[digglahhh]

[QUOTE=JamesWest]
AB H BA HR
vs LH 84 36 .429 1
vs RH 372 149 .401 36

Thanks much, JW.

If he hit .406 he was +.23 vs. LHP and -5 against RHP. I assume that there is a pretty dominant RHP sample advantage there, maybe even more than 3:1.

But what do I know, according to my previous posts, I've been drinking for several hours...

Of to my friend's b-day party- Open Bar... I would include a "smiley" but there isn't one for "possible vomiting in future."

[digglahhh]

Derek:
I emailed the author about the details of his study. Hopefully he'll take the time to write back.

Maybe, I'll attempt to make some inquiries around MLB.com, they have a relationship w/ Retrosheet (Dave Smith). Can't hurt to see if I can find anything, I'll try to make an inquiry sometime during the week- my week is pretty busy though.

[SABR Matt]

Hey csh...when I spoke of "contexts"...I'm not talking about PLATOON contexts...I'm talking about overall scoring context. .297/.429/.473 is a great OVERALL line to have...in the year 2000!!! Think of how good that is in 1950 or 1960! If Ted Williams really was "weak" to hit that way against his worst platoon side in a far less favorable environment than today...just how great would he have to be to not be weak??

When you ask what the flaw is in your sample, you demonstrate that you have no ability to read. We have told you the flaws. MANY TIMES. From many different angles! You take (1) his stats against only the lefties who are having their best day (you do realize the likely scoring context for pitchers throwing complete games is going to be WAY lower than it is for lefties who do not throw complete games...right?? Please tell me you're aware of this.) and (2) his complete platoon split from the last four (and WORST four) years of his major league career...add them together and claim "hey look! I have half of his lefty PA and he hit .297/.429/.473! He SUCKS!!" Do you have even the foggiest clue what your logical mistake is?

We're not complaining that you're sample is incomplete. We're complaining that it's biased UNILATERALLY against Ted Williams and you seem utterly incapable of understanding why we would say that.

You claim to hate sabermetricians because we bend the statistics to match our expectations and follow them blindly. You're guilty of that crime in this thread...NOT the sabermetricians. You've glommed onto a piece of pseudo-scientific poorly constructed "evidence" and categorically refuse to listen when we tell you why it's not a reliable starting point.

What is the typical lefty platoon split? In the entire history of the play by play era, lefties have hit .109 OPS points worse against left handed pitching than right handed pitching...that all lefties from 1957 on...(that data taken from my PBP database now that I have access to it).

Since 1957, starting pitchers throwing complete games have held opponants to about 1.57 R/G fewer than the composite league average (3.24 to 4.81). Is any of this sinking in?

[Ubiquitous]

Maybe, I'll attempt to make some inquiries around MLB.com, they have a relationship w/ Retrosheet (Dave Smith). Can't hurt to see if I can find anything, I'll try to make an inquiry sometime during the week- my week is pretty busy though.


I've already contacted Dave Smith, he pointed me towards Pinto. Who I have contacted but am waiting to get a response from. Perhaps he has moved on from Baseball Musings, in which case I'll trakc him down from another venue.

I asked Mr. Smith two questions and in looking back I should have asked three questions. I asked him if the data he provided included all of the data currently posted on Retrosheet (referring to the split data from 1957 and on). He said it did.

The second question was whether or not he had more data that could be added since then. He said no, but he said it in a way that leaves it possible that he does have the data just not in a form easy to give out or wanting to give out.

The third question I should have asked and I did ask Pinto this is what exactly was the data. Was it yearly? Was it taken from a game here in this month, two months here, a week there and so forth.


The third person I contacted is Sean Forman of BRef. I am currently in discussion with him about the CG data and if it would be possible to create a query with his new PI service from which I am a member. Hopefully I will get a final answer sometime next week on that one, and the same hope with Pinto.

[Ubiquitous]

Here are some of Ted Williams numbers from his 1941 season. These are taken from The Last .400 Hitter by John Holway:


Thanks for providing this. I was attempting to do this myself and it was a rather slow and tortuous affair. I had built the daily line and my next step was to break down between lefty starters and righties then relief pitchers as well. You saved me many hours of frustration.

[Ubiquitous]

PIT AB H BA HR
vs LH 84 36 .429 1
vs RH 372 149 .401 36


Now I granted I don't think he batted .429 against lefties throughout the 40's but I do think he did rather well against them throughout this decade. I really think the creation of the slider is probably what made him really lose points against pitchers. The slider was a 50's pitch and Ted himself said he couldn't get the slider in the air like other pitches.


It certainly was the slider. I could hit the slider just as good as I could hit any ball, but I couldn't get it in the air as good. And you know they throw the shift there, and there's nine guys playing on this side and there's nobody over there, and I'm close to the plate and the only way I can get the ball over there is to uppercut it and hit it with the width of the bat, not the length of the bat. ....
I said for me to hit the slider, I had to look for it. I didn't care where a pitch was, if I was looking for it. But the slider was a pitch you kinda had to look for 'cause it was quick at the end. If I couldn't get under it, that's a little lag there, I had to hit it occasionally get one in the air, but it was a ground ball pitch. I didn't want any of those....

[JamesWest]

I think that another that may have influenced Williams's hitting in the 50s would have been the after-effects of his injury in the 1950 ASG. Is there any evidence to show that the injured elbow had any impact on his hitting lefty's?

[Ubiquitous]

The only article I found was a few players saying that his hitting for average would still be there but his power would be diminished. Of course that was an article from spring training in the offseason right after the injury and I wasn't really looking for any specific mentionings of it.

Also you wouldn't happen to have the doubles, triples, walks breakdown for 1941 would you?


If we combine the data from 1941 plus the Pinto data we find that his lifetime batting average against lefties rises to .308, and his batting average pre-1958 against lefties rises to .330

[JamesWest]

Also you wouldn't happen to have the doubles, triples, walks breakdown for 1941 would you?




I have the day by day breakdown, but not which pitcher he was facing. I was going to try to put that together by examing rhe box scores and probably having to do a little educated guessing.

[Ubiquitous]

I have the day by day breakdown, but not which pitcher he was facing. I was going to try to put that together by examing rhe box scores and probably having to do a little educated guessing.
Darn, I feared you were going to say that. Since you have the day by day breakdown of Ted batting I was wandering if you could correct my day by day line. I am missing two doubles, three walks, have one too many triples, and one too many runs. Other then that I believe it is correct.


Date AB R H sin 2B 3B HR RBI BB K TB
15-Apr 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
16-Apr 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
18-Apr 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
20-Apr 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
21-Apr 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
22-Apr 4 1 2 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 3
* 24-Apr 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
29-Apr 3 2 2 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 6
30-Apr 5 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
1-May 5 2 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1
2-May 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
* 3-May 3 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 1
4-May 5 1 2 2 0 0 0 2 1 0 2
7-May 4 2 3 1 0 0 2 3 1 0 9
11-May 6 2 3 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 4
* 12-May 3 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
13-May 4 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 4
14-May 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
* 15-May 3 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 1
16-May 4 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
17-May 5 1 3 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 5
18-May 4 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
19-May 4 1 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 4
* 20-May 3 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
21-May 5 0 4 3 1 0 0 1 0 0 5
22-May 4 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
23-May 3 0 1 1 0 0 0 3 2 0 1
* 24-May 3 3 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 2
* 25-May 5 3 4 3 1 0 0 2 0 0 5
27-May 2 1 1 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 4
27-May 4 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
28-May 5 1 3 2 1 0 0 0 3 0 4
29-May 4 2 3 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 6
30-May 2 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 2
30-May 3 2 2 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 2
1-Jun 4 2 2 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 3
1-Jun 5 2 2 1 0 0 1 3 0 0 5
2-Jun 4 2 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1
* 5-Jun 4 4 3 2 0 0 1 3 2 0 6
6-Jun 4 2 2 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 6
* 7-Jun 4 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
8-Jun 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0
* 8-Jun 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
12-Jun 5 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
12-Jun 2 1 1 0 0 0 1 2 2 0 4
* 14-Jun 5 0 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 4
15-Jun 3 2 2 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 2
15-Jun 3 2 2 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 6
17-Jun 4 1 1 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 4
17-Jun 1 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 2
18-Jun 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
19-Jun 3 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 1 1 1
20-Jun 3 1 2 1 1 0 0 2 1 0 3
21-Jun 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
6/22 3 1 1 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 1
6/22 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
6/24 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0
6/25 3 2 2 1 0 0 1 2 1 0 5
6/26 5 2 3 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 3
6/27 3 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
6/28 3 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
6/29 4 2 2 1 0 0 1 2 1 0 5
6/30 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
7/1 4 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
7/1 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
7/2 3 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
7/3 4 2 2 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 5
7/5 3 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 2
7/6 4 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
7/6 4 2 3 1 2 0 0 2 0 0 5
7/11 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
7/12 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0
7/16 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
7/19 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7/19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
7/20 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 4
7/22 2 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 4
7/23 5 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 3
7/24 5 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 2
7/25 3 3 2 1 0 0 1 2 2 0 5
7/26 4 1 3 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 3
7/27 3 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 4
7/29 3 1 1 0 0 0 1 2 1 1 4
7/31 3 2 2 1 0 0 1 4 3 0 5
7/31 3 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 2
8/2 3 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 3
8/3 4 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
8/4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0
8/5 4 1 2 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 3
8/6 3 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
8/6 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
8/7 4 3 3 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 6
8/8 3 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 1
8/9 3 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 1
8/10 4 0 3 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 5
8/10 3 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
8/11 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 4 0 1
8/12 3 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 1
8/13 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 4 0 2
8/14 5 2 1 0 0 0 1 3 1 0 4
8/14 4 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
8/15 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
8/16 5 2 3 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 4
8/17 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
8/19 3 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 4
8/19 5 2 4 2 0 0 2 3 0 0 10
8/20 4 3 2 1 0 0 1 2 1 1 5
8/20 2 1 1 0 0 0 1 2 2 0 4
8/21 3 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 2
8/22 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0
8/23 4 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
8/24 4 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
8/24 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
8/25 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0
8/26 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 4 0 1
8/27 4 0 2 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 2
8/28 3 2 2 0 0 1 1 1 2 0 7
8/30 3 3 2 1 0 0 1 3 1 0 5
8/31 3 1 1 0 0 0 1 3 1 0 4
8/31 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0
9/1 3 2 2 0 0 0 2 4 2 0 8
9/1 2 3 1 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 4
9/3 3 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 1
9/4 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 1
9/6 4 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1
9/7 4 1 3 1 2 0 0 1 1 0 5
9/9 3 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
9/10 4 1 2 1 1 0 0 3 1 0 3
9/12 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0
9/13 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0
9/14 3 1 2 1 1 0 0 1 2 0 3
9/14 4 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 3
9/15 3 1 1 0 0 0 1 3 1 0 4
9/17 3 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 2
9/18 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
9/20 4 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 2
9/21 3 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 4
9/23 3 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 2
9/24 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
9/24 4 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
9/27 4 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
9/28 5 2 4 3 0 0 1 2 0 0 7
28-Sep 3 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 3
456 136 185 113 31 4 37 120 144 27 335


The asterisks denote a left handed starter, I got up to about June 22 before I ran out of time on that query.

[JamesWest]

Darn, I feared you were going to say that. Since you have the day by day breakdown of Ted batting I was wandering if you could correct my day by day line. I am missing two doubles, three walks, have one too many triples, and one too many runs. Other then that I believe it is correct.

The asterisks denote a left handed starter, I got up to about June 22 before I ran out of time on that query.

Where did you get those lines? I could use either the Holway book or the boxscores from The Sporting News.

[Ubiquitous]

I got those lines from a combination of Sporting news article and sports illustrated article.

There was a sporting news article that had game by game lines for both 1941 and 1947 up to a certain point and the Sports Illustrated article filled in the rest for 1941.

[JamesWest]

Looking at the Holway chart, WIlliams did not have a triple on 7/27. He had two hits that day, a single and a double.

I'll print your chart tomorrow and see what differences I can find.

I'll see if I can scan the Holway charts for you.

[Ubiquitous]

Looking at the Holway chart, WIlliams did not have a triple on 7/27. He had two hits that day, a single and a double.

I'll print your chart tomorrow and see what differences I can find.

I'll see if I can scan the Holway charts for you.

Thanks that fixes the triples and narrows down the doubles to one missing one.

Unfortunately for me the Sports illustrated article was missing double, triple, and BB information and I had to check each box score to find that data. So I am willing to bet that if there is a mistake it is after June 21st or so, which is when the SI data takes over for the TSN data.

[JamesWest]

Thanks that fixes the triples and narrows down the doubles to one missing one.

Unfortunately for me the Sports illustrated article was missing double, triple, and BB information and I had to check each box score to find that data. So I am willing to bet that if there is a mistake it is after June 21st or so, which is when the SI data takes over for the TSN data.

Holway's book has day by day data from Williams's 1939, 194 and 1941 seasons. He credits Paul Doherty and Pete Palmer. I have the info here where I could chart 1941, 1946, 1951 and 1954. I think I still have the 1957 info, but that is in Cleveland.

I remember in the 1985 Historical Abstract, Bill James did splits on some Hall of Famers, including Williams, I think. That book is also in Cleveland, and I think the splits were home/away and not RHP/LHP.

[Ubiquitous]

I've got Ted Williams home/away splits by year for his entire career. Palmer provides those in Total Baseball and I believe it was the 1983 abstract for Bill James.

[TonyK]

"Originally Posted by JamesWest (1941 Season)

Code:
PIT AB H BA HR
vs LH 84 36 .429 1
vs RH 372 149 .401 36"


His Lifetime BA vs LHP jumped from .297 to .308 from just this year alone.

[Ubiquitous]

Here is some info for you. In 1941 there were 14 left handed non-Boston starters in the AL. They started 259 games out of 1089 games. Lefties in general through 2103.6 innings in the AL compared to a total of 9714.6 inninngs. 21.7%. Ted at least in terms of at bats only faced lefties 18.4% of the time.

In total 18 left handed pitchers pitched in the AL that year and were not pitching for Boston.

[Ubiquitous]

Ted faced a lefty starter in 1941 27 times. In those games he got 100 at bats. Now obviously not all of those at bats came against lefties since we already know that he faced lefties 84 times that year.

Ted's line in those 27 games is .430/.537/.620. He also hit 4 homers in those games. Since we know he only hit 1 homer against lefties that year we can subtract 3 homers from his line. Doing that drops Ted down to .412/.525/.515. Two things I should mention in those 97 at bats he only struck out 9 times and the OBP is just hits and walks since I don't have the HBP and SF data. Though in those days SF were counted as at bats anyway so I am just missing HBP data.

[TonyK]

Here is some info for you. In 1941 there were 14 left handed non-Boston starters in the AL. They started 259 games out of 1089 games. Lefties in general through 2103.6 innings in the AL compared to a total of 9714.6 inninngs. 21.7%. Ted at least in terms of at bats only faced lefties 18.4% of the time.

In total 18 left handed pitchers pitched in the AL that year and were not pitching for Boston.

One interesting thing is NY-AL, CHI-AL, and WASH did not have any left handed relievers in 1941.

[Ubiquitous]

One interesting thing is NY-AL, CHI-AL, and WASH did not have any left handed relievers in 1941.

I am now scanning the box scores on the lefty starter games and what I have noticed is that even if they had a lefty reliever they weren't going to bring him in. They didn't have the loogy yet and opposing managers were not going to expose that lefty to the Boston lineup and they viewed Ted Williams as too good compared to any scrub sitting in the bullpen. . I'm a little over a third of the way done with the 27 games and I have yet to see a lefty reliever brought into the game.

[csh19792001]

Hey csh...when I spoke of "contexts"...I'm not talking about PLATOON contexts...I'm talking about overall scoring context. .297/.429/.473 is a great OVERALL line to have...in the year 2000!!! Think of how good that is in 1950 or 1960! If Ted Williams really was "weak" to hit that way against his worst platoon side in a far less favorable environment than today...just how great would he have to be to not be weak??

I know you were talking about platoon contexts, and that's why I asked for your figures. How can we determine favorable or unfavorable a platoon environment from the 40's and early 50's is without data?

.297/.429/.473 against all lefties in over half of Ted's career is what I'm talking about- from the Smith study. If he truly was the greatest of all time, than (IMO) he should have either no weaknesses as a hitter, and certainly no glaring weaknesses. This is the underlying point.

Whether or not his platoon split narrowed drastically in the unaccounted years is what needs to be researched in order to put the entire puzzle together. As I said earlier, if it turns out that his actual career line against left handers was roughly akin to what Ubi estimated, it changes things completely.



When you ask what the flaw is in your sample, you demonstrate that you have no ability to read. We have told you the flaws. MANY TIMES. From many different angles! You take (1) his stats against only the lefties who are having their best day (you do realize the likely scoring context for pitchers throwing complete games is going to be WAY lower than it is for lefties who do not throw complete games...right?? Please tell me you're aware of this.)

I never Ted's line against LHP in CG's as anything more than another (very small piece) of evidence. I understand it's far from statistically significant, and merely found it interesting, in that it corroborates everything else I've seen to date regarding Ted's hitting ability against lefties.


(2) his complete platoon split from the last four (and WORST four) years of his major league career...add them together and claim "hey look! I have half of his lefty PA and he hit .297/.429/.473! He SUCKS!!" Do you have even the foggiest clue what your logical mistake is?

As to your second point, If you read the Smith study, you'll see it's not based on the last four years of his career. It's about 5100 PA total accounted for (Ted only had around 1700 his last four years). That's a simple miscommunication between us.

And I don't think Al Kaline "sucked", but he was no Ruthian/2000's Barry Bonds type at the plate in terms of average and slugging. :o



What is the typical lefty platoon split? In the entire history of the play by play era, lefties have hit .109 OPS points worse against left handed pitching than right handed pitching...that all lefties from 1957 on...(that data taken from my PBP database now that I have access to it).


What's the database called? Can we see some of the data flushed out? This is exactly the type of information that we need (and I see Ubi and others are adding to the knowledge base here).

Ted's OPS was 240 points lower for the years we have the information (.895 vs. 1.135). So even in comparison to the average hitter (which, regardless, was never the premise of this thread/topic), the disparity is quite a bit wider, no?

[SABR Matt]

I know you were talking about platoon contexts, and that's why I asked for your figures. How can we determine favorable or unfavorable a platoon environment from the 40's and early 50's is without data?

What . . is confusing about what I said csh. I WAS NOT TALKING ABOUT PLATOON CONTEXTS.... How can we possibly know what the PLATOON context was in 1940? We can't! I never said I did. I do know however that OVERALL, the offensive environment in 1940 and 1950 and 1960 was not as favorable to hitters as it was in 2000, and in the year 2000, if you have a guy hitting .297/.429/.473, he'd be making about 15 Million a year...a universally recognized superstar.

I then went on to point out that I don't think your estimate of Williams' left handed pitching split is correct because included in the data set Smith was using in his study were more PA from the tail end of Williams' career and from the better half of pitchers in years before his decline (proportionally) than what would make for a fair sampling of Williams' left handed career. If you're going to tell me that 1700 PA in the twilight of his career should account for fully a THIRD of his career platoon split...I'm going to tell you to learn statistics and try me again when you have the slightest clue what you're talking about.


And I don't think Al Kaline "sucked", but he was no Ruthian/2000's Barry Bonds type at the plate in terms of average and slugging. :o

What's the database called? Can we see some of the data flushed out? This is exactly the type of information that we need (and I see Ubi and others are adding to the knowledge base here).

Ted's OPS was 240 points lower for the years we have the information (.895 vs. 1.135). So even in comparison to the average hitter (which, regardless, was never the premise of this thread/topic), the disparity is quite a bit wider, no?

The database doesn't have a name...it's built from retrosheet's PBP event files and the baseball-databank (which I use to tag pitchers with left handed flags so I know who's left handed) and retrosheet game logs which I use to tag all pitchers who are not starting any given game as relievers. It's self built.

When I have a little more time I'll get you some more specific breakdowns of the platoon split for lefty bats against lefty and righty pitchers from the PBP era and more info on the chasm between complete game performances and normal baseball games as far as the expected runs allowed.

BTW...you may not have wanted to make the average platoon split importnat to this thread, but anyone who knows anything about statistics will tell you that it SHOULD matter...if you're going to say Williams is weak against left handed pitching...that needs to be RELATIVE to how weak you would expect a lefty to be against left handed pitching. That's the whole point I've been trying to make.

And I'm not convinced his platoon split was really .246 OPS points...you're still basing that on data which is unfairly biased by the worst half of his career.

[digglahhh]

BTW...you may not have wanted to make the average platoon split importnat to this thread, but anyone who knows anything about statistics will tell you that it SHOULD matter...if you're going to say Williams is weak against left handed pitching...that needs to be RELATIVE to how weak you would expect a lefty to be against left handed pitching. That's the whole point I've been trying to make.

This is where you are wrong, Matt.

This whole discussion is in relation to the idea that Ted Williams is the greatest hitter ever.

The average lefty platoon split doesn't mean anything; if he bests the average split by 10% it is a complete and unadulterated failure.

He should at least be as good or better than other all-time great lefthanded hitters (Ruth, Gehrig, Musial, Bonds, etc.) From what we have, he looks more like Todd Helton does against lefties, a fine player no doubt, but less than what you would expect from the greatest ever.

[SABR Matt]

This is where you are wrong, Matt.

This whole discussion is in relation to the idea that Ted Williams is the greatest hitter ever.

The average lefty platoon split doesn't mean anything; if he bests the average split by 10% it is a complete and unadulterated failure.

He should at least be as good or better than other all-time great lefthanded hitters (Ruth, Gehrig, Musial, Bonds, etc.) From what we have, he looks more like Todd Helton does against lefties, a fine player no doubt, but less than what you would expect from the greatest ever.

And that's where YOU'RE wrong digglahhh. To be the greatest hitter ever, you have to hit. It DOESN'T MATTER whether you hit only against righties or only at night or whatever else...the greatest hitter ever will have the best overall hitting record. Simple and concrete.

If the question is, "Is Ted Williams unusually weak against lefties?" you compare him to the typical lefty platoon split. If the question is, "Is Ted Williams the greatest hitter of all time?" you compare his whole career to the whole careers of other players.

Judging whether someone is the best hitter of all time based on what he does in one particular situation is idiotic.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I believe that his overall numbers prove how great he was against righties, and that greatness against righties helps off-set his weakness against lefties. To hold the title of greatest hitter ever, you cannot have a glaring weakness imo, and I don't think it's a matter of Ted's inability as much as it was stubborness regarding approach against lefties. Matters little though. If these numbers hold true over the course of the other AB, then Ballgame cannot claim that title with a straight floating head.

In Digg's scenario of just plucking a hitter for one AB against an unknown pitcher, I'd take Ruth of course, but probably Pujols over Williams, especially outside of Fenway.

[Ubiquitous]

This is where you are wrong, Matt.

This whole discussion is in relation to the idea that Ted Williams is the greatest hitter ever.

The average lefty platoon split doesn't mean anything; if he bests the average split by 10% it is a complete and unadulterated failure.

He should at least be as good or better than other all-time great lefthanded hitters (Ruth, Gehrig, Musial, Bonds, etc.) From what we have, he looks more like Todd Helton does against lefties, a fine player no doubt, but less than what you would expect from the greatest ever.

Except you me and everybody else has no idea how the greats hit against left handed pitchers. You and I know a teeny tiny part of Teds stats against lefties. WE know much much less about Ruth or Gehrig or really anybody from before 1957.

Secondly Ted's splits are not simply 10% better they are probably in the neighborhood of 65% better then the average if not 100% better. .425/.473 even if that was his career line is vastly better then the average lefties line against lefties. He hit lefties better then what we know Stan did. He hit lefties vastly better then we know Duke did. He hit better then Carlos Delgado, Jason Giambi, Ken Griffey Jr, and virtually all the great lefties that we have splits on. About the only one he doesn't do better then is Barry Bonds, even before steroids Bonds was probably better. Now then if we figure that Williams pre 1958 was around .325/.450/.530 to .550 then he moves up even more to the point where is batting against lefties was better then most right handed players against right handed pitchers.

You guys seem to be getting hung up on the fact that he did so much better against righties. So what? He is one of the greatest hitters of all time against righties and a great hitter against lefties. Why is that so bad? We are not talking about a .900 OPS hitter dropping to .600 we are talking about a 1.300 hitter dropping to 1.000 or around there. Like I said before in 1957 Ted Williams against lefties production would place him about 3rd or higher in the league, and this is supposed to be a weakness? Batting .985 to 1.000+ is not a weakness.


But after all of this I will say so what. There were better base stealer's then Babe Ruth does that mean Babe Ruth wasn't the best offensive player of all time? There were better hitters for average, better hitters for doubles, better hitters in terms of durability and reliability but that doesn't mean Babe Ruth isn't the greatest player of all time.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

But afterall of this I will say so what. There were better base stealers then Babe Ruth does that mean Babe Ruth wasn't the best offensive player of all time? There were better hitters for average, better hitters for doubles, better hitters in terms of durability and reliability but that doesn't mean Babe Ruth isn't the greatest player of all time.

Babe hit over .370 in 6 out of 14 seasons where he had at least 400 AB. Cobb did the same in 12 out of 19 seasons but that doesn't begin to describe Cobb's great BA hitting. No contest here. Expecting a slugger to compete with Cobb is ridiculous. The impressive part is Babe doing that while slugging .690 for a career, which includes his pitching seasons. It is this combo that leads to his being a main candidate in the coversation of best offensive players ever. No player has been dominant in all aspects and nobody expects Ted to be. We're not talking about overall players. This is about Ted and his hitting, and his claim for greatest hitter ever. Can he be given that title if he in fact could not hit lefties much better than a merely good lefty hitter? One side would say , "Look at his overall numbers, what difference does it make." And the other side would say, "When examining his skills as a hitter, and his claim as greatest ever, this puts a serious hole in his case." Who knows. Until we have full numbers it's just a guessing game.

[Ubiquitous]

Sean Forman of BRef was kind enough to answer some of my questions and provided me with some great data. I now have in my possession 50 years of data on hitters and how they faired against CG pitchers.

I've just started examining it now.

Some juicy tidbits.
Hank Aaron had almost 2500 AB against CG pitchers and his line?
.223/.286/.367

Frank Robinson has almost 2200 AB, his line?
.207/.291/.350

This by the way is against pitchers throwing from either side. I can sort the data based on what arm the pitcher used. I also have the data on a year by year basis.

Overall I looked at all players with over 150 AB against CG pitchers and do you know what their average line was?
.196/.249/.278


The best player with significant amount of AB was none other then Mickey Mantle who had this line:
.220/.331/.386 in 1278 at bats

BUT GUESS WHO HAS THE HIGHEST OPS of anybody with 150 or more at bats.

If you guess Ted Williams, then you guessed right.

Ted Williams had this line:
.256/.369/.446 in 390 at bats. Despite all of this data coming from the last 4 years of his career.

Though remember this was the line with either hand for the pitcher.

[Ubiquitous]

So how about lefty vs. lefty?

The average lefty against a CG lefty had this line
.191/.243/.264

We know from the data that Shoeless provided that Ted had a .245 avg. in 538 at bats. Unfortunately for us though Forman's data is only from 1957 and on when he did exceptionally poor against CG and his at bats are below my 100 at bat cut off.

The best OPS is Don Mattingly at .655 OPS with 193 AB.
Ashburn is close behind at .651 with 298 AB.

Stan Musial by the way has a .223/.274/.309 in 220 at bats.


There was a total of 164 lefties with more then 100 at bats against CG LH pitchers.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Though remember this was the line with either hand for the pitcher.

Right. And the majority of those CG AB came against righties AND in a great hitting park. Those numbers are very raw indeed.

[Ubiquitous]

Right. And the majority of those CG AB came against righties AND in a great hitting park. Those numbers are very raw indeed.

A great hitters park for right handed hitters and secondly playing in a great hitters park would mean that it is less likely that the CG actually happened in Fenway.

[Ubiquitous]

Right. And the majority of those CG AB came against righties AND in a great hitting park. Those numbers are very raw indeed.

One other amazing tidbit.
From 1957 to 1960 Ted Williams against RH CG pitchers had this line:
.284/.401/.513 in 310 AB

By far the number one line against RH CG pitchers.

The only other person who is even in the .800 OPS range is Lance Berkman with .870 in 121 at bats. Mickey Mantle has a .704 in 836 at bats.

To me it is looking more and more likely that at least in terms of right handed pitchers nobody was better then Ted Williams in the last 75 years. The only two possible rivals are Babe Ruth and Ty Cobb.

[Ubiquitous]

This is about Ted and his hitting, and his claim for greatest hitter ever. Can he be given that title if he in fact could not hit lefties much better than a merely good lefty hitter? One side would say , "Look at his overall numbers, what difference does it make." And the other side would say, "When examining his skills as a hitter, and his claim as greatest ever, this puts a serious hole in his case." Who knows. Until we have full numbers it's just a guessing game.

So how did Babe Ruth do against lefties? How did Ty Cobb?

Secondly as I said before Ted didn't merely hit as well as a good lefty hitter he hit as well as a great lefty hitter. Find lefty hitters who hit better then Ted Williams in their 30's. Find left handed hitters who had a line somewhere around .325/.450/.530ish against lefties between the age of 20 and 37. So far the only one I can find who was definitely better then that was Barry Bonds. You'll find a few with a SLG similar to what I just mentioned but you will find few if any with AVG and OBP similar to Ted's.

Here is a list of 100 left handed hitters sorted by overall OPS from 1957 to now. Do any of these guys beat Ted?


OPS OPS
1 Todd Helton 1.048
2 Barry Bonds 1.023
3 Jim Thome .979
4 Larry Walker .969
5 Brian Giles .961
6 Jason Giambi .951
7 Ken Griffey Jr. .949
8 Carlos Delgado .949
9 Bobby Abreu .929
10 Jim Edmonds .928
11 Willie McCovey .923
12 Mo Vaughn .906
13 Rafael Palmeiro .896
14 Fred McGriff .896
15 Willie Stargell .889
16 Ryan Klesko .888
17 Will Clark .880
18 George Brett .880
19 David Justice .878
20 Wade Boggs .877
21 Norm Cash .867
22 Rusty Greer .865
23 John Olerud .864
24 Shawn Green .864
25 Reggie Jackson .863
26 Darryl Strawberry .862
27 Billy Williams .861
28 Luis Gonzalez .859
29 Carl Yastrzemski .859
30 Eddie Mathews .858
31 Eric Chavez .856
32 Jim Gentile .854
33 Cliff Floyd .854
34 Matt Stairs .853
35 Geoff Jenkins .851
36 Fred Lynn .850
37 Kent Hrbek .848
38 Tony Gwynn .846
39 John Kruk .842
40 Jeromy Burnitz .842
41 Ray Lankford .840
42 Sean Casey .839
43 Paul O'Neill .836
44 Corey Koskie .836
45 Mark Grace .833
46 Rod Carew .832
47 Mike Greenwell .831
48 Leon Durham .831
49 Alvin Davis .830
50 Don Mattingly .830
51 Tony Oliva .830
52 Dave Parker .827
53 Joe Morgan .826
54 Boog Powell .824
55 Brad Fullmer .822
56 Harold Baines .822
57 Roger Maris .822
58 Joe Cunningham .821
59 Keith Hernandez .821
60 Tino Martinez .817
61 Dave Nilsson .817
62 Bobby Higginson .816
63 Kirk Gibson .815
64 Bernie Carbo .814
65 Oscar Gamble .814
66 Wally Moon .813
67 Ben Grieve .810
68 Bill White .809
69 Rusty Staub .808
70 Wes Covington .807
71 Wally Joyner .806
72 Garret Anderson .806
73 Robin Ventura .806
74 Rick Monday .805
75 Jason Thompson .804
76 Mike Easler .804
77 Cecil Cooper .803
78 Bobby Murcer .802
79 Henry Rodriguez .802
80 John Mayberry .800
81 Al Oliver .800
82 John Vander Wal .798
83 Don Mincher .798
84 Norm Siebern .798
85 Paul Sorrento .798
86 Steve Kemp .797
87 Ken Griffey Sr. .797
88 Kenny Lofton .797
89 Leon Wagner .795
90 Bob Skinner .794
91 Hal Morris .794
92 Lenny Dykstra .793
93 Andy Van Slyke .792
94 Matt Lawton .791
95 Mack Jones .790
96 Richie Hebner .790
97 Brady Anderson .790
98 Darrell Evans .789
99 Mike Hargrove .787
100 Jacque Jones .787

[Ubiquitous]

Somebody I believe once mentioned that they thought Ted since he was playing in a more modern time faced lefties more often then Babe. I think it was when we were comparing homer totals. Tango provided some excellent data in his link to refute this but I was curious about the league setup of these two players. So I set up a query to see what the % of starts and innings lefties got in the league during these players prime.

For Babe Ruth I looked at the years 1920 to 1933 and for Ted is was a bit more complicated but basically 1939 through 1957 minus the war years. 14 seasons for each. I also did not count lefty starts and innings for Ruth and Williams team since they were not going to face those guys, and obviously I also subtracted the starts and innings of all of their teammates from the total as well.

Babe Ruth's league during the time I looked gave lefties 27.3% of the starts and 26.9% of the innings. During Teds prime it was 27.1% of the starts and 26.3% of the innings. Fortunately for us we do have some more detailed info for the Red Sox from 1957 to 1960. Looking at that data reveals that the Red Sox were well below the league average ratios. For instance in terms of AB's it was by year against lefties as compared to overall from 1957 on:
19.0%
14.6%
17.9%
22.5%

[Sultan_1895-1948]

A great hitters park for right handed hitters and secondly playing in a great hitters park would mean that it is less likely that the CG actually happened in Fenway.

Great hitters park for Ted. No foul territory, only '388 to center, a huge short wall in left in case he mis-hits a ball it'll go for a double, reasonable right center field distance compared to what it was before they altered it for him.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

So how did Babe Ruth do against lefties? How did Ty Cobb?


Not sure. Do you have those numbers? All I can go by is the research which leads me to understand it didn't matter much which hand he was going against, and by his HR % against lefties.

[Tango Tiger]

Vladimir Guerrero swings at just about anything that's close to the strike zone. Adam Dunn won't swing at anything unless it's right down the middle.

Vlad is one of the greatest hitters of our generation. Does it really matter that his "weakness" is one that makes him look rather bad?

In fact, Vlad may simply be Vlad because he swings at what he does. That if he tried a Dunn-approach, he may be much less effective than he is now.

Similarly, who cares if Ted can or cannot hit lefties as well as someone else? The evidence suggests that he can hit lefties befitting at least a great hitter. But, who really cares if he didn't? I'm pretty sure he hit lefties .000/.xxx/.000 when those lefties threw a no-hitter, and probably leads in walks against lefty no-hitters.

Again, it's irrelevant.

Someone's opinion that he has to be at least 20% (or 5%, or whatever arbitrary baseline) above league average in every facet of hitting is unwarranted. Like I said, he could be .000/.000/.000 in his entire career against lefties, and it wouldn't matter as long as his overall production was still better than anyone else.

[WJackman]

[QUOTE=Tango Tiger]

Again, it's irrelevant.

Very true. As more play-by-play becomes available I think were are all going to be surprized by the historical oddities that arise. Here are a few that I like:

1. Rowe and Bridges for the '35 Tigers.

A. Versus NY (93-58): Bridges made 1 start, Rowe made 7.
B. Cleveland (82-17): Bridges made 6 starts, Rowe made 4.
C. Boston (78-75): Bridges made 6 starts, Rowe made 5.
D. Chicago (74-78): Bridges made 4 starts, Rowe made 6.
E. Washington (67-86): Both made 5 starts.
F. STL (65-87): Bridges made 7 starts, Rowe made 3.
G. Philadelphia (58-91): Bridges made 5 starts, Rowe made 4.

2. As far as I can tell, Mickey Cochrane avoided batting against lefties for almost all of his career.

3. Lefty Gomez was about an earned run a game better in Yankee Stadium than he was on the road over the course of his career. That should not be a big surprize. What is noteworthy is that his (brilliant) manager - Joe McCarthy - had seasons (1934 being the most blatant) where he employed Gomez in a 60%-40% home/away package.

[Tango Tiger]

This discussion could have been better if it were framed in questions and issues, rather than in assertions as to what qualifies someone as being the best.

As for the surgeon: no, I wouldn't go, and neither would I let a true .000/.000/.000 bat against lefties. Getting 80% of a hitter at superhuman level, and forcing me to use a bench player 20% of the time is the choice I'd make. If, overall, this still leads to favorable comparison to Babe Ruth, that's good.

What about Randy Johnson? He faces only 12% or something of lefty batters. If he managed to hold them to a .100/.150/.200 line, and be not so good against righties, but overall still be on the class of Clemens/Maddux/Pedro, then he's in their class even if he's not as good against righties.

It's not the chinks in the armor that count, it's how strong is the armor after the battle is over.

(Which is why the surgeon analogy is not good, since every player gets to come back the next day. A patient going to Dr. Nick Riviera won't be so lucky.)

[Ubiquitous]

Not sure. Do you have those numbers? All I can go by is the research which leads me to understand it didn't matter much which hand he was going against, and by his HR % against lefties.


No I don't have the data, nobody does which is my point. Though I will probably be getting the data soon for the last 50 years of play.


Great hitters park for Ted. No foul territory, only '388 to center, a huge short wall in left in case he mis-hits a ball it'll go for a double, reasonable right center field distance compared to what it was before they altered it for him.

Ted for his career hit 6% better at home then on the road. In the years in which we have more data (1957 and on) and the years that a lot of you guys are basing your opinions on, he hit better on the road then at home.

Fenway overall from 1946 to 1960 had a PF ranging from 106 to 112. Which means that scoring was 12% to 24% better in Fenway then in away parks. Ted's home/away splits are below Fenways splits. With the reason being I'm betting because he was left handed.

[Ubiquitous]

I'm going to wander off the hard evidence side of the debate for a moment and discuss some of my opinions and "feelings" on Ted. Now I must note at the beginning that none of this is based on hard evidence, nor are these thoughts the basis for my words in this thread.

Okay this part is based on evidence:
I have heard a lot of talk lately on this site about how Ted refused to change, that he couldn't adapt, that he was too stubborn, so forth and so forth. This is simply not true, the statistical evidence does not support this, nor does Ted's very words support this view. In the Williams shift thread I quoted an interview on Ted Williams in which he quite clearly shows his adaptability, his thinking process and approach to baseball hitting.
End part with evidence, cue opinion.

I think Ted Williams developed from childhood on the greatest swing against right handed pitchers of all time. I think he worked on it day and night his entire left and he reached a certain level of perfection with it. I also think that if as an answer to his greatness teams started throwing lefties at him he would have adapted. That was the kind of hitter he was, that was the kind of man he was. If their was an obstacle in front of him, he would do everything he could to beat it. He was intensely interested in hitting and went out in search of hitting knowledge. In the articles I saw he seemed to be very aware of the players that came before him and their styles. He wasn't some Rickey or Deion type saying "Jackie who?". He talked to Waner, he talked to Cobb, he talked to Foxx, so on and so on.

It is also my belief that if Ruth and Williams were contemporaries Williams would not be a second fiddle to Babe. I'm not saying that Ted would be better or even his equal. I don't know those answers, it just my opinion that Ted wouldn't allow that to happen, at least in terms of hitting. I think Babe would still be the bigger star, sort of the ARod vs Jeter type comparisons nowadays. One being the bigger star because of personality. Not saying that would be the only reason Babe would be bigger, I'm just Ted and his prickly attitude wouldn't definitely put him at a severe disadvantage to Ruth's star.

Sultan once said for Ruth, "you don't hit .342/.690 when you have a glaring weakness", and that is I believe true. Which is why I also believe you don't hit .344/.634 when you have a glaring weakness. Baseball is a brutal sport, a game of survival and adaptability. If you have a flaw and it can be exploited it will be, Ted survived that crucible of fire to become one of the greatest if not the greatest hitter of all time. You don't do that if you have a "fatal" weakness or "glaring" weakness.

[Tango Tiger]

I'll be even stronger than Ubi and say that you *can* have a seemingly glaring weakness and still be the greatest hitter ever. There could be a day when someone approached the game like Vlad, and performs even better than Vlad. Sure, it's rather unlikely. But, it's also irrelevant. It doesn't matter if you hold the bat with your hands crossed over the "wrong" way, that you change your batting stance all the time, or you have a super unorthodox stance to begin with.

All of the little battles that a hitter goes up against are things that the batter and his coaches need to worry about.

If you want to know who won the war, see who is left standing. Ted Williams, with whatever possible chinks he may have had, is one of a tiny handful left standing.

The discussion should not center on whether he was the greatest hitter ever. Gordie Howe, Bobby Orr, Wayne Gretzky and Mario Lemieux were the greatest players ever. No need to nitpick. That Wayne was the least physical of all the players is irrelevant, as he may have been the greatest.

The discussion should center on their attributes. The sum of their parts equals "greatest ever", no matter if you think it doesn't.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

he still managed to hit the way he did...that's the sign of a hitter who is not particularly weak against lefties...not enough that it matters in the end.

Or he's just so much better against righties that it doesn't matter in the end, because all you're looking at are the final numbers. Pretty similar to a basketball player not being able to drive to his left. The defenders know this, so they shade to his right and he STILL puts up incredible numbers despite that weakness.

[TonyK]

Where are we now? I have Ted's BA now at .308 vs LHP with plenty of years in the 1940's still left to examine. Those were most of his best years too. It's possible he might end up around .350 vs RHP and .310 to .315 vs LHP.

[Ubiquitous]

Where are we now? I have Ted's BA now at .308 vs LHP with plenty of years in the 1940's still left to examine. Those were most of his best years too. It's possible he might end up around .350 vs RHP and .310 to .315 vs LHP.


Yeah I have him at .308 and at .330 before 1958. His OBP is probably around .435, .455 for pre-1958. His SLG is probably around .490, .520ish for pre-1958.

[TonyK]

Yeah I have him at .308 and at .330 before 1958. His OBP is probably around .435, .455 for pre-1958. His SLG is probably around .490, .520ish for pre-1958.

Thanks! That OBP is good. I think one could complete an entire season for Ted vs LHP in 3 or 4 hours. All you need is the small list of LHP's that year plus either the Sp. News microfilm or Boston newspapers.

[Ubiquitous]

Thanks! That OBP is good. I think one could complete an entire season for Ted vs LHP in 3 or 4 hours. All you need is the small list of LHP's that year plus either the Sp. News microfilm or Boston newspapers.

I've done it the problem is that the sporting news doesn't give detailed box scores for that era so when a reliever comes in you have no idea how many of those at bats are against the reliever.

The way I have done it is to compile a list of LHP and then using retrosheet schedule find out in what games they were starting against Boston. Then check the boxscores of that game. Doing it that way I got about 15 extra at bats then what was reported for his 1941 splits.

What one would need is probably a local boston paper archive, one that gives a more detailed account of the game. For that I would have to go to a library and I am too lazy for that.

[AstrosFan]

Yeah, Ubi. You're really lazy. A complete disgrace to baseball researchers everywhere.

[Ubiquitous]

Yeah, Ubi. You're really lazy. A complete disgrace to baseball researchers everywhere.

I would love to believe that that sarcasm is merited, but people like Burgess, Carney, Tango, Treder, and others simply blow me out of the water with their level of research. But it is still nice to here, so thanks.

[TonyK]

I've done it the problem is that the sporting news doesn't give detailed box scores for that era so when a reliever comes in you have no idea how many of those at bats are against the reliever.

The way I have done it is to compile a list of LHP and then using retrosheet schedule find out in what games they were starting against Boston. Then check the boxscores of that game. Doing it that way I got about 15 extra at bats then what was reported for his 1941 splits.

What one would need is probably a local boston paper archive, one that gives a more detailed account of the game. For that I would have to go to a library and I am too lazy for that.

You aren't being paid enough I think. ;-)

If nobody lives near the Boston Public Library then the best bet would be to obtain a good Boston newspaper on microfilm via Interlibrary Loan. It should have both the boxscore plus a writeup that would mention when the new LHP came on in relief. There were a few SP lefties who also relieved occasionally.

Any sources list who the pitchers were in each game back in the 40's?

[SABR Matt]

You aren't being paid enough I think. ;-)

If nobody lives near the Boston Public Library then the best bet would be to obtain a good Boston newspaper on microfilm via Interlibrary Loan. It should have both the boxscore plus a writeup that would mention when the new LHP came on in relief. There were a few SP lefties who also relieved occasionally.

Any sources list who the pitchers were in each game back in the 40's?

The retrosheet gamelogs tell you who the starting pitcher was in every game in major league history...so we know which games the Red Sox played wherein they faced a lefty starter. We don't know which of those games Williams played without going to the newspaper research files.

[Ubiquitous]

You aren't being paid enough I think. ;-)

If nobody lives near the Boston Public Library then the best bet would be to obtain a good Boston newspaper on microfilm via Interlibrary Loan. It should have both the boxscore plus a writeup that would mention when the new LHP came on in relief. There were a few SP lefties who also relieved occasionally.

Any sources list who the pitchers were in each game back in the 40's?


It doesn't need to be the boston public library. With the internet nowadays you simply need access to a computer in the library. There is a service called newspaperarchives.com or something like that that is free to libraries. The other search feature would be proquest. Newspaperarchive I don't think has a Boston paper but it does have some Mass papers. Not sure about proquest.


As for the source list just check out retrosheet. It lists the starters and opposing starters for each game, as well being able to download that info.

[TonyK]

It doesn't need to be the boston public library. With the internet nowadays you simply need access to a computer in the library. There is a service called newspaperarchives.com or something like that that is free to libraries. The other search feature would be proquest. Newspaperarchive I don't think has a Boston paper but it does have some Mass papers. Not sure about proquest.


As for the source list just check out retrosheet. It lists the starters and opposing starters for each game, as well being able to download that info.

I think getting the microfilm reels is the only way to be sure you have all 154 games on hand. For 1940, for example, one would request April through October of 1940. That should be several reels. The Sports Section usually begins around the same page for each day's paper so you forward to it. If only RHP's hurled then it's on to the next game. You are only looking for between 40 and 60 games that a LHP pitched against Boston. Neft and Cohen's Baseball Encyclopedia provides who the lefties were for every AL season. In 1941, as we already noted, there were only 18 LHP's in the AL not counting Boston.

There were no West Coast late games without boxscores. I can't believe a huge Ted Williams fan has not already examined every game he ever played in and has this knowledge.

[Ubiquitous]

I think getting the microfilm reels is the only way to be sure you have all 154 games on hand. For 1940, for example, one would request April through October of 1940. That should be several reels. The Sports Section usually begins around the same page for each day's paper so you forward to it. If only RHP's hurled then it's on to the next game. You are only looking for between 40 and 60 games that a LHP pitched against Boston. Neft and Cohen's Baseball Encyclopedia provides who the lefties were for every AL season. In 1941, as we already noted, there were only 18 LHP's in the AL not counting Boston.

There were no West Coast late games without boxscores. I can't believe a huge Ted Williams fan has not already examined every game he ever played in and has this knowledge.

I'm sure there are people with this knowledge. For instance somebody has already done this for the 1941 season. We have it from 1957 to 1960. I'm betting we have it for 1953 and 1954. Retrosheet has more but hasn't published yet, they have about half his PA's, combine that with 1941 and we have a big chunk documented but not widely available.

The concern I have is on what did box scores look like in newspapers 50 to 60 years ago. If they looked like the sporting news box scores then they won't be of much help to us. But even if they do look like box scores of today they still won't be of much help to us, because box scores don't give PBP data. A box score might tell you which reliever pitched in the 7th but it won't tell against whom and what happened in that inning. Which is why I said we will probably need a boston paper to give us the game summaries in the form of articles.

[Ubiquitous]

The thing that blows me away is that they didn't do this back then. Not the whole stat tracking thing but simply printing batting logs for great players. So far I have come across one batting log for Ted Williams and that was comparing the first few months of his 1941 season to the first few months of the 1947 season, and that is it. I looked for one on Babe and I didn't find one, granted I've only looked in the sporting news but they definitely had this capability back then. I found an article which tracked Ted against the Brownies and I simply cannot believe that there isn't some sort of article out there that breaks down Teds stats based on team or pitcher, or handeness. I just gotta believe there is one out there but haven't found the keywords yet to uncover it.

[TonyK]

I'm sure there are people with this knowledge. For instance somebody has already done this for the 1941 season. We have it from 1957 to 1960. I'm betting we have it for 1953 and 1954. Retrosheet has more but hasn't published yet, they have about half his PA's, combine that with 1941 and we have a big chunk documented but not widely available.

The concern I have is on what did box scores look like in newspapers 50 to 60 years ago. If they looked like the sporting news box scores then they won't be of much help to us. But even if they do look like box scores of today they still won't be of much help to us, because box scores don't give PBP data. A box score might tell you which reliever pitched in the 7th but it won't tell against whom and what happened in that inning. Which is why I said we will probably need a boston paper to give us the game summaries in the form of articles.

Boston had between 3 and 8 newspapers back in the 40's I suspect. One should have noted when the new reliever came in and who the first batter he faced was. When I research ancient minor league games I rely on either the home or away team's newspapers providing info when a new pitcher came in. If neither mentions the first batter then I try to recreate the inning somehow. Often they had the number of hits given up by each pitcher which helps too.

As a former Bostonian, I recall a paper that actually broke down games into batter by batter outcomes when I was a kid. Example....SEVENTH INNING: Pesky singled to center. Doerr doubled to LF driving in Pesky. Smith now pitching for Chicago, Williams greets Smith with a two-run homer etc.

[Ubiquitous]

Boston had between 3 and 8 newspapers back in the 40's I suspect. One should have noted when the new reliever came in and who the first batter he faced was. When I research ancient minor league games I rely on either the home or away team's newspapers providing info when a new pitcher came in. If neither mentions the first batter then I try to recreate the inning somehow. Often they had the number of hits given up by each pitcher which helps too.

As a former Bostonian, I recall a paper that actually broke down games into batter by batter outcomes when I was a kid. Example....SEVENTH INNING: Pesky singled to center. Doerr doubled to LF driving in Pesky. Smith now pitching for Chicago, Williams greets Smith with a two-run homer etc.


If a paper like that existed it would be a great boon in this research.

[Ubiquitous]

Please note for all those checking in. the debate about greatness of Ted and or Babe and what it takes to be great has been shipped out of this thread. It is now in the history section. So if you wish to discuss that subject further please post in that thread. If you wish to discuss Ted vs. Lefties and/or add to the research of that topic please do so in this thread.

Thank you,
Ubi.

[Appling]

Please note for all those checking in. the debate about greatness of Ted and or Babe and what it takes to be great has been shipped out of this thread. It is now in the history section. So if you wish to discuss that subject further please post in that thread. Thank you,
Ubi.
A great solution. Perhaps we should call you the "STAR moderator", not just "Stat Moderator!" Thanks.

[Joltin' Joe]

Vladimir Guerrero swings at just about anything that's close to the strike zone. Adam Dunn won't swing at anything unless it's right down the middle.

Vlad is one of the greatest hitters of our generation. Does it really matter that his "weakness" is one that makes him look rather bad?

In fact, Vlad may simply be Vlad because he swings at what he does. That if he tried a Dunn-approach, he may be much less effective than he is now.

Similarly, who cares if Ted can or cannot hit lefties as well as someone else? The evidence suggests that he can hit lefties befitting at least a great hitter. But, who really cares if he didn't? I'm pretty sure he hit lefties .000/.xxx/.000 when those lefties threw a no-hitter, and probably leads in walks against lefty no-hitters.

Again, it's irrelevant.

Someone's opinion that he has to be at least 20% (or 5%, or whatever arbitrary baseline) above league average in every facet of hitting is unwarranted. Like I said, he could be .000/.000/.000 in his entire career against lefties, and it wouldn't matter as long as his overall production was still better than anyone else.

I pretty much agree with everything Tango is stating here.

Yes Vlad is what he is and changing his appoach would probably hurt him.
Think of the Paul Molitor experiment in April of '04 instructing Ichiro to take more BB. The end result was disastrous. He hit like .240 or so and had it not been for that experimental April, Ichiro might have flirted with .400 that year. Of course Molitor is a smart man and after the experiment failed, he acknowledged his mistake and let Ichiro run loose.

Anyway going back to the topic on hand, I don't believe we need to scrutinize every single situational hitting situations. The final product is what matters. The end product was .344/.482/.634 and that certainly qualifies him to be discussed among the greatest hitters of all time.

The only time I would disagree with Tango is if the weakness in question is so glaring that it can easily be exploited in a key situation. For example, if a hitter is totally incapable of hitting lefties, can't hit breaking balls to save his life, or totally incapable of catching up with high heat or something to that effect. Then that weakness can certainly be exploited in key situations, & with platooning render that hitter useless in many cases. And quite frankly, a hitter with such glaing weakness would probably not last in the ML; and most certainly would not be included in a discussion of the game's greatest hitters, so it probably is a moot point.
Ted Williams' ability to hit Lefties contained no such glaring weaknesses. So what he didn't hit lefties like Ted Williams? He was still a very good hitter against them.

[Ubiquitous]

Some new info from Holway that might shed some light on Ted's lack of homers against lefties.

According to Holway Ted said that against lefties he liked to shorten up the bat and hit to center. Ted also said he learned to hit lefties in Minneapolis where opposing teams liked to throw left handers because of the short right field.

Also Holway said, but does not give the data, that Ted did not hit lefties very well in 1939 and 1940.

Cobb in 1911 hit .406 against lefties and .426 against righties.

[Tango Tiger]

The only time I would disagree with Tango is if the weakness in question is so glaring that it can easily be exploited in a key situation.

I did say that this plagues RJ, as only 12% of his batters are lefthanded (as opposed to 20-22% among his LHP peers). If you can exploit it, it counts against him. And, it would show up in the final stats, be it with him playing only 130 games, or performing worse overall.

[csh19792001]

The only time I would disagree with Tango is if the weakness in question is so glaring that it can easily be exploited in a key situation.

The crux, for Diglahhh, myself, Randy, and others on the other side of the fence:
If Ted was indeed the greatest hitter who ever lived, shouldn't we have a ton of confidence sending him up there against pitchers of either handedness in the most key of situations?



I doubt any hitter, Ruth, Ted or whoever was so good and so great that in any and all potential situations he would perform the best.

That's why I used the hypothetical that my choice would probably be the guy who I would feel most confident in choosing if everything about the situation he was going to be put into would be a mystery.

Now. in that hypothetical, is it 4 times more likely that the pitcher is going to be a righty?... I would say, in the spirit of the hypothetical, it would be a 50/50 chance, not an 80/20.


Ok, so he's less likely to hit and hit for power against a LHP (some platoon split is normal), but if his spread is beyond that of even an average player....many would see that as a weakness, and decimating to his case as the greatest ever. The opposing team wouldn't be exploiting anyone by having Ted up, because it probably wasn't glaring. But it might have proven neutralizing to Ted relative to Ted himself against RHP. Hence the idea that was raised originally about Ted being platooned to death today. And if he could be platooned to death today and his overall numbers would drop off, is that not pertinent to his case as greatest EVER?

Platooning often happens in those key situations.

He was still a great hitter, but others might have been better all around and irrespective of the situation, and ergo, less succeptible to being cut down in production because of the handedness of the pitcher on the mound. What I'd really like to see is how the splits have changed over the years as an increasing percentage of innings have been thrown by LHP. If it turns out that left handed hitters from before 1950 simply did worse overall against LHP- possibly because they faced LHP much less- than that's a big point in favor of Ted, even in the absence of the splits for his entire career, which are likely to flatten out.

Of course, this might also augment the historical stature or Ruth and Cobb. I've never heard anything to suggest either had more difficulty than usual against LHP. From the(albeit limited) info I've seen, it seems very possible that both may have actually done better than expected as lefties facing left handed pitching.

[csh19792001]

Some new info from Holway that might shed some light on Ted's lack of homers against lefties.

According to Holway Ted said that against lefties he liked to shorten up the bat and hit to center. Ted also said he learned to hit lefties in Minneapolis where opposing teams liked to throw left handers because of the short right field.

Also Holway said, but does not give the data, that Ted did not hit lefties very well in 1939 and 1940.

Cobb in 1911 hit .406 against lefties and .426 against righties.

So we have the LHP/RHP AB split in 41'....I see he hit 36 homeruns off of RHP and only ONE home run off of lefties the entire season...18% of his AB's, yet only less than 3% of his homers....

1941:
PIT AB H BA HR
vs LH 84 36 .429 1
vs RH 372 149 .401 36

We don't know his OBP and SLG. Presumably his SLG was much, much higher against RHP.

I'd be interested to see 39' and 40', since this is when it has been hypothesized that he did quite well against LHP. And if his career AB spread is much greater than the norm...unless his hitting against LHP was a pronounced weakness, why would he be held back from facing LHP in the first place? I still see he hit 457 homeruns off RHP and only 64 off of LHP, and it's so much lower than the other all time greats....hard not to find that disconcerting. I agree we just need more data, because it could be a unique career context.

Where did you find the AL 11' info?

I'll continue this on the other thread....

[Ubiquitous]

So we have the LHP/RHP AB split in 41'....I see he hit 36 homeruns off of RHP and only ONE home run off of lefties the entire season...18% of his AB's, yet only less than 3% of his homers....

1941:
PIT AB H BA HR
vs LH 84 36 .429 1
vs RH 372 149 .401 36

We don't know his OBP and SLG. Presumably his SLG was much, much higher against RHP.

I'd be interested to see 39' and 40', since this is when it has been hypothesized that he did quite well against LHP. And if his career AB spread is much greater than the norm...unless his hitting against LHP was a pronounced weakness, why would he be held back from facing LHP in the first place? I still see he hit 457 homeruns off RHP and only 64 off of LHP, and it's so much lower than the other all time greats....hard not to find that disconcerting. I agree we just need more data, because it could be a unique career context.

Where did you find the AL 11' info?

I'll continue this on the other thread....

I think I wrote it somewhere above but Ted's slugging in 1941 against lefties was probably around .530 to .550

[csh19792001]

I think I wrote it somewhere above but Ted's slugging in 1941 against lefties was probably around .530 to .550

I know you're quite familiar with retrosheet, its research, and its constituents/progenitors....do you have any idea how long it takes them to put together all the PBP data for an entire season? For instance, I know they recently came out with the 54' NL, before that 1957-59 in both leagues, and the 1911, 21 and 22 NL, I believe.

So my questions are...
1. Does the complete play by play information exist anywhere? (vis TSN?).

2. How long would you think it might take at their current rate to compile the information for all of the missing years, back to 1900? 10 years?

[WJackman]

Chris,

I believe that retrosheet compiles their data by whatever means comes their way. They read actual game accounts and try and piece together the chain of events. If they run across any score books compiled by whomever, they use those as well. TSN never ran play by play that I am aware of but occasionally some of the city newspapers did. The Cleveland Plain Dealer ran play-by-play for all of the years I looked at (1928-1933) and I know that retrosheet has all of that (and, I expect a longer run in Cleveland that I never looked at). Places like Boston, that had up to seven or eight dailies at its peak, sometimes had play by play but not on a reguilar basis. I suspect that retrosheet does not release partial seasons.

Of course reading the actual game accounts are a real requirement for complete data. I don't know how they rectify certain situations like the ton of simple fly balls that were routinely lost in the sun back when day games were the norm. I imagine they just stick to the official scoring but reading different papers' interpretation of the same play - in cities that had multiple papers - will show how slippery the factual recovery slope can be.

[Ubiquitous]

It doesn't take them very long to do the current season but outside of that it is a bit hit or miss.

Retrosheet has but have not released thousands of games from the early years. For over 13 years now they have had PBP data for all the New York teams from 1924 to 1930. They have thousands of games for the Cleveland Indians dating back to 1918 at least.

[Windy City Fan]

Tango, I do hold Shaq's lack of free throw skills against him. Not based on some desire for a flawless, perfect player, but because it was a liability that allowed smart teams to tactically negate Shaq in high leverage situations.

I remember the Bulls during their second threepeat using the "three headed monster" plan to negate Shaq. They'd rotate between three rather pedestrian centers (Luc Longley, Bill Wennington, and a third who escapes my memory) and bang on Shaq all night. Come the 4th quarter, they'd put Shaq on the line as much as possible, never giving him an easy bucket. With 18 fouls to give between them, and help from forwards like Dennis Rodman (who amazingly occassionally guarded Shaq one on one), they were able to negate his effectiveness. I don't think its a coincidence that no team that depended on Shaquille O'Neil to provide the bulk of their offense has ever one. Putting Shaq on the line in the 4th effectively negates his offensive abilities. He needed a sidekick like Kobe Bryant who could take over in the 4th, because O'Neil never could.

The idea of a theoretical .000/.000/.000 hitter vs. lefties, or even a less extreme version, is the same. He may put up great numbers by crushing right handers, but he is easily countered in key situations. Say Williams was merely league average vs. lefties (I'm not saying he was, but just pretend). If you're playing Williams' team in a key series, wouldn't you, as the manager, be sure to juggle your rotation to get at least one lefty starter in that series? You might even be tempted to call up a leftie from the minors just for this series. And this is even doubly true in the playoff series.

I think this is where today's staticians go wrong. They lose sight of the fact that baseball isn't about scoring more runs than your opponents over the course of a season, its about scoring more runs than your opponent today. The theoreticall 0 line guy, might put up an all time great career line if he dominated righties sufficiently, but a lot of his production would occur in low leverage games or situations. In any tight game or important game, a smart manageer would know how to counter him.

Now, the numbers I have seen in this thread (I haven't had a chance to look at the original) don't seem to point conclusively to Ted having a major weakness vs. lefties. It might be more noticable than some other all-time great players' splits, but I'm not convinced at this point that it's more than a very minor footnote to Ted's career.

[Ubiquitous]

Looking at Shaq and his free throws and then looking at the Bulls and saying he was negated is a bit tricky. Considering that for years people were saying a lot of the same stuff about Jordan. Granted not about free throws, but that he would never win the big one, heck the Pistons bragged about it for a very long time.

fouling Shaq is a lot like employing the shift against Ted. Sure it looks great on paper but it turns out in real life to not have helped all that much. Sure we can all remember a game or two that it worked but that doesn't mean it was a successful gameplan.

[Windy City Fan]

It didn't always work because you can't foul Shaq every time he touches the ball for 4 quarters of a game. Shaq was good enough that often he could put a game out of reach in 3 quarters. Still, in close games it was a pretty effective strategy if properly executed. Anyway, debting Shaq isn't really relevant.

The fact is if Williams could be tactically negated (no evidence so far that he could be) it would be a serious issue.

[Ubiquitous]

Any strategy properly executed in the right situation is effective.

One could say letting Jordan score 60 points in the right situation is an effective plan to win a game. Or letting Barry Bonds hit 4 homers in the right situation can help you win a game.

The point being that the right situation rarely comes up for the best players.

[WJackman]

www.paperofrecord.com is now a free thing. Go and get on. You can search TSN until you run out of energy.

[Ubiquitous]

Every baseball player that ever played could theoretically be stopped. Mr McGraw "negated" Ruth on the world stage twice. Should I look at that and say well if somebody else had McGraw's game plan and the right players in place Ruth would be negated?

Could I say well if I got a couple of Pruetts on my team I could negate Ruth?

[digglahhh]

Every baseball player that ever played could theoretically be stopped. Mr McGraw "negated" Ruth on the world stage twice. Should I look at that and say well if somebody else had McGraw's game plan and the right players in place Ruth would be negated?

Could I say well if I got a couple of Pruetts on my team I could negate Ruth?

This is a little hyperbolic, no?

Plus, if you have to deviate from your general strategy or team-building model in order to accommodate having to deal with one guy- isn't that a sign of that guy's greatness, in its own way?

Like, if a team were to sign Joe McEwing, who is undeserving of a major league roster spot, because they were in a division with Randy Johnson and though that Super Joe could hit him. Wouldn't it be evidence of Johnson's greatness that other teams were making organizational decisions and giving out roster spots to players soley because those guys might have the potential to somewhat neutralize The Unit? I might add, that adding Joe Mac, would be the general detriment of the team as a whole, but the potential of stopping Johnson was so important and rare that possessing that individual ability makes you worthy (in the eyes of some) of a big league roster spot...

That is, however, a far cry from a player being neutralized by a generic and common feature of the game itself like lefty pitching, free throw shooting or the Zone Blitz.

[Tango Tiger]

If Williams could be negated, then they would have thrown more lefties at him. It's fine to say that, theoretically, his weaknesses can be exploited. But, it'll still show up in the overall numbers. RJ for example is heavily exploited by having only RHH thrown at him. And this shows up in his overall numbers, as his performance, remarkably, could have been better if they let him see more than just 12% LHH.

If Shaq could be exploited, and I'm sure they did, then it did show up in his overall numbers. This is the whole point.

We are not talking about how we can neutralize someone in a single game or series, but how well did they neutralize them (exploited their alleged weakness) over 2000 games.

Gretzky is not physical, and Gordie Howe is super physical. Being physical is important in the NHL. That doesn't preclude 99 from being the greatest ever, even with such a huge and glaring hole. Sure, he can be neutralized, with such a huge hole. Theoretically. He proved everyone wrong by age 19. These holes in a player's game, no matter how big, could be overcome, if a player has other sets of attributes to compensate.

Can David Eckstein, in his prime, have been considered a great fielding SS, even if he can't throw?

***

The well-rounded argument would prevent Ted Williams from being considered the greatest baseball player ever. No one here has still explained to me how he can then be considered the second (or 10th or 50th) greatest ever, under the "well-rounded" argument.

***

This is the entire basis of this 4 or 5 page thread: that a great well-rounded "x" can be considered greater than an otherwise equal but less-well-rounded "x" (where "x" is a hitter, player, hockey player, basketball player, blocker, kicker, or anything else you want to consider), because of the theoretical possibility that in a short series, such a non-rounded player can be more exploited than the well-rounded one.

Somewhere, Jim Abbott is still laughing at that high school coach.

[Ubiquitous]

Tango pretty much sums it up for me in his first section of his last post.

Which is basically what I have been trying to say in the last couple of posts.

[Windy City Fan]

I do think Tango is bringing up a valid point here. If Ted Williams did have a major weakness against lefties, surely managers of his era would've done everything they can to exploit it. We have no record of them doing so. This means either A) Ted wasn't exceptionally weak against lefties or B) the managers of the day were too slow, ignorant, backwards (fill in your own phrase) to grasp this. I don't find B to be very likely.


You have to say "he was exploited 25% of the time, but he was lucky that he played so much in Fenway, that they dared not put a LHP there.. they were more scared of Fenway than of Ted".

Interesting possibility, if Ted was in fact fatally flawed against lefties. Still have no hard evidence of that.


It's very possible that Ted, being lefthanded, counterattacked that hole, by forcing the opposing manager to bring in a RHP to counterattack Fenway, and Ted turned his deficiency (if he so had one) into a strength.

You lost me here, Tango.

[digglahhh]

It's very possible that Ted, being lefthanded, counterattacked that hole, by forcing the opposing manager to bring in a RHP to counterattack Fenway, and Ted turned his deficiency (if he so had one) into a strength.

But, that can't be attributed to Ted himself. It is just coincidental if he happened to benefit from his splits as they played into the strategies other managers would use in consideration of Fenway and the rest of Boston's line-up.

He may have gotten a lot out of it, but you can't give him credit for "turning his (alleged) deficiency into a strength."

[Tango Tiger]

What if RJ pitched at Fenway his whole career? (92 innings, 5.01 ERA, 34 XBH out of 74 hits!) He may never have been the pitcher he was.

The important point is not that I dismiss or disagree with anyone. It simply is: make your case beyond "I like well-rounded because it's less risky".

If RJ was a career Fenway pitcher, that's a weakness that would have really been exploited. Is that his fault? It's pure circumstance. But, you can argue it either way. But the arguments need to be made, not asserted.

[digglahhh]

What if RJ pitched at Fenway his whole career? (92 innings, 5.01 ERA, 34 XBH out of 74 hits!) He may never have been the pitcher he was.

The important point is not that I dismiss or disagree with anyone. It simply is: make your case beyond "I like well-rounded because it's less risky".

If RJ was a career Fenway pitcher, that's a weakness that would have really been exploited. Is that his fault? It's pure circumstance. But, you can argue it either way. But the arguments need to be made, not asserted.

Is this supposed to be directed at my last post about "turning the weakness into a strength?"

Ted was a dominant lefty. If his splits were more drastic than Ruth's it may be correct to say that Ted Williams against a righty was the most dominant force in the history of baseball.

That is Ted's doing.

But...

If other managers were reluctant to pitch LHPs against Boston (to try to neutralize Thumper) in Fenway BECAUSE the majority of the rest of the team were right handed hitters that utilized a park geared towards right handed power hitters- that is not attributable to Ted.

Ted is not the one determining the other managers' strategies, in fact they are playing to it for reasons other than Ted.

So maybe Boston sees more righties than normal, so Ted is able to benefit from his dominance against righties more than, say Stan Musial, because Musial's line-up and ballpark don't scare other managers away from using lefties.

Ted was great against righties, even better than he was overall, and it may be the case that Ted got to face more righties than normal- but that wasn't because of anything he did... He didn't turn the deficiency into a strength. Tangential considerations made it a very risky overall proposition to focus on neutralizing Williams because doing so would play into the hands of the rest of the team.

I get the point, and it is worthy to note that things turned out like that.

But, the Randy Johnson analogy is something else. It is Randy who is throwing those pitches. Theoretically, well detailed park factor analysis should pick something like that up and Johnson could be at least somewhat mitigated by those numbers. But Ted, himself, is not causing other teams to be reluctant to bring in righties, rather the complete opposite...

[csh19792001]

www.paperofrecord.com is now a free thing. Go and get on. You can search TSN until you run out of energy.

Thanks! That along with Ubi's resource will help me mitigate the loss of Proquest. How's the new biography coming, Dick? Long time no see, so I'm sure it takes up endless hours.... what have been your primary means of research?

[csh19792001]

It didn't always work because you can't foul Shaq every time he touches the ball for 4 quarters of a game. Shaq was good enough that often he could put a game out of reach in 3 quarters. Still, in close games it was a pretty effective strategy if properly executed. Anyway, debting Shaq isn't really relevant.

The fact is if Williams could be tactically negated (no evidence so far that he could be) it would be a serious issue.

This, and your last post were particularly cogent and incisive. Both basically articulates what several of us have been trying to express for weeks regarding Williams versus left handed pitching. :clapping

You say there is no evidence, however, there is certainly evidence so far on this issue. Not that he could be "tactically negated", but it does suggest that he was significantly worse against LHP than RHP, at least in the years in question, and even in comparison to the AVERAGE platoon split. SABR Matt (sans source) said that according to his database, the historical OPS platoon split is 109 points. For over half of Ted's career (5000+ plate appearances) his platoon OPS split is 240 (.895 vs. 1.135). That's 240 points.



Category AB H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO BA OBA SA
Total 4005 1339 261 27 259 895 1048 383 .334 .473 .607
vs left 928 276 58 3 33 174 193 127 .297 .422 .473
vs right 3077 1063 203 24 226 721 855 256 .345 .488 .647

Career 7706 2654 525 71 521 1839 2019 709 .344 .482 .634


I haven't found a truly great hitter with this kind of disparity in production, let alone a strong candidate for greatest hitter ever that ever lived....

[WJackman]

It's going very well. I have almost 350 boxscores documented for Jackman. I project him at 800 career wins, 200 shutouts and 250 games with 10 or more strikeouts. Doing mainly microfilm research. Right now it is Rhode Island papers at URI Kingston library.

[WJackman]

And, I think, about 120 home runs as a batter.

[Tango Tiger]

Isn't this the data that I already proved as being selectively sampled? Why are we going in circles?

He has 709 strikeouts, and he's .000/.000/.000 in those 709 PA, which comprises of 10% of his PA. I don't care if you give me 75% of his PA, if those PA are selectively sampled.

Show me how his teammates did in those same games. That's the better baseline.

[Tango Tiger]

The data here shows what happens when you selectively sample:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/181

LHH v LHP in complete games: .182/.231/.249

The top hitters were Mattingly and Junior, and they were way below an overall MLB average line.

[TonyK]

If a paper like that existed it would be a great boon in this research.

I think it was the Boston Record American that used a batter by batter result in the 1960's. Keep in mind that there was more than one edition of daily newspapers. One edition was specifically targeted towards baseball fans and we all knew at what time it came out. I often arrived at the corner drug store minutes after the newspaper truck pulled away.

Some editions actually had all nine innings (or less than 9 if the game was still not over by then) batter by batter. You wouldn't get a boxscore as there wasn't time for them to print it for that edition. You could see who the other team's pitchers were and figure out their pitching line that way. It would be a snap to find Ted's results vs LHP except we don't know which edition was microfilmed.

[538280]

This was about Ted as a hitter only and his skills as a [i]hitter only[/i
More specifically, his skills against lefties and against righties. Throughout history, there have been many players who hit lefties as well, or nearly as well as righties; hitters that have not requested to be called the greatest hitter ever, and frankly, have no business anywhere near that discussion.

True. There have also been players in history who have less weaknesses than Babe Ruth (are decent hitters, good enough for that not to be called a weakness, and very good fielders and runners.) Those players have not requested to be called the best player ever and don't belong anywhere near that discussion either. Perhaps an example of a player like this could be Torii Hunter.


If it's found that Williams was weak against lefties, then in terms of his skill as a hitter, that is a weakness. I don't consider him the greatest hitter ever anyway, but if I did, and I didn't base that on value but on how good he actually was in certain situations and how he would handle being platooned against...then it might influence my opinion.

Again, I don't see how you calling his hitting ability against lefites a weakneses any different than calling Ruth's fielding a weakness. Ruth was an above average, solid fielder. Just like Williams was an above average, solid hitter against lefties. But as you say they weren't all time great in those two categories. So if you're going to consider how he hit against lefties a weakness for Ted isn't it logical to consider Ruth's fielding as a weakness?


Now, the huge leap was made to Ruth as an overall player. A much more complicated issue. Many things go into making up an overall player.

Many things also go into making up the overall picture of a guy as a hitter. I don't see how it's any different for overall players.


Much more complex than just judging the skills of a hitter as they relate to lefty/righty matchup.

You're not evaluating hitters as they relate to the lefty/righty matchup. You're not just saying Williams wasn't as great against LHP as RHP and leaving it at that. You're also saying that this is a huge hole in his case as the greatest hitter ever.


The key point is that no player in the history of the game has had a flawless all around game and there are always weaknesses (because there are so many things to judge) no matter who we are talking about.

Another point, just as key, that has been made is that similar to overall players there is no totally perfect hitter who excels to the level of an all time great against all types of pitching, in all situations, etc. You speak above as if there is a perfect hitter all around when there is not.


The main issues are, how weak are those weaknesses, in what areas of the game do they occur, and do other more important aspects of their game make-up for them. So the comparison with Ruth as an overall player, and with Williams hitting ability is flawed. Makes no sense. It's a complete reach.

Sorry, I fail to see how it is a complete reach. You're saying Williams can't be the greatest hitter ever because he has somewhat of a weakness in a selected area. I'm saying Ruth can't be the best ever because he has somewhat of a weakness in a selected area. No difference. Just because one is dealing with just hitting and one is dealing with overall playing does not make a difference. They are still both things (hitter, overall player) which have many components and areas which make up the total picture. You're dead wrong if you say that there aren't a lot of isolated things which go into making a great hitter. You're using hititing against LHP as an example yourself.


Again, many lesser hitters haven't had the same problem with lefty/righty matchups, and no player in the history of the game has been completely flawless as an overall player.

Many lesser players to Ruth have also had better fielding skills. Both as a hitter only and an overall player can be sorted into various categores where a player can possibly have weaknesses. Let's look at them.

Hitting:
Hitting lefites
Hitting righties
Hitting fastball pitchers
Hitting breaking ball pitchers
Hitting sliders.
Hitting trick pitches (knuckleball, etc.)
Having patience t the plate
Power hitting.
Contact hitting.
Not striking out.

Overall Player
Contact hitting
Power hitting
Patience at the plate
Fielding
Throwing arm
Speed
Baserunning

I'm sure there are more for each but I'm just giving examples. What you are essentially saying with your Williams vs. LHP argument is that Williams can't be the greatest ever because he wasn't unbelieveably great in one of these components (hitting vs. LHP). That logic is nonsensical IMO because it doesn't work that way, it's the total contribution that matters, and you seem to realize that with Ruth. Ruth wasn't among the greatest ever at every one of those components (like Williams being only good, not great at hitting LHP he was only a good, not great fielder).

What it comes down to IMO is that it's the sum of a player's parts and what those combine to make that matters, not that he has a wide breadth of skills or excels in every possible area. This "well roundedness" argument appeals to many because the guys who are well rounded just LOOK so much better. It just SEEMS like they're so much better. With the guy who is well rounded you may say, "Now there's a baseball player!", while with the guy with flaws you wouldn't say the same thing. But this doesn't mean the complete guy is better. You need to combine all the skills, and see what their sum total comes out to if you want to look at what they did for their team.

This is also again going back to what makes a great player to you though and I understand that to you "greatness" may mean something different. I understand totally how to some a guy with a greater breadth of skills is "greater", and I'm not going to dispute that; everyone has their own definition.

[csh19792001]

I'm sure there are more for each but I'm just giving examples. What you are essentially saying with your Williams vs. LHP argument is that Williams can't be the greatest ever because he wasn't unbelieveably great in one of these components (hitting vs. LHP).

This is distorting what Randy is saying. Not that any of this has to do with Babe Ruth as the greatest ever/most well-rounded player ever....but regardless....

For the years we have data, Ted's OPS is 240 points lower against LHP than RHP. That's a VAST differential, yet you phrase it above as "because he wasn't unbelieavably great against lefties". Well, yeah, not only was he not "unbelievably great" against lefties, but for the years in which we have actual hard data, Ted was actually very substantially worse than even the AVERAGE player in terms of platoon splits. Sabr Matt came in with the 109 point platoon differential as the historical precedent. That's a massive disparity.

And he wasn't really a truly great hitter against lefties for the years we have data, period, even when not comparing him to himself. Like I said earlier, he had a line analagous to Al Kaline in terms of average and slugging, with a few more walks thrown in. I wouldn't call Kaline an outstanding hitter, let alone "unbelievably great". How many truly great hitters have you found with a 240 point OPS differential?

And bringing it back to Williams as the greatest hitter ever discussion (the actual impetus for this thread)....

We have no reason to believe currently, given the available evidence, that either Ruth or Cobb had anything remotely close to a platoon disparity such as this one.

[538280]

This is distorting what Randy is saying. Not that any of this has to do with Babe Ruth as the greatest ever/most well-rounded player ever....but regardless....

For the years we have data, Ted's OPS is 240 points lower against LHP than RHP. That's a VAST differential, yet you phrase it above as "because he wasn't unbelieavably great against lefties". Well, yeah, not only was he not "unbelievably great" against lefties, but for the years in which we have actual hard data, Ted was actually very substantially worse than even the AVERAGE player in terms of platoon splits. Sabr Matt came in with the 109 point platoon differential as the historical precedent. That's a massive disparity.

I didn't think this was about the difference between Ted against righties versus him against lefties. He was still a pretty good hitter against lefties, just like Ruth was a pretty good fielder. His hitting against lefties just couldn't live up to the impossibly high standard of his hitting against righties. I don't see how he is made worse against lefties because he was SO great against righties. He was still a good (but not great) hitter against lefties. That's just what I'm saying. It had nothing to do with the platoon differential. I don't understand why he hit lefites has to be compared to how he hit righties either. If you're going to call it a weakness it has to actually be a weakness, not just a weakness compared to a gigantic standard (that standard being Williams vs. RHP).


And he wasn't really a truly great hitter against lefties for the years we have data, period, even when not comparing him to himself. Like I said earlier, he had a line analagous to Al Kaline in terms of average and slugging, with a few more walks thrown in. I wouldn't call Kaline an outstanding hitter, let alone "unbelievably great". How many truly great hitters have you found with a 240 point OPS differential?

He wasn't a truly great hitter against LHP in the years you have data but he was a good one, which is analogous to Ruth as a fielder. That is the point I was making.

[Windy City Fan]

Found the original thread and read it. The data we have now is substantial, but incomplete. From what I've read, it is largely made up from the back half of Williams' career, excluding many of his peak seasons, so it may not be entirely represenative of Williams vs lefties.

A few questions I have for those doing research on this topic:

1) Did the Williams face significantly fewer lefties at home?

If so, this could have a some impact. Players typically get a 5% boost at home (not sure what Williams' park adjusted home OPS+ is compared to his road). If Fenway meant that Williams didn't face many lefties at home, that might depress his numbers a bit by not getting that home boost against lefties. Secondly, this also might depress his overall total chances against lefties. The less a hitter sees left handed pitchers, the harder it is to adjust.

2) I believe Matt has said the historical OPS platoon difference is .109, but what about the league platoon difference in Williams' era?

I suspect it might be larger. Today's game is often overspecialized with subpar pitchers getting roster spots and innings due solely to the notion that a team NEEDS a few left handed relievers for platoon situaitons. Williams and his contemporaries wouldn't have faced a steady parade of lousy lefty relievers, which might make the platoon difference greater in their day. Its also possible, due to this, they didn't face lefties as often, decreasing their chances to accustom their selves to facing left handed pitchers. Also, is that platoon difference Matt stated for all players or just for lefties, who generally have a greater platoon difference since right handed hitters have faced righties on a regular basis since little league.

For those that are arguing that the numbers we do have point to a possible major flaw in Williams' game or at least to his claim to the greatest hitter, what level of a platoon split would be acceptable? Just curious.

[Ubiquitous]

Tango beat me to it on the talking in circles part but I will add the data we do have shows two things clearly. Well three things. One it shows that hitting lefties was not a weakness in the years of the data, two he was a great hitter against lefties in the years we have data, and three when he got old his skills against lefties diminished greatly. The data we have for hitting against lefties makes him one of the best hitters in his day and for our day and for the days before him if that was his only line. The guy has a .950+ OPS against lefties up until 1958. As I have shown in the other thread there are very few left handed hitters better then Ted up until their decline. About the only player I can find that we actually have data for and is better then Ted so far is Barry Bonds. WE have the data for the last 50 years and so far the only guy who is arguably better then Williams in that time frame is Barry Bonds, and that is only with partial data for Ted. We have absolutely no reason to believe that Ted hit lefties poorly in 1942 or 1946 or 1948 or any years in his prime. We already know that Ted hit .429 against lefties in 1941 he had something like a 1.100 OPS that year against lefties.

[digglahhh]

2) I believe Matt has said the historical OPS platoon difference is .109, but what about the league platoon difference in Williams' era?


Also, to be fair, this platoon split should probably be framed in terms of a percentage drop off. Williams has rate stats so much higher than the average player that raw numbers distort the extent of the drop-off.

[538280]

Knew there was a good reason why I was done with this thread. Reading the previous page just confirmed that position. The comparison is whack, plain and simple.

This was about Ted and his hitting. Not about Ruth and him as an overall player. The analogy is completely screwed logically. If you don't see that, then so be it. Hitting as it related to LEFTY/RIGHTY splits ONLY.

Not true. This was not just about how Ted hit lefties or righties. This was about how he had a supposed weakness against LHP and how this was supposed to be a big hole in his case as the greatest hitter ever. The way people were showing this data was not just for the sake of presenting this data but it was for how it related to his case as the greatest ever. Or at least that is the way it was presented.


And then somebody as an overall player. Hmm...keep reachin'. You know judging an overall player requires many things to be looked at.

You're saying the exact same things which I already responded to above. Again, please tell me why hitting is any different. Like as an overall player there are many things to be looked at within the subtitle "hitting", hitting LHP is one of them.


Looking at a plain and simple lefty/righty split isn't nearly as complicated.

Once again, and I also already responded to this same thought, you are not "just looking" at the lefty/righty split for the sake of looking at it. You are looking at it and relating it to his case as the greatest hitter ever.


And who is the player who has been completely flawless in their all around game? Nobody, that's right.

And who is the hitter who has been completely flawless?


But there HAVE been scrubs who did fine against both lefties and righties.

There have also been players nowhere near the discussion of greatest ever who were better fielders than Babe Ruth.


We're talking skills as a hitter, period.

We're talking skills as an overall player, period. Like I said above both hitting and overall player can be split into different talents.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

And who is the hitter who has been completely flawless?


How do you not get this? Nobody is asking for a hitter to be completely flawless, like you are asking for Babe to be completely flawless. This is about one aspect of hitting ONLY. The lefty/righty split. There have been much lesser hitters in history (who didn't request to be called the best ever) who didn't have the troubles Ted did with lefties. This is one skill we are looking at. It is so much different than looking at somebody's all around game. How you don't see the difference is beyond me. Just a joke.

[538280]

Sultan, I absolutely do not get the difference between the situations. Again, if I have interpreted your position properly then you are not just focusing on the lefty/righty split in of itself but are focusing on how it relates to Williams' case as the greatest hitter ever. You are saying that because Williams was only a good, and not great, hitter in one part of hitting (hitting vs. LHP), he can't be the best ever.

Ruth was only good, not great, at part of being an overall player (fielding). This can be looked at the same way as Williams' hitting vs. LHP. By the logic of Williams not being able to be the best ever because he is only good at hitting LHP you could also extend that to say Ruth doesn't have a case as the best overall player because he is also only good at part of the job. I don't agree with that logic at all, but it is the same type logic that is being used regarding Williams.

No need to keep saying it's a joke. Let's keep this on rational terms.

[digglahhh]

The strangely enticing thing about the "splits don't matter argument" is that Ted had such a great proportion of his ABs against RHs.

The worse Ted's splits are against LHP, the more dominating he had to have been vs. RHP to reach his overall level.

The splits might be a chink in Ted's armor, but they also might prove that Ted vs. RHP may have been the single most dominant offensive force in the history of the game- and that could be worth a few bonus points too...

[Ubiquitous]

Here is Ted Williams game by game log in 1942. TEd faced lefty starters a total of 15 times, lefty pitchers racked up 143 innings in Ted's 150 games played. Just a little over 10% of total innings.



Gm DATE TEAM P AB H 1B 2B 3B HR BB K HBP
1 Apr 14 H PHA W R 4 3 2 0 0 1
2 Apr 15 H PHA W R 2 0 0 0 0 0 2
3 Apr 16 H PHA W R 4 3 2 0 0 1
4 Apr 17 A @NYY L R 3 1 1 0 0 0
5 Apr 18 A @NYY W R 4 2 2 0 0 0
6 Apr 19 A @NYY W R 4 0 0 0 0 0
7 Apr 20 H WSH L R 3 0 0 0 0 0
* Apr 22 A @WSH W R 6 2 2 0 0 0
9 Apr 23 A @WSH L R 4 1 1 0 0 0
10 Apr 24 H NYY L R 4 0 0 0 0 0
11 Apr 25 H NYY W L 4 0 0 0 0 0 5 INNINGS 3 pa
12 Apr 26 H NYY L R 3 0 0 0 0 0
13 Apr 28 H DET W R 1 1 1 0 0 0 3 2 INNINGS NO ab
14 Apr 29 H DET L R 2 0 0 0 0
15 Apr 30 H DET W R 4 1 0 0 0 1 3 innings
16 May 1 H SLB L R 5 3 2 0 0 1
17 May 2 H SLB W R 5 3 1 1 0 1
18 May 3 H CLE W L 3 1 1 0 5.3 INNINGS
19 May 4 H CLE W L 3 1 0 0 1 0 4 INNINGS
20 May 5 H CLE W R 5 3 1 1 0 1 1.3 INNINGS hr OFF LEFTY
21 May 6 H CHW W R 4 0 0 0 0 0
22 May 8 A @PHA L R 2 0 0 0 0 0
23 May 10 A @PHA L R 4 0 0 0 0 0
24 A @PHA L R 5 1 0 0 0 1
25 May 13 A @CHW L R 4 0 0 0 0 0
26 May 14 A @SLB L R 2 1 1 0 0 0
27 May 16 A @SLB W R 4 2 1 0 0 1
28 May 17 A @DET L R 3 2 1 0 1 0
29 May 18 A @DET W R 3 2 2 0 0 0
30 May 19 A @DET L L 4 0 0 0 0 0 CG
31 May 21 A @CLE W R 5 3 2 0 0 1 5 INNINGS
32 May 23 H PHA L R 4 1 0 0 0 1
33 May 24 H PHA L R 2 1 0 0 0 1
34 H PHA W R 3 0 0 0 0 0
35 May 25 A @NYY L R 4 1 1 0 0 0
36 May 26 A @NYY L R 3 1 0 0 0 1
37 May 27 A @WSH W R 5 2 2 0 0 0
38 May 28 A @WSH L R 3 2 2 0 0 0
39 May 29 A @PHA W R 4 3 1 0 0 2 1
40 May 30 A @PHA W R 3 1 1 0 0 0 3.3 INNING
41 A @PHA L R 4 1 0 0 0 1
42 May 31 H WSH W R 2 2 2 0 0 0 3
43 H WSH W R 3 1 1 0 0 0
44 Jun 2 H CLE L R 4 1 1 0 0 0
45 Jun 4 H CLE L R 4 0 0 0 0 0
46 Jun 5 H CHW W R 4 1 0 0 1 0
47 Jun 6 H CHW L R 2 0 0 0 0 0
48 Jun 7 H CHW W R 3 1 1 0 0 0
49 H CHW W R 3 1 0 1 0 0 1 INNING
50 Jun 9 H SLB W R 1 0 0 0 0 0
51 Jun 10 H SLB W R 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 INNINGS
52 Jun 11 H SLB W R 4 3 3 0 0 0 1 0 .6 INNINGS IBB BY LEFTY
53 Jun 13 H DET W R 5 3 3 0 0 0 1.3 INNINGS 0/1 LEFT
54 Jun 14 H DET W R 2 1 0 1 0 0
55 H DET W R 4 2 1 1 0 0
56 Jun 16 A @SLB W R 3 0 0 0 0 0 3.6 ININGS
57 Jun 17 A @SLB L R 3 0 0 0 0 0
58 Jun 19 A @CHW W L 1 0 0 0 0 0 CG
59 Jun 21 A @CHW L R 3 0 0 0 0 0
60 A @CHW W R 5 2 2 0 0 0
61 Jun 23 A @DET W R 4 1 0 0 0 1
62 Jun 24 A @DET W R 4 3 1 1 0 1
63 Jun 25 A @DET L R 3 1 1 0 0 0
64 Jun 26 A @CLE W R 2 0 0 0 0 0
65 Jun 27 A @CLE W L 4 1 1 0 0 0 5.3 INNINGS
66 Jun 28 A @CLE W R 3 0 0 0 0 0
67 A @CLE L R 3 2 1 1 0 0
68 Jun 30 H WSH W R 5 2 0 1 1 0
69 H WSH W R 4 3 2 1 0 0
70 Jul 1 H WSH W R 3 1 1 0 0 0
71 H WSH W R 2 1 0 1 0 0
72 Jul 3 H NYY L R 4 2 0 2 0 0
73 Jul 4 H NYY L R 2 0 0 0 0 0
74 H NYY W R 4 3 1 1 0 1
75 Jul 5 A @WSH L R 4 2 2 0 0 0
76 A @WSH W R 4 2 2 0 0 0
77 Jul 9 H DET W L 5 1 1 0 0 0 CG BUNT
78 Jul 10 H DET W R 3 1 0 1 0 0 6 INNINGS
79 Jul 12 H SLB L R 3 0 0 0 0 0
80 H SLB L R 3 2 1 1 0 0 1.6 INNINGS
81 Jul 14 H SLB L R 4 0 0 0 0 0 2
82 Jul 15 H CHW W L 5 2 2 0 0 0 CG
83 H CHW L R 5 2 1 0 0 1
84 Jul 16 H CHW L R 2 0 0 0 0 0
85 Jul 17 H CHW W R 5 1 1 0 0 0
86 Jul 19 H CLE L - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
87 H CLE L - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
88 Jul 21 A @CHW L R 4 3 3 0 0 0
89 Jul 22 A @CHW L R 3 1 1 0 0 0
90 Jul 23 A @CHW W R 3 0 0 0 0 0
91 Jul 24 A @SLB W R 4 1 1 0 0 0 4 INNINGS
92 A @SLB L R 3 3 1 2 0 0
93 Jul 25 A @SLB W R 4 2 1 1 0 0 1.6 INNING
94 Jul 26 A @SLB L R 4 2 1 0 0 1
95 A @SLB L L 2 2 1 0 0 1 6 INNINGS
96 Jul 27 A @CLE W L 4 2 1 1 0 0 8 INNINGS
97 Jul 28 A @CLE W R 3 0 0 0 0 0
98 Jul 29 A @CLE L L 3 1 1 0 0 0 6.6 INNINGS
99 Jul 30 A @CLE L R 3 1 0 0 0 1
100 Jul 31 A @DET W R 5 2 1 0 0 1 1 INNNING
101 Aug 1 A @DET W L 5 1 1 0 0 0 2.3 INNINGS
102 Aug 2 A @DET L R 4 1 1 0 0 0
103 A @DET L R 4 1 0 0 0 1
104 Aug 4 H PHA L R 1 0 0 0 0 0
105 Aug 5 H PHA W R 5 1 1 0 0 0
106 Aug 6 H PHA W R 3 0 0 0 0 0
107 Aug 10 A @WSH L R 3 1 0 1 0 0
108 A @WSH L R 2 2 0 2 0 0
109 Aug 11 A @NYY W R 3 0 0 0 0 0
110 Aug 12 A @NYY L R 4 2 2 0 0 0
111 Aug 15 H WSH W R 3 2 1 0 0 1
112 H WSH W R 4 2 1 1 0 0
113 Aug 16 H WSH W R 3 3 2 1 0 0
114 H WSH W R 3 1 0 1 0 0
115 Aug 18 H NYY W R 5 2 1 1 0 0
116 Aug 19 H NYY W R 3 1 0 0 0 1
117 H NYY L R 4 0 0 0 0 0
118 Aug 20 H NYY W R 3 2 2 0 0 0 1.3 INNINGS
119 Aug 21 A @PHA W R 3 1 0 0 1 0
120 Aug 22 A @PHA W R 4 2 1 1 0 0
121 A @PHA W R 4 0 0 0 0 0
122 Aug 23 A @PHA W R 2 1 1 0 0 0
123 A @PHA W R 5 0 0 0 0 0
124 Aug 25 H CLE W R 4 0 0 0 0 0
125 H CLE W R 4 0 0 0 0 0 2 INNINGS
126 Aug 26 H CLE W R 3 2 1 1 0 0 .6 innings
127 Aug 27 H CLE L R 4 2 1 0 0 1
128 Aug 28 H CHW W R 3 1 0 1 0 0
129 Aug 29 H CHW W R 4 0 0 0 0 0
130 Aug 30 H SLB L R 4 2 2 0 0 0
131 H SLB W R 5 3 3 0 0 0 3 INNINGS
132 Aug 31 H SLB W R 4 2 1 1 0 0 3 INNINGS
133 Sep 2 H DET W R 4 3 2 0 0 1
134 H DET W R 4 2 1 1 0 0
135 Sep 3 H DET W L 3 1 1 0 0 0 6.6 INNINGS 125
136 Sep 5 H PHA L R 3 1 0 0 0 1
137 Sep 6 H PHA W R 4 1 0 0 0 1
138 Sep 7 A @WSH W R 3 2 2 0 0 0
139 Sep 8 A @WSH L R 4 1 0 1 0 0
140 Sep 10 A @DET L L 4 1 0 0 0 1 8 INNINGS
141 Sep 11 A @CLE W R 3 2 2 0 0 0
142 Sep 12 A @CLE W R 4 3 2 1 0 0
143 Sep 13 A @CHW W R 3 1 0 0 0 1
144 A @CHW W R 2 1 1 0 0 0 2 INNINGS
145 Sep 14 A @CHW L R 3 0 0 0 0 0
146 Sep 16 A @SLB L R 2 1 1 0 0 0
147 Sep 17 A @SLB W R 3 2 0 1 0 1 2 INNINGS
148 Sep 19 A @NYY W R 2 1 0 0 0 1
149 Sep 20 A @NYY L R 3 2 1 0 0 1 3 INNINGS
150 A @NYY W R 3 1 1 0 0 0
151 Sep 21 A @NYY W R 5 1 0 0 0 1
152 Sep 27 H NYY W L 3 1 1 0 0 0 3 INNINGS 143
15 522 186 111 34 5 36 10 2 338 0.356 0.648
APRIL 52 14 11 0 0 3 23 0.269 0.442
MAY 101 38 22 2 2 12 80 0.376 0.792
JUNE 86 28 17 7 2 2 45 0.326 0.523
JULY 103 40 24 10 0 6 68 0.388 0.660
AUGUST 115 38 22 11 1 4 63 0.330 0.548
SEPTEMB 65 28 15 4 0 9 59 0.431 0.908

[Ubiquitous]

I have fixed all known errors on Ted's 1942 Game log. As far as I know that is the only 1942 game log for Ted posted on the internet. So far we have on the net Ted's 1939-1942 seasons and his 1957-1960 seasons. I also have a partial season for his 1947 season.

[four tool]

Where are Ted's day by day 1939-1942 seasons posted?

[Appling]

I have fixed all known errors on Ted's 1942 Game log. As far as I know that is the only 1942 game log for Ted posted on the internet. So far we have on the net Ted's 1939-1942 seasons and his 1957-1960 seasons. I also have a partial season for his 1947 season.
Thank you for the research work you have already shared.

Next item of special interest to me is the 1949 season -- to compare Ted Williams with George Kell. That season was one of the last to not credit the hitter with a SF when he drives in a run with a long fly out. Is it possible that, had that season been played under today's rules, Ted might have won the AL Batting Crown in 1949 (along with an unprecedented THIRD Triple-Crown season)? Ted did have 100 more RBI than Kell in 1949 but I don't know how many of those RBI came from fly outs with less than two out.

If SFs were allowed that year, and if Ted had just one more Sac Fly than George Kell, Ted would have won that 1949 AL batting title.

[Ubiquitous]

Thank you for the research work you have already shared.

Next item of special interest to me is the 1949 season -- to compare Ted Williams with George Kell. That season was one of the last to not credit the hitter with a SF when he drives in a run with a long fly out. Is it possible that, had that season been played under today's rules, Ted might have won the AL Batting Crown in 1949 (along with an unprecedented THIRD Triple-Crown season)? Ted did have 100 more RBI than Kell in 1949 but I don't know how many of those RBI came from fly outs with less than two out.

If SFs were allowed that year, and if Ted had just one more Sac Fly than George Kell, Ted would have won that 1949 AL batting title.

I am currently working on the 1946 season, I am about half way through it. After that I'll probably finish the 1948 seasons of which I've also got about half of the data already (It wast the 1948 season and not the 1947 like I said previously).

[Ubiquitous]

Here is the 1946 season, and as far as I know it has no errors in it.



Gm m Opp PH AB H 1B 2B 3B HR BB K
1 Apr 16 A @WSH W R 5 1 0 0 0 1
2 Apr 17 A @WSH W R 3 3 1 2 0 0 2 INNINGS
3 Apr 18 A @WSH W R 4 2 1 0 1 0
4 Apr 20 H PHA W R 2 0 0 0 0 0
5 Apr 21 H PHA W R 5 2 2 0 0 0 .6 INNINGS
6 H PHA L R 2 0 0 0 0 0
7 Apr 22 H WSH W R 4 2 2 0 0 0
8 Apr 23 H WSH L R 6 2 2 0 0 0
9 Apr 24 H NYY L R 5 1 0 0 1 0 1 INNING
10 Apr 25 H NYY W R 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 INNING
11 Apr 26 A @PHA W R 4 1 1 0 0 0
12 Apr 28 A @PHA W R 4 2 2 0 0 0
13 A @PHA W R 3 2 2 0 0 0
14 Apr 30 H DET W L 3 0 0 0 0 0 CG
15 May 1 H DET W R 3 1 0 1 0 0
16 May 2 H DET W R 5 1 0 0 0 1
17 May 3 H CLE W R 2 2 0 1 0 1
18 May 4 H CLE W R 4 2 0 1 0 1
19 May 6 H SLB W R 4 3 1 2 0 0 3 INNINGS
20 H SLB W R 3 3 3 0 0 0 6.3 INNINGS
21 May 7 H SLB W R 5 3 1 1 0 1
22 May 8 H CHW W R 4 2 2 0 0 0 3 INNINGS
23 May 9 H CHW W L 3 1 1 0 0 0 5 INNINGS
24 May 10 A @NYY W R 3 0 0 0 0 0 3.6 INNINGS
25 May 11 A @NYY L R 3 0 0 0 0 0
26 May 12 A @NYY W R 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 INNING
27 May 14 A @CHW W R 2 0 0 0 0 0
28 May 15 A @CHW L R 2 1 0 0 0 1 1 INNING
29 May 16 A @SLB L R 3 0 0 0 0 0
30 May 18 A @SLB W R 3 2 0 1 0 1 1 INNING
31 May 19 A @DET W R 3 2 1 0 1 0
32 A @DET L L 4 1 1 0 0 0 CG
8 May 21 A @DET W R 5 2 1 1 0 0
34 May 22 A @CLE W R 6 1 0 0 0 1 .6 INNINGS
35 May 23 A @CLE L R 3 0 0 0 0 0
36 May 25 H NYY W R 4 1 1 0 0 0
37 May 26 H NYY W R 3 1 1 0 0 0
38 H NYY L L 3 0 0 0 0 0 CG 7 INNINGS
39 May 29 H PHA W R 4 1 0 1 0 0
40 May 30 H WSH W R 4 1 1 0 0 0 1 INNING
41 H WSH W R 3 1 0 0 0 1
42 Jun 3 H CHW W L 4 0 0 0 0 0 6 INNINGS
43 H CHW W L 2 1 1 0 0 0 8 INNINGS, ALL INININGS AGAINST LEFTIES
44 Jun 4 H SLB W R 4 0 0 0 0 0
45 Jun 5 H SLB - L 5 1 0 1 0 0 5.6 INNINGS
46 Jun 6 H SLB W R 4 3 2 0 0 1 1 INNING
47 Jun 8 H DET W L 3 2 2 0 0 0 1 INNING
48 Jun 9 H DET W R 4 2 1 0 0 1
49 H DET W R 3 1 0 0 0 1
50 Jun 10 H CLE W R 3 1 1 0 0 0
51 Jun 11 H CLE W R 4 2 1 0 0 1 .6 INNINGS
52 Jun 12 H CLE L R 4 3 2 0 0 1
53 Jun 14 A @CHW L R 5 2 0 0 1 1 5.3 INNINGS
54 Jun 15 A @CHW L R 4 3 2 1 0 0
55 Jun 16 A @CHW W L 2 0 0 0 0 0 7 INNINGS
56 A @CHW L L 4 1 0 0 0 0 6 INNINGS
57 Jun 17 A @SLB L R 3 1 0 0 0 0
58 Jun 18 A @SLB L R 4 1 1 0 0 0
59 Jun 20 A @SLB L L 2 0 0 0 0 0 CG
60 Jun 21 A @CLE W R 3 1 0 1 0 0
61 Jun 22 A @CLE L R 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 INNINGS
62 Jun 23 A @CLE W R 4 2 1 1 0 0
63 A @CLE W R 4 1 0 0 0 1
64 Jun 24 A @DET - R 5 3 2 0 0 1
65 Jun 25 A @DET W R 1 0 0 0 0 0
66 Jun 26 A @DET L L 2 1 0 0 0 1 CG
67 A @DET W R 5 2 1 0 0 1
68 Jun 28 H WSH W R 3 1 0 0 0 1
69 Jun 29 H WSH W R 2 2 0 1 1 0
70 Jun 30 H WSH W R 3 1 1 0 0 0
71 H WSH L L 4 0 0 0 0 0 CG
72 Jul 2 A @NYY L R 2 0 0 0 0 0
73 Jul 3 A @NYY L R 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 INNING
74 Jul 4 A @PHA L R 3 1 0 0 0 1
75 A @PHA W R 5 2 1 0 0 1
76 Jul 5 A @PHA W R 2 0 0 0 0 0
77 Jul 6 A @WSH L L 4 0 0 0 0 0 CG
78 Jul 7 A @WSH W R 3 2 1 0 0 1 1.3 INNINGS
79 A @WSH W R 3 2 2 0 0 0
80 Jul 11 H DET W R 4 2 1 1 0 0
81 Jul 12 H DET W R 4 1 1 0 0 0
82 Jul 13 H DET W R 3 0 0 0 0 0
83 Jul 14 H CLE W R 5 4 1 0 0 3
84 H CLE W R 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 INNING
85 Jul 16 H CLE L R 5 2 1 0 1 0
86 Jul 17 H CHW W L 3 1 0 1 0 0 CG
87 H CHW W R 4 1 1 0 0 0
88 Jul 18 H CHW W L 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 innings lone hit off lefty
89 Jul 19 H CHW W R 5 2 1 1 0 0 4.3 INNINGS
90 Jul 20 H SLB L R 2 1 0 1 0 0
91 Jul 21 H SLB W R 4 3 2 1 0 0 2.3 INNINGS
92 H SLB W R 5 4 1 1 1 1 2 INNINGS
93 Jul 23 A @CHW L R 3 0 0 0 0 0
94 Jul 24 A @CHW W R 5 2 2 0 0 0
95 Jul 25 A @CHW L L 5 0 0 0 0 0 8.3 INNINGS
96 Jul 26 A @SLB W R 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 1.6 INNINGS
97 Jul 27 A @SLB W R 2 2 1 1 0 0 4 2.6 INNINGS
98 Jul 28 A @SLB L R 4 0 0 0 0 0
99 A @SLB W R 2 1 0 0 1 0 1 INNING
100 Jul 30 A @CLE W R 3 1 0 0 0 1
101 Jul 31 A @CLE L R 2 0 0 0 0 0
102 Aug 1 A @CLE L R 4 1 0 1 0 0 LEAD OFF
103 Aug 2 A @DET L R 3 1 1 0 0 0
104 Aug 3 A @DET W R 4 1 0 0 0 1
105 Aug 4 A @DET W - 0 0 0 0 0 0
106 Aug 6 H PHA W - 0 0 0 0 0 0
107 Aug 8 H PHA W R 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 116TH WALK
108 H PHA W - 0 0 0 0 0 0
109 Aug 9 A @NYY W R 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 INNINGS
110 Aug 10 A @NYY L R 5 3 1 0 0 2
111 Aug 11 A @NYY W R 2 0 0 0 0 0 1.3 INNINGS
112 A @NYY L L 3 0 0 0 0 0 CG
113 Aug 13 A @PHA W R 5 2 0 2 0 0
114 Aug 14 A @PHA W R 4 1 0 1 0 0
115 Aug 15 A @PHA L R 4 0 0 0 0 0
116 Aug 16 H NYY W R 2 1 1 0 0 0
117 Aug 17 H NYY W R 3 1 0 0 0 1 1 125TH WALK
118 Aug 18 H NYY L R 4 0 0 0 0 0
119 H NYY W L 4 2 1 1 0 0 CG
120 Aug 20 H SLB W R 4 2 2 0 0 0
121 H SLB L R 4 1 0 0 0 1
122 Aug 21 H SLB W R 3 3 3 0 0 0 7 INNINGS 7 INNINGS
123 Aug 22 H CHW L L 4 1 0 1 0 0 7 INNINGS
124 Aug 24 H CHW W R 4 2 2 0 0 0
125 H CHW L L 4 0 0 0 0 0 CG
126 Aug 25 H CLE W R 3 0 0 0 0 0
127 H CLE W R 3 1 1 0 0 0 5 INNINGS
128 Aug 26 H CLE W R 4 2 1 1 0 0 1 INNING
129 Aug 28 H DET L R 4 1 1 0 0 0
130 Aug 29 H DET L R 3 1 0 0 0 1
131 Aug 30 H PHA W R 3 0 0 0 0 0
132 H PHA W R 3 1 1 0 0 0
133 Aug 31 H PHA W R 4 0 0 0 0 0
134 Sep 1 H PHA W R 3 1 0 1 0 0
135 Sep 2 A @NYY W R 3 1 1 0 0 0 1 INNING
136 A @NYY W L 4 1 1 0 0 0 5 INNINGS
137 Sep 4 A @WSH W R 2 0 0 0 0 0
138 Sep 5 A @WSH W R 3 2 2 0 0 0
139 Sep 6 A @WSH L R 3 1 0 0 0 0
140 Sep 7 A @PHA L R 3 1 0 0 0 1
141 Sep 8 A @PHA L R 4 2 1 1 0 0
142 Sep 10 A @DET L R 2 1 0 0 0 1
143 Sep 11 A @DET L R 4 4 3 0 0 1
144 Sep 12 A @CLE L R 4 2 1 1 0 0
145 Sep 13 A @CLE W R 3 1 0 0 0 1
146 Sep 15 A @CHW W L 4 1 1 0 0 0 7 INNINGS
147 A @CHW L - 0 0 0 0 0 0
148 Sep 18 A @SLB W - 0 0 0 0 0 0
149 Sep 19 A @SLB L - 0 0 0 0 0 0
150 Sep 21 A @WSH W R 1 1 0 1 0 0
151 Sep 22 A @WSH W R 4 0 0 0 0 0
152 Sep 24 H NYY W R 2 1 0 1 0 0
153 Sep 25 H NYY W R 3 0 0 0 0 0
154 Sep 27 H WSH W R 3 2 2 0 0 0
155 Sep 28 H WSH L R 3 1 1 0 0 0
156 Sep 29 H WSH L R 2 1 0 0 0 0
514 176 90 36 8 38 9 0
APRIL 52 18 13 2 2 1 0 0
MAY 93 32 14 9 1 8 0 0
JUNE 103 38 18 5 2 11 0 0
JULY 103 36 17 8 3 8 7 0
AUGUST 103 28 15 7 0 6 2 0
SEPT 60 24 13 5 0 4 0 0

[csh19792001]

Except John Olerud can only wish that he was as good as Ted was against lefties.

Ok, maybe not Olerud, but it's not that far off, actually...

So again, what's Ted's actual line against lefties, using the most complete data we have? Not what you think he might have done, but what actually happened. No one has provided anything aside from .297/.422/.473, which, as I said awhile back, is very much like Al Kaline with more walks and less power. Williams played in one of the best parks for LH hitting- including extra base hits- in baseball. His lifetime OBP at Fenway was .497. Kaline also played in a much more defensive era, overall.

As great as the greatest hitter ever against RHP, and many, many strata down from there against LHP. That's what we currently have, based on facts, as far as has been presented here. His OPS differential is also vastly greater than even that of the average player- as deemed by Sabr Matt's database with platoon splits. Ted's differential according to the study published was 240 points, which is very much larger than the historical platoon split of 109 points, and again, that's for the AVERAGE player.

[csh19792001]

So where are we at? From the stats available, what are Ted's rate stats against lefties?

According to the original study, about 5100 plate appearances during his career, Ted's line was .297/.422/.473 against LHP. OPS of .895, and in fact it would be lower if it were park adjusted. That's in the vacinity of guys like Chick Hafey, Mickey Cochrane, Juan Gonzalez, and Indian Bob Johnson lifetime.

Original Post. (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=161295&postcount=1)

If you look at post #1 of the "Ted Williams vs. Left Handed Pitching" thread, you can see where he fits in historically in terms of HR percentage, as well. We do not know his relative # of at bats against LHP for his career total, however, so it might have been that he faced drastically less lefties over the course of his career, leading to his lousy HR% off of LHP. But again, it leads one to wonder (if the AB differential is so drastic) why someone who was purportedly the greatest hitter who ever lived would be regularly benched against LHP in the first place...especially considering the configuration of Fenway, and how it plays out in terms of power hitting for left handed vs. right handed hitters...with right handers enjoying a distinct advantage in homeruns....and taking into account Ted was also a dead pull hitter for the majority of his career.

[Westlake]

So again, what's Ted's actual line against lefties, using the most complete data we have? Not what you think he might have done, but what actually happened. No one has provided anything aside from .297/.422/.473, which, as I said awhile back, is very much like Al Kaline with more walks and less power. Williams played in one of the best parks for LH hitting- including extra base hits- in baseball. His lifetime OBP at Fenway was .497. Kaline also played in a much more defensive era, overall.



I don't understand what makes Fenway such a great place for lefties.

In the splits found on BBRef, his slugging was much better on the road than it was at home.

In the splits I can find for left handed hitters in Fenway...

Slugging Percentage...

Trot Nixon - Career - .464 Home / .492 Road

David Ortiz - 2004 - .587 Home / .621 Road
2005 - .603 Home / .605 Road
2006 - .618 Home / .653 Road

Johnny Damon - 2002 - .426 Home / .458 Road
2003 - .425 Home / .383 Home
2004 - .479 Home / .475 Road
2005 - .440 Home / .438 Road


Difference in Fenway dimensions since Williams played?

According to baseball-almanac...

Down the left field line has been moved IN 5 feet, and left center is the exact same distance.

I'm open to other explanations, Chris.

[csh19792001]

I'm open to other explanations, Chris.

They actually built a bullpen for Williams to bring the RF wall closer (named "Williamsburg"), in the hopes it would augment his power totals. The OF wall was brought in 23 feet, just for Ted in 1940.

Ted Williams, Career:
Home: .361/.497/.652
Road: .328/.468/.615

Not a huge discrepancy, but clearly he did better there, even beyond what is expected of a player at their home park. Fenway has always been one of the best parks in all of baseball for BA. It's usually up there in SLG and OBP as well. It affords an enormous advantage to right handed hitters, less of an advantage to lefties (yet still a big advantage over the average park). That's ancillary to this discussion, though. The point is that beyond the park advantages, for the years we have data, Williams was a hitter with a good average, a very good OBP, and a pretty weak slugging percentage against all left handed pitching. He was awful against LHP late in his career. For a guy who is considered the greatest who ever lived, presumably we'd expect/hope that he would not have such a glaring weakness against left handed pitching. If, over the course of his career he was vastly less productive against left handed pitching, I think his case as the greatest hitter who ever lived is destroyed. The greatest ever wouldn't be able to be neutalized by being platooned to death; they would be at least great- if not alltime great- against all pitching.

We're talking about the disparity in production here, which is vast according to the most current platoon data. In terms of OPS, he'd be second only to Babe Ruth alltime in terms of OPS....yet in the neighborhood of Bill Terry, Mickey Cochrane, Hal Trotsky, Chick Hafey, Willie Stargell, and Fred McGriff against left handed pitching.

Again, as others have noted, we're working off of incomplete information, but it's the best we have at the moment.

[Windy City Fan]

For me at leat, the incompleteness of this data holds me back from making any final conclusions based on it. Take out Ted's last few decline years and his line improves. I have a feeling those decline years are dragging down our limited data to levels below Ted's actual production. Also, one reasn that makes me skeptical is that we have references from Ted's contemparies that he struggled against lefties. Given the lengths managers went to with the shift to neutralize Williams, I would think any significant weakness against lefties would have been noted and utilized, and it wasn't. The data we have is interesting, but ultimately unconclusive.

[digglahhh]

Except John Olerud can only wish that he was as good as Ted was against lefties.

I meant Olerud's overall numbers, which are still not exactly as good as Ted's against lefties, but it wasn't that bad of a top of the head choice.

I know it was a bad comparison, Ted didn't even wear a helmet at the PLATE...

[digglahhh]

In fairness, Chris, we now know his '41 season numbers and Ubiq put together the log for '42.

I don't know if any of those ABs were "double counted" because we don't know which ABs were in the original sample. But we do know that the original sample consisted mostly of his later career. It is reasonable to assume that the new data offered by James West from the '41 season and Ubiq's game by game log push his numbers up from the original line we had.

Also, I maintain that we should loop at the platoon differential as a percentage instead of raw number, since Ted's raw numbers are so much higher than the average player.

I don't know how big a deal this data might be in the total scheme of things, I'm thinking it is not as big a deal to me as it is to you. But, I CAN NOT ignore the greatest hitter of all time becoming nothing resembling the greatest hitter of all time against lefties.

[Ubiquitous]

Geez CSH I think you purposefully ignore loads of data and keep on holding on to some career numbers as if your life depends on it. The numbers I keep mentioning are not made up numbers. WE know that Ted Williams through 1957 with the data we have batted .330. That isn't made up. We know what the data says for Ted Williams up through 1957. To me it is pretty obvious that what came after 1957 was totally different then what came before. Lumping the two and calling that Ted's typical line is false.


Secondly we have Ted's home/away splits and they are not outrageous. Something like 5% better. WE also have a lot of data that shows right handed hitters are the ones that make Fenway park look like a hitters paradise. During Ted's hayday the park generally inflated scoring from about 8 to 16% compared to road games. I wrote a post on it once, either in this thread or the other, I forget I'm doing this off the top of my head. So how much of that 5% is the park and how much of it is because it is simply Ted's home park?

[csh19792001]

But, I CAN NOT ignore the greatest hitter of all time becoming nothing resembling the greatest hitter of all time against lefties.

What would his differential (or career line) have to be against LHP for you to say that it really decimates his case as the greatest who ever lived? In which case, would Ruth be your pick?

We have the complete 41' and 42' data? When you add in both his RHP and LHP performances, how does that dovetail with the existing data?

Can you explain why the percentage differential would be applicable to Ted, but not other greats? Or are you just contrasting Ted with the average hitter?

[csh19792001]

The numbers I keep mentioning are not made up numbers. WE know that Ted Williams through 1957 with the data we have batted .330. That isn't made up. We know what the data says for Ted Williams up through 1957.


Where, exactly, did you get his full platoon splits through 1957??? What were his OBP/SLG info. What's your source? I'm not ignoring anything; you've yet to show the information in full. I'm not here that much, so maybe I missed the posts where you flushed everything out....all I've seen are your estimates, and the 41' splits provided by James West.

[Ubiquitous]

We can't add the 1942 season because we would probably be double counting some at bats. WE only have two options. WE can either find people who have the data, they exist but whether or not they want to share is another story. For instance I'm pretty sure Pete Palmer has all data on Ted Williams that we need, there is a couple of other published authors that probably have the data as well but again they haven't published that data. We can know the name of every pitcher Ted homered off of and when and we also know how many hits, at bats, and homers he had in each month of each year of his career. We also know exactly how well he did in each stadium and against that team (home/away) for each year. So I'm pretty sure that pitching hand data exists but just hasn't been put out there for us.

Only recently has every single Ty Cobb at bat been put in excel format, so I am hoping that one day they will do the same for Babe and Ted.

The other option is to build the database yourself. I am currently attempting this. Ted basically has 17 seasons of data, I currently have game logs for 9.5 of those seasons. From there hopefully I'll be able to gain access to more detailed newspaper accounts for those games in which a lefty appeared and then get those at bats counted.

[JamesWest]

The other option is to build the database yourself. I am currently attempting this. Ted basically has 17 seasons of data, I currently have game logs for 9.5 of those seasons. From there hopefully I'll be able to gain access to more detailed newspaper accounts for those games in which a lefty appeared and then get those at bats counted.

The Last .400 Hitter has a day by day listing of Williams' minor league career with San Diego and Minneapolis and his day by day for 1939, 1940 and 1941. As long the creators are given the proper credit, those could probably be formatted for this site. The Sporting News would likely be the best place to start for the other seasons.

[Ubiquitous]

Where, exactly, did you get his full platoon splits through 1957??? What were his OBP/SLG info. What's your source? I'm not ignoring anything; you've yet to show the information in full. I'm not here that much, so maybe I missed the posts where you flushed everything out....all I've seen are your estimates, and the 41' splits provided by James West.

I have explained this to you several times now.

The Dave Pinto data contains every single PA from 1957 through 1960 in it. I know this because I asked Dave Smith and he told me so. Therefore we can subtract those years data, (which we have thanks to Retrosheet) from the totals given to us by Pinto to form a pre-1958 line. I have shown you what that line is numerous times. Now then we also know that no PA's from 1939-1941 are in that data. So we can then add that data once we know it into the data and reconfigure the stats. We know exactly how many at bats, hits, walks, and homers Ted had against lefties in 1941. So we can with great accuracy figure out Ted's overall batting average and OBP. Ted's SLG is a little dicey but due to CG's and some of the data I can get it reasonably accurate for that year.

Now I also have Ted's 1939 and 1940 game log but I haven't looked at pitching hand for it yet .

[Ubiquitous]

The Last .400 Hitter has a day by day listing of Williams' minor league career with San Diego and Minneapolis and his day by day for 1939, 1940 and 1941. As long the creators are given the proper credit, those could probably be formatted for this site. The Sporting News would likely be the best place to start for the other seasons.


Yeah I have that book and I'll be using that data. I saw that Pete Palmer and another copyrighted the data. I'm not even sure that is enforceable though. As for the sporting news that is what I am using now to rebuild the game log. My library doesn't have access to ProQuest historical and unfortunately my IP isn't one of the registered IP's for home use of the newspaperarchive.com. So I have a friend who is signing up at his local library and hopefully soon I'll have home access when I get ahold of that library card. I think that library has access to the Newsbank, NYTimes, and Chicago Tribune.

I went to my library the other day and was not impressed with newspaperarchive.com they don't have any of the Boston newspapers in it. The closest bening a Lowell newspaper.

[csh19792001]

WE can either find people who have the data, they exist but whether or not they want to share is another story.

So you don't actually have the information, and have been estimating based on what you think it is likely Ted would have done had the early career splits been there. That's all I've been wondering- I thought perhaps you might have access to a lot more than I do- I noticed, from your recent historical pieces, that you've obviously been doing a great deal of empirical research on Ted specifically.

So if you don't have the information yet, but it does exist. I'd love to collaborate on some kind of project involving Ted's matchups and detailed career splits. Same for Ruth.



Only recently has every single Ty Cobb at bat been put in excel format, so I am hoping that one day they will do the same for Babe and Ted.


Who put every Cobb at bat in Excel?

Jim:
How much do the PBP box scores from TSN cost per season? Do they have all the seasons, all the way back?

[Ubiquitous]

So you don't actually have the information, and have been estimating based on what you think it is likely Ted would have done had the early career splits been there. That's all I've been wondering- I thought perhaps you might have access to a lot more than I do- I noticed, from your recent historical pieces, that you've obviously been doing a great deal of empirical research on Ted specifically.

So if you don't have the information yet, but it does exist. I'd love to collaborate on some kind of project involving Ted's matchups and detailed career splits. Same for Ruth.


In terms of RHP/LHP the only extensive data I have is the data provide by Dave Smith to David Pinto that was presented as a final tally. Pinto has not returned my email on that data.
But like I said above we can break that data down since we know exactly what Ted did from 1957 to 1960, and we know that data is in the Pinto Data.

I would love any and all help. The best help anyone can give me is to take a look at the game logs I have provided and find out exactly what PA Ted had in games that a lefty appeared in. In each game log I have been posting I have also been posting exactly how many innings a lefty pitcher pitched in that game. That way the next guy down the line or myself will only have to extensively research a handful of games for each season instead of 150 games or so to get the platoon splits.



Who put every Cobb at bat in Excel?


The guys name is McCotter I believe.
J


im:
How much do the PBP box scores from TSN cost per season? Do they have all the seasons, all the way back?

They are free and yes they go all the way back to 1886 I believe, that is if the box scores are readable. A lot of the stuff before 1920 is unreadable.

[csh19792001]

In terms of RHP/LHP the only extensive data I have is the data provide by Dave Smith to David Pinto that was presented as a final tally. Pinto has not returned my email on that data.
But like I said above we can break that data down since we know exactly what Ted did from 1957 to 1960, and we know that data is in the Pinto Data.

I would love any and all help. The best help anyone can give me is to take a look at the game logs I have provided and find out exactly what PA Ted had in games that a lefty appeared in. In each game log I have been posting I have also been posting exactly how many innings a lefty pitcher pitched in that game. That way the next guy down the line or myself will only have to extensively research a handful of games for each season instead of 150 games or so to get the platoon splits..


I emailed Dave Smith and he told me he didn't intend for this Williams information to be made public, actually.....

If I knew how to procure the PBP game logs, and if I have the time when (and if) things calm down at work, I would love to collaborate with any number of you guys on a long term project. In talking to JamesWest, I was under the impression that one had to guy TSN PBP boxes, since he said he did for his late 40's/early 50's Cleveland Indians research projects. Do you have the exacting logs? I could also be of much more help if I knew how to use Excel properly, to compile, sort, and collate data......I used SPSS much more for my grad stat work.

It does have to be strictly PBP as they have today, or (as I found with researching Ted and Dimaggio against Feller) even when you have the exact IP and some anecdotal records, you can't know which PA's were against which pitcher. That killed my Dimaggio-Feller project, since even Bob wasn't throwing CG's much after 46', and Dimag would on occasion (esp in the late 40's) not play the entire game.


The guys name is McCotter I believe.

Is there a way I can contact him? Is he working through SABR?

[Ubiquitous]

I emailed Dave Smith and he told me he didn't intend for this Williams information to be made public, actually.....


The data he has is all over the place but for whatever reason he doesn't want to release it until he has complete seasonal data for all the teams in at very least a league. I don't agree with that stance, but it is his site. Mr. Smith currently has in his possession at the very least complete PBP data for all NY teams from 1924 to 1930. Think about that for a second. Ruth, Gehrig, Ott, Hornsby, Pennock, and a whole host of others and their complete PBP data! They also have an extensive PBP data for the Indians dating back to 1918 and going up to 1960 or so I believe.

As far as Ted is concerned they have about 100 or so games from 1947, 140 or so from 1948, and probably about the same from then on. Their collection from about 1947 on is very extensive.





If I knew how to procure the PBP game logs, and if I have the time when (and if) things calm down at work, I would love to collaborate with any number of you guys on a long term project. In talking to JamesWest, I was under the impression that one had to guy TSN PBP boxes, since he said he did for his late 40's/early 50's Cleveland Indians research projects. Do you have the exacting logs? I could also be of much more help if I knew how to use Excel properly, to compile, sort, and collate data......I used SPSS much more for my grad stat work.

It does have to be strictly PBP as they have today, or (as I found with researching Ted and Dimaggio against Feller) even when you have the exact IP and some anecdotal records, you can't know which PA's were against which pitcher. That killed my Dimaggio-Feller project, since even Bob wasn't throwing CG's much after 46', and Dimag would on occasion (esp in the late 40's) not play the entire game.
TSN is practically useless for figuring out left and right handed pitcher. What one needs is access to a local newspaper. One that gives a detailed summary of the game.




Is there a way I can contact him? Is he working through SABR?

It is on the SABR site.

[digglahhh]

What would his differential (or career line) have to be against LHP for you to say that it really decimates his case as the greatest who ever lived? In which case, would Ruth be your pick?

I'm not really sure. But if, when all is fleshed out, his lefty splits look like a season that a player could potentially win an MVP with, I can't hold anything against Ted's claim


Can you explain why the percentage differential would be applicable to Ted, but not other greats? Or are you just contrasting Ted with
the average hitter?

I'm just saying that we shouldn't look at the OPS drop of an average player as 109 points. We should say that against the platoon split, he performed at 90% of his level when the split was in his favor.

So if you take a guy with an OPS of .750 and he drops 10% thats a 75 point overall drop. But a 10% drop for Ted Williams would be 111 raw points. So, if you say that average guy drops 75 points and Ted drops 111, it sounds as if Ted drop off was worse, but it wasn't. The percentage negates the skewing of roar numbers that occurs when you compare immortals to average players.

[Ubiquitous]

Here is the 1948 season game log for Ted Williams. Only one known error. I am missing one double. If anybody wishes to find it be my guest.



Gm opp PH AB H 2B 3B HR 1B bb HBP
1 Apr 19 H PHA L R 4 1 1 0 0 0
2 H PHA L L 4 1 0 0 0 1 CG
3 Apr 22 H PHA L R 3 0 0 0 0 0
4 Apr 23 A @NYY W R 5 3 0 0 1 2 2 INNING
5 Apr 24 A @NYY L R 4 1 0 0 1 0
6 Apr 25 A @NYY L L 2 0 0 0 0 0 9 INNINGS
7 Apr 26 A @WSH W L 4 4 1 0 0 3 1 9 INNINGS
8 Apr 29 A @PHA W R 3 1 0 0 1 0 6 INNINGS
9 Apr 30 H NYY L R 3 0 0 0 0 0
10 May 1 H NYY W L 3 3 1 0 0 2 1 1 .6 INNINGS BASES LOADED WALK
11 May 2 H NYY W R 5 2 0 1 1 0 2 INNINGS
12 May 4 H DET W R 3 2 0 0 0 2
13 May 5 H DET W R 5 1 0 0 0 1
14 May 6 H DET L L 4 1 0 0 0 1 .3 INNING
15 May 8 H SLB L R 3 2 0 0 1 1
16 May 9 H CLE L R 4 1 0 0 1 0
17 H CLE L R 4 2 0 0 1 1
18 May 10 H CLE L R 3 2 0 0 0 2
19 May 11 H CHW W R 3 1 0 0 0 1
20 May 12 H CHW W R 4 2 0 0 0 2 1 21 WALKS TOTAL
21 May 15 H WSH W R 2 0 0 0 0 0
22 May 16 H WSH W R 3 1 0 0 0 1
23 May 18 A @DET L R 5 1 1 0 0 0 3 INNINGS
24 May 19 A @DET L L 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 CG
25 May 20 A @CLE L R 5 1 0 0 0 1
26 May 21 A @CLE W L 4 4 0 0 1 3 1 INNING
27 May 22 A @CLE L L 3 1 0 0 0 1 CG
28 May 23 A @CHW L R 3 0 0 0 0 0
29 A @CHW L R 5 1 0 0 1 0
30 May 25 A @SLB L L 4 3 1 0 0 2 9 INNINGS
31 May 26 A @SLB W R 5 1 0 0 0 1
32 May 28 A @WSH L R 5 2 1 0 0 1
33 May 29 A @WSH L L 4 2 1 1 0 0 CG
34 A @WSH L R 4 3 0 0 1 2 0.3
35 May 30 A @WSH L R 4 0 0 0 0 0
36 May 31 A @PHA W L 4 2 0 0 1 1 6.3 INNINGS
37 A @PHA L R 3 0 0 0 0 0
38 Jun 1 A @PHA W R 5 3 0 0 0 3
39 Jun 2 H SLB L R 2 1 1 0 0 0
40 Jun 3 H SLB W R 1 1 1 0 0 0
41 Jun 4 H SLB W R 2 0 0 0 0 0 3.6 INNINGS
42 H SLB W L 4 1 1 0 0 0 6 INNINGS
43 Jun 6 H DET W L 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 ININGS
44 H DET W R 5 4 1 0 1 2 2.6 INNINGS
45 Jun 8 H CLE L L 3 0 0 0 0 0 CG
46 Jun 10 H CLE W R 4 2 0 0 0 2 .6 INNINGS
47 Jun 11 H CHW W R 4 3 2 0 0 1 1 BASES LOADED
48 Jun 12 H CHW L R 4 2 1 0 0 1
49 Jun 15 A @CLE W R 4 1 0 0 0 1
50 Jun 16 A @CLE W R 4 4 2 0 1 1 1
51 Jun 17 A @CLE W R 5 2 1 0 0 1
52 Jun 19 A @DET W R 4 2 0 0 0 2 2 INNINGS
53 Jun 20 A @DET W L 4 2 0 0 0 2 8.3 INNINGS
54 Jun 22 A @CHW W R 4 2 0 0 0 2
55 Jun 24 A @CHW L L 3 1 1 0 0 0 CG
56 A @CHW W R 2 2 0 0 2 0
57 Jun 25 A @SLB L R 5 1 0 0 0 1
58 Jun 27 A @SLB W L 3 1 0 0 0 1 8 INNINGS
59 A @SLB W R 3 2 0 0 1 1 3.6 INNINGS
60 Jun 29 A @NYY L L 4 1 0 0 0 1 CG
61 Jun 30 A @NYY W R 5 1 0 0 0 1 1 INNING
62 Jul 1 A @NYY L R 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 INNING
63 Jul 2 H PHA L L 4 1 0 0 0 1 CG 2 k'S
64 Jul 3 H PHA L R 3 2 0 0 0 2
65 Jul 4 H PHA W R 3 0 0 0 0 0
66 Jul 5 H NYY W R 4 0 0 0 0 0
67 H NYY W R 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 INNING
68 Jul 6 H NYY W R 4 3 0 0 0 3 1 k
69 Jul 7 H WSH L R 5 2 0 0 0 2
70 Jul 8 H WSH W R 4 2 2 0 0 0 7 INNINGS
71 Jul 9 A @PHA L R 4 0 0 0 0 0 1
72 Jul 10 A @PHA W - 0 0 0 0 0 0
73 Jul 11 A @PHA W - 0 0 0 0 0 0
74 A @PHA L - 0 0 0 0 0 0
75 Jul 15 H DET W - 0 0 0 0 0 0
76 H DET W - 0 0 0 0 0 0
77 Jul 16 H DET W - 0 0 0 0 0 0
78 Jul 17 H DET L - 0 0 0 0 0 0
79 Jul 18 H SLB W - 0 0 0 0 0 0
80 H SLB W - 0 0 0 0 0 0
81 Jul 19 H SLB W - 0 0 0 0 0 0
82 Jul 20 H SLB W - 0 0 0 0 0 0
83 Jul 21 H CHW W - 0 0 0 0 0 0
84 H CHW W - 0 0 0 0 0 0
85 Jul 22 H CHW W - 0 0 0 0 0 0
86 H CHW W - 0 0 0 0 0 0
87 Jul 23 H CHW W L 4 2 1 0 0 1 7 INNINGS
88 Jul 24 H CLE W R 4 2 1 0 0 1
89 H CLE W L 3 1 1 0 0 0 6.3 INNINGS
90 Jul 25 H CLE W R 1 1 0 0 0 1
91 Jul 27 A @DET W - 0 0 0 0 0 0
92 Jul 28 A @DET L - 0 0 0 0 0 0
93 Jul 29 A @DET W R 6 1 1 0 0 0 2 INNINGS
94 Jul 30 A @CLE W L 4 2 1 0 0 1 1.3 INNINGS
95 Jul 31 A @CLE L R 4 1 0 0 0 1
96 Aug 1 A @CLE L R 3 0 0 0 0 0
97 A @CLE L L 4 2 0 0 1 1 CG
98 Aug 3 A @SLB W R 3 1 0 0 1 0 3 INNINGS
99 Aug 4 A @SLB L R 5 2 0 0 0 2
100 Aug 5 A @SLB W R 4 3 0 0 0 3
101 Aug 6 A @CHW L R 1 0 0 0 0 0 LEFTYSTARTER PH IN 9TH
102 Aug 7 A @CHW L R 1 0 0 0 0 0 ph
103 Aug 8 A @CHW W - 0 0 0 0 0 0
104 A @CHW L R 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 ph
105 Aug 10 A @NYY W L 4 1 0 1 0 0 .3 INNINGS
106 Aug 11 A @NYY W R 3 2 0 0 1 1
107 Aug 13 A @WSH W R 4 1 0 0 0 1
108 Aug 14 A @WSH W L 5 1 0 0 0 1 7.3 INNINGS
* Aug 15 A @WSH L R 5 1 0 0 1 0 .3 INNINGS
110 A @WSH W R 3 0 0 0 0 0
111 Aug 18 H PHA W R 5 3 0 0 0 3
112 Aug 19 H PHA L R 3 2 0 0 0 2 2 INNINGS
113 Aug 20 H WSH W R 3 1 1 0 0 0
114 H WSH W R 3 2 0 0 1 1
115 Aug 21 H WSH W R 4 0 0 0 0 0
116 Aug 22 H WSH W L 3 0 0 0 0 0 7 INNINGS
117 Aug 24 H CLE W R 5 1 0 0 0 1 .3 INNINGS
118 Aug 25 H CLE L R 3 1 0 0 0 1
119 Aug 26 H CLE W R 4 1 0 0 0 1 7.6 INNINGS
120 Aug 27 H CHW W R 5 2 1 0 1 0
121 Aug 28 H CHW W L 5 1 0 0 0 1 5 INNINGS
122 Aug 29 H SLB W R 3 1 0 0 1 0 1 INNINGS
123 H SLB L R 5 1 0 0 0 1
124 Aug 31 H DET W R 4 2 1 0 0 1 1.6 INNINGS
125 Sep 1 H DET W R 5 1 1 0 0 0 1.6 INNINGS
126 Sep 3 A @PHA W R 3 0 0 0 0 0
127 Sep 4 A @PHA W R 3 1 1 0 0 0 10 PUTOUTS IN LEFT
128 Sep 5 A @PHA W R 5 4 1 0 0 3
129 Sep 6 A @WSH W L 5 2 1 0 0 1 4 INNINGS
130 A @WSH W R 4 1 0 0 0 1 3 INNINGS
131 Sep 8 H NYY W R 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 INNNIG
132 Sep 9 H NYY W R 5 2 0 0 0 2 5.6
133 Sep 10 H NYY L R 5 2 1 0 0 1
134 Sep 11 H PHA W R 3 2 0 0 0 2 2 INNINGD
135 H PHA W R 4 1 0 0 0 1
136 Sep 12 H PHA L R 3 1 0 0 0 1
137 Sep 14 A @CHW W L 4 3 2 0 0 1 9 INNINGS
138 Sep 15 A @CHW L R 6 5 0 0 0 5
139 Sep 16 A @SLB L R 3 2 1 0 0 1
140 Sep 17 A @SLB W L 3 1 1 0 0 0 7 INNNINGS
141 Sep 18 A @SLB W R 4 2 0 0 0 2 1.3 INNINGS
142 Sep 19 A @DET L R 5 1 0 0 1 0 3 INNINGS
143 A @DET L R 3 0 0 0 0 0
144 Sep 20 A @DET W R 5 1 1 0 0 0
145 Sep 21 A @DET W L 3 0 0 0 0 0 8.3 INNINGS
146 Sep 22 A @CLE L R 4 0 0 0 0 0
147 Sep 24 A @NYY L R 3 2 1 0 0 1 5.3 INNINGS
148 Sep 25 A @NYY W R 4 1 1 0 0 0
149 Sep 26 A @NYY L L 4 1 0 0 0 1 CG
150 Sep 28 H WSH L R 3 0 0 0 0 0
151 Sep 29 H WSH W R 5 1 0 0 0 1 2 INNINGS
152 Sep 30 H WSH W R 2 2 0 0 0 2
153 Oct 2 H NYY W L 2 2 1 0 1 0 5 INNINGS
154 Oct 3 H NYY W R 4 2 1 0 0 1 1 INNING
155 Oct 4 H CLE L L 4 1 0 0 0 1 9 INNINGS
509 188 43 3 25 117
April 32 11 2 0 3 6
May 107 41 5 2 8 26
JUNE 87 40 12 0 5 23
JULY 63 20 7 0 0 13
AUGUST 100 32 3 1 7 21
SEPT 110 39 12 0 1 26
OCT 10 5 2 0 1 2

[Ubiquitous]

For 1948 I didn't a very rudimentary filter query in which I only looked at games in which a lefty pitched 8 or more innings.
In those games Ted had a .375 batting average with a .547 SLG.

The final numbers of course can be way different then that.

In games I know for sure that Ted did not face lefties he had a .361 AVG and a .565 SLG.

In mixed games of less then 8 innnings of lefties Ted batted .379 with a .700 avg.

So that is

PredomLeft: .375/.547
RightiesAll: .361/.565
MixedbagPit: .379/.700

[Ubiquitous]

Here is the game log for 1947. According to the encyclopedias Ted Williams hit 40 doubles. But that is not what the box scores say he had for 1947. Box scores come to a total of 39 and that is also what the league leader articles give Ted for that seasons as well. So either the source all the newspapers were using for their league leaders and box scores was incorrect or the final tally that we have nowadays is wrong.


Gm m Opp PH AB H 2B 3B HR 1B BB HBP INNINGS
1 Apr 15 Apr 15 H WSH W R 4 2 1 0 0 1 1
2 Apr 17 Apr 17 H WSH W L 2 0 0 0 0 0 2
3 Apr 18 Apr 18 A @PHA W R 3 1 0 0 1 0
4 Apr 19 Apr 19 A @PHA W R 5 3 1 0 1 1
5 Apr 20 Apr 20 A @WSH L R 3 1 0 0 0 1
6 Apr 22 Apr 22 A @NYY L R 3 1 0 0 1 0
7 Apr 23 Apr 23 A @NYY L R 1 0 0 0 0 0
8 Apr 24 Apr 24 A @NYY W R 4 1 0 0 0 1
9 Apr 25 Apr 25 H PHA L R 2 0 0 0 0 0
10 Apr 26 Apr 26 H PHA L R 2 0 0 0 0 0
11 Apr 27 Apr 27 H PHA - R 1 1 0 0 0 1
12 Apr 29 Apr 29 A @DET L R 3 0 0 0 0 0
13 Apr 30 Apr 30 A @DET W L 5 3 0 0 0 3 8.3
14 May 2 May 2 A @CLE L R 3 0 0 0 0 0
15 May 3 May 3 A @CLE L R 2 1 0 0 0 1
16 May 4 May 4 A @SLB W R 2 1 1 0 0 0
17 A @SLB W R 5 1 0 0 0 1
18 May 6 May 6 A @SLB W R 5 3 0 0 2 1
19 May 8 May 8 A @CHW W R 3 1 0 0 0 1
20 May 10 May 10 H NYY L R 4 0 0 0 0 0 2 k
21 May 11 May 11 H NYY W R 3 2 2 0 0 0 2 3 29 BB
22 May 12 May 12 H NYY W R 4 0 0 0 0 0
23 May 13 May 13 H CHW W R 5 2 0 0 2 0 0.6
24 May 14 May 14 H CHW W R 2 0 0 0 0 0
25 May 15 May 15 H SLB L R 4 1 1 0 0 0
26 May 16 May 16 H SLB W R 3 2 0 0 1 1
27 May 17 May 17 H SLB L R 4 1 1 0 0 0
28 May 19 May 19 H DET L R 5 2 0 0 0 2
29 H DET W R 2 1 0 0 1 0
30 May 20 May 20 H DET W R 4 2 0 0 1 1 38 BB
31 May 23 May 23 A @NYY L R 1 0 0 0 0 0
32 May 24 May 24 A @NYY L R 3 0 0 0 0 0
33 May 25 May 25 A @NYY L R 4 1 0 0 1 0
34 May 26 May 26 A @NYY L R 4 0 0 0 0 0 7
35 May 27 May 27 A @PHA W R 2 0 0 0 0 0
36 May 28 May 28 A @PHA W R 2 0 0 0 0 0
37 May 29 May 29 A @PHA L - 0 0 0 0 0 0
38 May 30 May 30 A @WSH L R 2 0 0 0 0 0
39 A @WSH L L 3 1 0 0 0 1 7
40 Jun 2 Jun 2 A @CHW W R 4 0 0 0 0 0 1
41 A @CHW L R 3 2 0 0 0 2
42 Jun 3 Jun 3 A @SLB L R 4 1 0 1 0 0
43 Jun 4 Jun 4 A @SLB W R 2 1 0 0 1 0
44 Jun 8 Jun 8 A @DET L R 2 0 0 0 0 0 9 CG
45 Jun 9 Jun 9 A @CLE W R 2 1 0 0 0 1
46 Jun 10 Jun 10 A @CLE W R 1 0 0 0 0 0
47 Jun 11 Jun 11 A @CLE W R 4 1 0 0 0 1
48 Jun 13 Jun 13 H CHW W L 4 2 0 0 0 2 4.6
49 Jun 15 Jun 15 H CHW W R 3 1 1 0 0 0 1.3
50 H CHW W R 2 0 0 0 0 0
51 Jun 17 Jun 17 H SLB W R 4 1 1 0 0 0
52 Jun 18 Jun 18 H SLB W R 5 3 1 1 0 1
53 Jun 20 Jun 20 H CLE L R 4 0 0 0 0 0
54 Jun 21 Jun 21 H CLE W R 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 71 BB
55 Jun 22 Jun 22 H CLE L R 3 0 0 0 0 0
56 H CLE W R 3 1 1 0 0 0
57 Jun 23 Jun 23 H DET W R 4 2 1 0 0 1
58 Jun 25 Jun 25 H DET L L 3 2 0 1 0 1 9 CG
59 H DET W R 3 0 0 0 0 0
60 Jun 26 Jun 26 A @WSH L R 5 3 1 1 0 1
61 Jun 27 Jun 27 A @WSH L R 4 0 0 0 0 0 9 CG
62 Jun 28 Jun 28 A @WSH W R 3 2 0 1 0 1
63 Jun 29 Jun 29 A @PHA L R 3 0 0 0 0 0
64 A @PHA L R 3 1 0 0 1 0
65 Jun 30 Jun 30 H NYY L R 3 0 0 0 0 0
66 Jul 2 Jul 2 H PHA L R 4 2 1 0 1 0
67 Jul 3 Jul 3 H PHA L R 2 1 0 0 1 0
68 Jul 4 Jul 4 H PHA L R 4 0 0 0 0 0
69 H PHA W R 3 3 0 0 0 3
70 Jul 5 Jul 5 H WSH W R 3 2 0 1 0 1
71 Jul 6 Jul 6 H WSH W R 4 0 0 0 0 0
72 H WSH W L 3 2 1 0 0 1 0.6
73 Jul 10 Jul 10 A @DET - L 2 1 0 0 0 1 8 CG
74 Jul 11 Jul 11 A @DET W R 3 1 0 0 0 1
75 A @DET L L 3 0 0 0 0 0 9 CG
76 Jul 12 Jul 12 A @DET W R 4 0 0 0 0 0
77 Jul 13 Jul 13 A @CLE L R 3 1 0 0 0 1
78 A @CLE L R 4 2 1 0 0 1
79 Jul 14 Jul 14 A @CLE W R 4 2 0 0 0 2
80 Jul 15 Jul 15 A @CHW L L 2 1 0 0 0 1 9 CG
81 Jul 16 Jul 16 A @CHW W R 4 3 0 0 1 2
82 Jul 17 Jul 17 A @CHW W L 5 1 0 0 0 1 9
83 A @CHW W R 5 1 0 0 0 1
84 Jul 18 Jul 18 A @SLB L R 5 5 0 0 2 3
85 Jul 19 Jul 19 A @SLB W R 3 1 0 0 0 1
86 Jul 20 Jul 20 A @SLB L R 3 0 0 0 0 0
87 A @SLB L R 3 3 2 0 0 1 2.3
88 Jul 22 Jul 22 H CHW W L 4 2 1 0 0 1 1 9 CG
89 Jul 23 Jul 23 H CHW W R 5 0 0 0 0 0 6.3
90 Jul 24 Jul 24 H CHW W L 4 1 0 0 1 0 5.3 HOMER OFF RIGHTY
91 Jul 25 Jul 25 H SLB W R 3 3 0 0 1 2 3.6
92 Jul 26 Jul 26 H SLB W R 5 2 0 0 2 0
93 Jul 27 Jul 27 H SLB W R 4 1 0 0 1 0 1.6
94 H SLB W R 3 1 1 0 0 0 1 Double to left against the shift
95 Jul 29 Jul 29 H CLE L R 4 1 0 0 0 1 Bunt against the shift
96 Jul 30 Jul 30 H CLE L R 3 0 0 0 0 0
97 Jul 31 Jul 31 H CLE L R 4 1 0 1 0 0
98 Aug 1 Aug 1 H DET L R 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
99 Aug 2 Aug 2 H DET W R 4 2 0 0 1 1
100 Aug 3 Aug 3 H DET L L 5 1 0 0 0 1 9 CG
101 Aug 5 Aug 5 A @WSH L R 2 0 0 0 0 0
102 Aug 6 Aug 6 A @WSH L L 4 0 0 0 0 0 9 CG
103 Aug 7 Aug 7 A @WSH W R 4 2 0 0 1 1 1
104 Aug 8 Aug 8 H NYY W R 3 0 0 0 0 0 3
105 Aug 9 Aug 9 H NYY W R 4 2 0 0 0 2
106 Aug 10 Aug 10 H NYY L R 3 0 0 0 0 0
107 Aug 11 Aug 11 H WSH W L 4 2 1 0 0 1 9 CG
108 Aug 12 Aug 12 H WSH W R 3 0 0 0 0 0
109 Aug 13 Aug 13 H WSH W R 5 4 1 0 0 3 1
110 Aug 15 Aug 15 A @NYY L R 5 4 2 0 0 2 7.6
111 Aug 16 Aug 16 A @NYY L R 2 1 0 0 0 1
112 Aug 17 Aug 17 A @NYY W R 5 1 1 0 0 0
113 Aug 19 Aug 19 A @SLB W R 2 1 0 0 0 1
114 Aug 21 Aug 21 A @CHW L L 3 1 0 0 0 1 7.3
115 Aug 22 Aug 22 A @CHW L L 3 2 0 0 0 2 7
116 A @CHW W R 4 4 1 0 0 3
117 Aug 24 Aug 24 A @CLE W R 2 0 0 0 0 0
118 A @CLE L R 3 1 1 0 0 0
119 Aug 25 Aug 25 A @CLE L R 4 3 1 0 0 2
120 Aug 26 Aug 26 A @DET L R 3 1 1 0 0 0
121 A @DET W R 4 2 1 0 1 0
122 Aug 27 Aug 27 A @DET L L 4 0 0 0 0 0 9 CG
123 A @DET W R 3 1 1 0 0 0
124 Aug 28 Aug 28 A @DET W L 6 3 0 0 0 3 2.6
125 Aug 29 Aug 29 H PHA W R 3 0 0 0 0 0
126 Aug 30 Aug 30 H PHA W R 4 1 0 0 0 1
127 Aug 31 Aug 31 H PHA W R 4 2 0 0 1 1
128 Sep 1 Sep 1 H NYY W R 4 0 0 0 0 0
129 H NYY W R 1 0 0 0 0 0
130 Sep 3 Sep 3 H NYY L R 4 2 1 0 0 1
131 H NYY L R 5 2 2 0 0 0 1.3
132 Sep 5 Sep 5 A @PHA L R 5 1 0 0 1 0
133 Sep 6 Sep 6 A @PHA W R 4 1 0 0 0 1
134 Sep 7 Sep 7 A @PHA L R 3 1 0 0 1 0
135 A @PHA L R 4 2 1 0 0 1
136 Sep 9 Sep 9 H DET W R 4 3 0 0 0 3
137 Sep 10 Sep 10 H DET L R 4 0 0 0 0 0
138 Sep 11 Sep 11 H CLE L R 4 1 1 0 0 0
139 H CLE W R 3 1 1 0 0 0
140 Sep 12 Sep 12 H CLE L R 2 0 0 0 0 0
141 Sep 13 Sep 13 H CLE W R 2 1 0 0 0 1
142 Sep 14 Sep 14 H CHW - L 2 0 0 0 0 0 7 CG
143 Sep 15 Sep 15 H CHW L R 4 1 0 0 0 1
144 H CHW W R 3 3 0 0 0 3
145 Sep 16 Sep 16 H CHW W L 4 1 0 0 0 1 9 CG
146 H CHW L R 2 0 0 0 0 0
147 Sep 17 Sep 17 H SLB L R 4 3 1 0 1 1
148 H SLB W R 4 1 0 0 0 1
149 Sep 18 Sep 18 H SLB W R 5 3 1 0 0 2 all three hits to left
150 Sep 20 Sep 20 H WSH L R 3 0 0 0 0 0
151 H WSH W R 3 3 0 2 0 1 2 156 BB
152 Sep 21 Sep 21 H WSH L R 4 1 0 0 0 1
153 Sep 23 Sep 23 H PHA L R 4 2 0 0 1 1
154 H PHA W R 2 0 0 0 0 0
155 Sep 26 Sep 26 A @NYY W R 4 0 0 0 0 0
156 Sep 27 Sep 27 A @WSH W R 3 2 0 0 1 1
157 Sep 28 Sep 28 A @WSH L L 4 2 0 0 0 2 9 CG
528 181 39 9 32 101 0.34280303 0.632575758
APRIL 38 13 2 0 3 8 0.342105263 0.631578947
MAY 81 22 5 0 8 9 0.271604938 0.62962963
JUNE 83 24 6 5 2 11 0.289156627 0.554216867
JULY 115 44 7 2 10 25 0.382608696 0.739130435
AUGUST 107 41 11 0 4 26 0.38317757 0.598130841
SEPT 104 37 8 2 5 22 0.355769231 0.615384615

[Ubiquitous]

Here is Ted Williams 1949 Game Log.




Gm m Opp PH AB H 2B 3B HR 1B BB HBP
1 Apr 19 Apr 19 A @PHA L L 3 2 0 0 0 2
2 Apr 20 Apr 20 A @PHA L R 4 1 0 0 0 1
3 Apr 21 Apr 21 A @PHA W R 4 2 0 0 0 2 0.3
4 Apr 22 Apr 22 H NYY L R 5 1 0 0 0 1 3 0-2 AGAISNT LEFTY
5 Apr 23 Apr 23 H NYY W R 3 1 1 0 0 0
6 Apr 24 Apr 24 H NYY L L 4 1 0 0 0 1 9
7 Apr 25 Apr 25 H WSH W R 3 0 0 0 0 0
8 Apr 27 Apr 27 H PHA W R 2 0 0 0 0 0 3
9 Apr 28 Apr 28 H PHA W R 2 2 0 0 1 1
10 Apr 29 Apr 29 A @NYY L R 3 0 0 0 0 0
11 Apr 30 Apr 30 A @NYY L L 3 1 0 0 0 1 8
12 May 1 May 1 A @NYY W R 4 2 0 0 1 1
13 May 3 May 3 A @DET - R 7 3 1 0 1 1 0.6
14 May 4 May 4 A @DET L R 4 2 0 0 1 1
15 May 5 May 5 A @CLE L R 3 1 0 0 1 0
16 May 7 May 7 A @CLE L R 6 1 0 0 0 1
17 May 8 May 8 A @SLB W R 5 1 0 0 0 1 0.6
18 A @SLB W R 4 1 0 0 0 1
19 May 10 May 10 A @SLB L R 2 1 0 0 1 0
20 May 11 May 11 A @CHW L L 5 1 0 0 1 0 5.6
21 May 12 May 12 A @CHW W R 5 1 1 0 0 0
22 May 14 May 14 A @WSH L R 3 1 0 0 0 1
23 May 15 May 15 A @WSH W R 3 0 0 0 0 0
24 May 16 May 16 A @WSH L L 3 2 0 0 0 2
25 May 17 May 17 H CHW W R 2 1 1 0 0 0
26 May 18 May 18 H CHW W R 4 2 0 0 1 1 2.6
27 May 19 May 19 H CHW L L 5 1 1 0 0 0 1
28 May 21 May 21 H CLE W R 4 3 1 0 0 2 2
29 May 22 May 22 H DET W R 5 1 1 0 0 0
30 May 23 May 23 H DET W L 4 1 0 0 0 1 6
31 May 24 May 24 H DET W R 5 3 2 0 1 0
32 May 25 May 25 H SLB L R 2 0 0 0 0 0
33 May 26 May 26 H SLB W R 3 1 0 0 0 1
34 May 28 May 28 H WSH W R 4 2 0 0 1 1
35 May 29 May 29 H WSH L R 3 2 0 0 1 1
36 May 30 May 30 H PHA W L 3 0 0 0 0 0 6
37 H PHA W R 4 1 0 0 1 0
38 Jun 1 Jun 1 A @CLE W R 5 2 0 0 0 2
39 Jun 2 Jun 2 A @CLE L R 4 0 0 0 0 0
40 Jun 3 Jun 3 A @CLE L R 4 0 0 0 0 0
41 Jun 4 Jun 4 A @DET L R 4 1 0 0 1 0 1.6
42 Jun 5 Jun 5 A @DET W R 2 1 0 0 1 0
43 A @DET L R 4 1 0 0 0 1
44 Jun 6 Jun 6 A @DET W R 4 1 0 0 0 1 1
45 Jun 7 Jun 7 A @SLB L R 4 0 0 0 0 0
46 Jun 8 Jun 8 A @SLB L R 3 2 1 0 0 1
47 Jun 9 Jun 9 A @SLB L R 4 1 1 0 0 0
48 Jun 10 Jun 10 A @CHW L R 4 2 1 0 0 1
49 Jun 12 Jun 12 A @CHW W R 3 0 0 0 0 0
50 A @CHW W L 4 2 0 0 0 2 1 8.3 ALL PA OFF LEFTY
51 Jun 14 Jun 14 H CLE L R 4 2 1 0 0 1
52 Jun 15 Jun 15 H CLE L L 3 0 0 0 0 0 7.3
53 Jun 16 Jun 16 H CLE L R 4 2 2 0 0 0
54 Jun 17 Jun 17 H CHW W R 3 0 0 0 0 0
55 H CHW W L 4 2 0 0 1 1 5
56 Jun 18 Jun 18 H CHW W L 2 0 0 0 0 0 3.3
57 Jun 19 Jun 19 H CHW W R 3 1 0 0 1 0
58 Jun 20 Jun 20 H DET W L 5 1 0 0 0 1 5
59 Jun 21 Jun 21 H DET W R 4 2 0 0 1 1
60 Jun 22 Jun 22 H DET L R 2 0 0 0 0 0 5
61 Jun 23 Jun 23 H SLB W R 4 3 3 0 0 0
62 Jun 24 Jun 24 H SLB W L 5 3 0 0 2 1 3
63 Jun 25 Jun 25 H SLB W L 4 1 0 0 0 1 3.6
64 Jun 26 Jun 26 H SLB W R 4 0 0 0 0 0
65 Jun 28 Jun 28 H NYY L R 5 2 0 0 0 2 1 0-1 AGAINST LEFTY
66 Jun 29 Jun 29 H NYY L L 5 3 1 0 0 2 3.6
67 Jun 30 Jun 30 H NYY L R 5 0 0 0 0 0
68 Jul 1 Jul 1 A @PHA L L 4 1 0 0 0 1 9 CG
69 Jul 2 Jul 2 A @PHA L R 4 1 0 1 0 0
70 Jul 3 Jul 3 A @PHA L L 2 0 0 0 0 0 9 CG
71 Jul 4 Jul 4 A @NYY L R 4 3 1 0 0 2
72 A @NYY L R 3 0 0 0 0 0
73 Jul 5 Jul 5 A @NYY W L 3 2 0 0 0 2 7
74 Jul 6 Jul 6 A @WSH W R 2 1 0 0 0 1
75 Jul 7 Jul 7 A @WSH W L 3 0 0 0 0 0 3.6
76 Jul 8 Jul 8 H PHA W R 4 1 1 0 0 0
77 Jul 9 Jul 9 H PHA W L 2 1 1 0 0 0 3.6
78 Jul 10 Jul 10 H PHA W R 3 2 2 0 0 0
79 H PHA W L 2 1 0 0 1 0 0.3
80 Jul 14 Jul 14 A @DET W R 4 1 0 0 0 1
81 Jul 15 Jul 15 A @DET L L 5 3 0 0 0 3 5.6
82 Jul 16 Jul 16 A @DET W R 5 2 0 0 1 1
83 Jul 17 Jul 17 A @CLE L R 2 1 0 0 0 1
84 A @CLE W R 3 0 0 0 0 0
85 Jul 18 Jul 18 A @CLE L R 3 1 0 0 0 1
86 Jul 19 Jul 19 A @CHW W R 5 3 1 0 0 2 0 1-1 AGAINST LEFTY-SINGLE
87 Jul 20 Jul 20 A @CHW L L 5 2 0 0 1 1 9 CG
88 Jul 22 Jul 22 A @SLB W R 4 1 0 0 1 0
89 Jul 23 Jul 23 A @SLB W R 4 3 0 0 1 2
90 Jul 24 Jul 24 A @SLB L R 4 2 0 0 1 1 HOMER TO LEFT
91 A @SLB W L 4 2 0 0 0 2 6.3
92 Jul 26 Jul 26 H CHW W L 3 1 1 0 0 0 1 6 DOUBLE AND WALK OFF RIGHT, HIT TO LEFT FOR DOUBLE
93 Jul 27 Jul 27 H CHW W R 3 0 0 0 0 0 SF
94 Jul 28 Jul 28 H CHW W R 3 1 0 0 1 0 IBB
95 Jul 29 Jul 29 H CLE W R 3 1 1 0 0 0
96 H CLE L L 3 1 0 0 0 1 0.3
97 Jul 30 Jul 30 H CLE L R 4 3 2 0 0 1
98 Jul 31 Jul 31 H CLE W L 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 100TH WALK
99 Aug 1 Aug 1 H CLE W R 3 1 0 0 0 1 1
100 Aug 2 Aug 2 H SLB W R 3 2 1 0 0 1
101 Aug 3 Aug 3 H SLB W L 5 2 0 0 0 2 6
102 Aug 4 Aug 4 H SLB W R 2 0 0 0 0 0 4
103 Aug 5 Aug 5 H DET W L 5 1 0 0 0 1 7
104 Aug 6 Aug 6 H DET W R 3 1 0 1 0 0 1.3
105 Aug 7 Aug 7 H DET L R 4 3 1 0 1 1
106 Aug 9 Aug 9 H NYY W R 4 2 0 0 1 1
107 Aug 10 Aug 10 H NYY L L 3 2 1 0 0 1 9
108 Aug 11 Aug 11 H NYY W R 4 4 0 0 1 2 1 ROE
109 Aug 12 Aug 12 H WSH W R 2 1 0 0 0 1
110 H WSH W L 4 1 0 0 0 1 2.6
111 Aug 13 Aug 13 H WSH W L 4 1 0 0 0 1 1 5.3 IBB IN 12TH
112 Aug 14 Aug 14 H WSH W R 2 0 0 0 0 0
113 H WSH W R 3 1 0 0 0 1
114 Aug 15 Aug 15 H WSH W R 5 1 0 0 0 1
115 Aug 16 Aug 16 A @PHA L R 3 1 1 0 0 0
116 Aug 17 Aug 17 A @PHA W R 5 4 0 0 1 3
117 Aug 19 Aug 19 A @WSH W R 3 1 0 0 0 1 1.6
118 Aug 20 Aug 20 A @WSH W R 2 1 0 0 0 1 1
119 Aug 21 Aug 21 A @WSH W R 4 2 0 1 0 1
120 Aug 23 Aug 23 A @SLB L R 3 1 0 0 0 1
121 Aug 25 Aug 25 A @CHW L L 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 CG
122 Aug 26 Aug 26 A @CHW W L 5 3 1 0 2 0 4.6
123 A @CHW W L 6 3 0 0 0 3 2.6
124 Aug 27 Aug 27 A @CHW W R 5 2 0 0 2 0
125 Aug 28 Aug 28 A @CLE L R 4 2 1 0 0 1
126 Aug 29 Aug 29 A @CLE L R 4 2 1 0 0 1
127 A @CLE L R 5 1 0 0 1 0
128 Aug 30 Aug 30 A @DET W R 3 0 0 0 0 0
129 Aug 31 Aug 31 A @DET W L 4 1 0 0 1 0 6
130 Sep 1 Sep 1 A @DET L R 4 1 0 0 0 1
131 Sep 2 Sep 2 H PHA W R 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 4
132 Sep 3 Sep 3 H PHA W L 4 2 0 0 1 1 6 Homered to left, 5th time this season, 3 at home, 1 in Chicago, 1 in STL
133 Sep 4 Sep 4 H PHA W R 5 1 0 0 0 1
134 Sep 5 Sep 5 H WSH W R 3 1 0 0 0 1
135 H WSH W L 3 2 1 0 0 1 2.6
136 Sep 7 Sep 7 A @NYY L R 2 1 0 0 0 1 1 1.6
137 Sep 9 Sep 9 A @NYY W L 5 2 0 0 0 2 7
138 Sep 10 Sep 10 A @PHA W R 5 2 1 0 0 1 1 ROE
139 Sep 11 Sep 11 A @PHA L R 4 1 0 0 0 1
140 A @PHA L R 3 0 0 0 0 0
141 Sep 13 Sep 13 H DET W R 5 1 0 0 0 1 2.3
142 Sep 14 Sep 14 H DET W L 4 1 0 0 1 0 7 Homered to left off a lefty with the shift on
143 Sep 16 Sep 16 H SLB W R 4 1 1 0 0 0 1 2
144 Sep 17 Sep 17 H SLB W R 2 0 0 0 0 0
145 Sep 18 Sep 18 H CHW W R 4 3 0 0 2 1 3 LEFTY K'ED TED 0-1
146 Sep 20 Sep 20 H CLE W R 2 0 0 0 0 0
147 Sep 21 Sep 21 H CLE W R 5 1 0 0 1 0 2
148 Sep 24 Sep 24 H NYY W L 2 1 0 0 1 0
149 Sep 25 Sep 25 H NYY W R 3 1 0 0 1 0 1 IBB
150 Sep 26 Sep 26 A @NYY W L 3 1 0 0 0 1 2 3.3
151 Sep 27 Sep 27 A @WSH W R 4 1 0 0 0 1 3
152 Sep 28 Sep 28 A @WSH L R 3 0 0 0 0 0
153 Sep 30 Sep 30 A @WSH W L 3 0 0 0 0 0 1.3
154 Oct 1 Oct 1 A @NYY L R 3 1 0 0 0 1 6.6
155 Oct 2 Oct 2 A @NYY L R 2 0 0 0 0 0
566 193 39 3 43 108
April 36 11 1 0 1 9
May 102 35 8 0 11 16
June 115 35 10 0 7 18
July 106 41 10 1 7 23
August 116 46 7 2 10 27
Sept 86 24 3 0 7 14
October 5 1 0 0 0 1

[Ubiquitous]

Here is Ted Williams 1950 game log. As far as I know there are no errors in this game log


Gm m Opp PH AB H 2B 3B HR 1B BB KK LI NAME
1 Apr 18 Apr 18 H NYY L R 3 2 1 0 0 1 2 PAGE DOUBLE TO LEFT
2 Apr 19 Apr 19 H NYY W R 2 1 0 0 1 0 1
3 H NYY L L 2 1 0 0 0 1 9 LOPAT/PAGE
4 Apr 21 Apr 21 A @PHA W - 0 0 0 0 0 0 OUT WITH COLD
5 Apr 22 Apr 22 A @PHA L - 0 0 0 0 0 0
6 Apr 23 Apr 23 A @PHA L - 0 0 0 0 0 0
7 A @PHA W - 0 0 0 0 0 0
8 Apr 24 Apr 24 A @WSH L - 0 0 0 0 0 0
9 Apr 26 Apr 26 A @NYY L L 4 0 0 0 0 0 9 LOPAT
10 Apr 27 Apr 27 A @NYY W - 0 0 0 0 0 0
11 Apr 28 Apr 28 H PHA W - 0 0 0 0 0 0
12 Apr 30 Apr 30 H PHA W R 5 3 0 0 2 1 4.6 SHANTZ
13 H PHA W R 4 2 1 0 0 1
14 May 2 May 2 H CLE W R 4 1 0 0 1 0 2 BEARDEN
15 May 3 May 3 H CLE W R 4 1 0 0 0 1 0.6 BEARDEN
16 May 4 May 4 H CLE L R 5 1 0 0 0 1
17 May 5 May 5 H CHW W L 3 1 0 0 1 0 7.3 PIERCE/KUZAVA
18 May 6 May 6 H CHW W R 5 2 0 0 1 1
19 May 7 May 7 H SLB W R 4 1 0 0 1 0
20 H SLB W R 3 1 0 0 0 1
21 May 9 May 9 H DET W R 4 1 1 0 0 0
22 May 11 May 11 H DET L R 4 1 0 0 1 0
23 H DET L L 4 1 1 0 0 1 7 GRAY
24 May 12 May 12 H WSH W R 3 0 0 0 0 0
25 May 13 May 13 H WSH W R 3 1 0 0 1 1
26 May 14 May 14 H WSH W L 4 1 0 0 0 1 2 HITTLE
27 H WSH L R 3 1 1 0 0 0
28 May 16 May 16 A @DET W R 4 2 0 0 2 0
29 May 17 May 17 A @DET L L 3 0 0 0 0 0 9 GRAY
30 May 18 May 18 A @DET W R 2 1 0 0 0 1
31 May 19 May 19 A @CLE L R 4 1 0 0 0 1 7 ZOLDAK
32 May 20 May 20 A @CLE L R 3 0 0 0 0 0
33 May 21 May 21 A @CHW W R 5 1 0 0 0 1
34 A @CHW L L 3 1 0 1 0 0 9 PIERCE
35 May 22 May 22 A @CHW L L 5 2 0 0 0 2 8.6 KUZAVA/CAIN 10 INNING GAME
36 May 24 May 24 A @SLB W R 4 1 1 0 0 0
37 May 25 May 25 A @SLB W R 5 1 0 0 0 1 4.6 OVERMIRE
38 May 27 May 27 A @WSH W R 6 3 1 0 0 2 6.3 HITTLE 10 INNING GAME
39 A @WSH W R 3 1 1 0 0 0
40 May 28 May 28 A @WSH L R 5 0 0 0 0 0 0.6 HARRIS
41 May 30 May 30 A @NYY L L 4 1 0 0 0 1 9 BYRNE/PAGE
42 A @NYY L L 4 1 1 0 0 0 8.6 LOPAT
43 Jun 2 Jun 2 H CLE W R 4 2 0 0 1 1 3 ROZEK/ZOLDAK
44 Jun 3 Jun 3 H CLE W R 3 2 0 0 1 1 4 BEARDEN/ZOLDAK
45 Jun 4 Jun 4 H CHW W L 5 3 0 0 0 3 4 HAEFNER
46 Jun 5 Jun 5 H CHW W L 4 2 1 0 0 1 3.3 PIERCE
47 Jun 6 Jun 6 H CHW L R 2 1 0 0 1 0
48 Jun 7 Jun 7 H SLB W R 5 3 1 0 0 2
49 Jun 8 Jun 8 H SLB W R 5 2 0 0 2 0
50 Jun 9 Jun 9 H SLB L R 5 2 1 0 1 0
51 Jun 10 Jun 10 H DET L R 4 3 1 0 1 1
52 Jun 11 Jun 11 H DET L L 3 0 0 0 0 0 9 NEWHOUSER
53 H DET L R 7 1 1 0 0 0 9 GRAY 14 INNING GAME
54 Jun 13 Jun 13 A @CLE W R 3 1 0 0 0 1
55 Jun 14 Jun 14 A @CLE L R 4 1 0 0 1 0
56 Jun 15 Jun 15 A @CLE L R 4 1 0 0 0 1
57 Jun 16 Jun 16 A @DET L L 2 0 0 0 0 0 9 NEWHOUSER
58 Jun 17 Jun 17 A @DET L L 2 0 0 0 0 0 9 GRAY
59 Jun 18 Jun 18 A @DET L R 3 1 0 0 1 0
60 Jun 20 Jun 20 A @CHW W R 4 1 1 0 0 0
61 Jun 21 Jun 21 A @CHW L L 4 0 0 0 0 0 2 9 PIERCE
62 Jun 22 Jun 22 A @CHW L R 4 1 1 0 0 0
63 Jun 23 Jun 23 A @SLB W R 4 2 1 0 0 1
64 Jun 24 Jun 24 A @SLB W R 5 2 0 0 1 1
65 Jun 25 Jun 25 A @SLB W R 4 2 0 0 0 2
66 A @SLB W L 5 1 0 0 0 1 7 OVERMIRE
67 Jun 27 Jun 27 A @PHA W L 5 3 2 0 1 0 9 SHANTZ 11 INNING GAME
68 Jun 28 Jun 28 A @PHA W L 3 1 0 0 1 0 9 BRISSIE
69 Jun 29 Jun 29 A @PHA W R 6 2 1 0 1 0
70 Jun 30 Jun 30 H NYY L R 3 1 1 0 0 0 2 PAGE
71 H NYY W L 4 1 1 0 0 0 6 LOPAT/OSTROWSKI
72 Jul 1 Jul 1 H NYY W L 4 1 0 0 0 1 8 BYRNE/FORD/OSTROWSKI CG
73 Jul 2 Jul 2 H NYY L R 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 PAGE
74 Jul 5 Jul 5 H WSH L R 3 2 0 0 0 2 1 HARRIS
75 Jul 7 Jul 7 A @NYY L R 2 1 0 0 1 0
76 Jul 8 Jul 8 A @NYY W R 3 1 0 0 0 1
77 Jul 9 Jul 9 A @NYY L L 4 0 0 0 0 0 9 LOPAT
138 Sep 14 Sep 14 A @SLB L R 1 1 1 0 0 0
139 Sep 15 Sep 15 A @SLB W R 6 4 0 0 1 3
140 Sep 16 Sep 16 A @SLB L R 4 1 0 0 0 1
141 Sep 17 Sep 17 A @DET W R 4 0 0 0 0 0
142 Sep 18 Sep 18 A @DET W L 3 1 0 0 0 1 8 NEWHOUSER
143 Sep 20 Sep 20 A @CLE L R 2 0 0 0 0 0
144 A @CLE L R 4 0 0 0 0 0
145 Sep 23 Sep 23 A @NYY L L 4 1 0 0 0 1 9 LOPAT
146 Sep 24 Sep 24 A @NYY L R 3 2 0 0 2 0
147 Sep 25 Sep 25 A @PHA W L 5 1 0 0 0 1 9 KELLNER/MURRAY
148 A @PHA W L 3 1 0 0 0 1 8 SHANTZ
149 Sep 27 Sep 27 H WSH L R 4 0 0 0 0 0
150 H WSH L L 5 0 0 0 0 0 9 BEARDEN
151 Sep 28 Sep 28 H WSH W R 3 0 0 0 0 0
152 Sep 29 Sep 29 H WSH W L 5 2 0 0 0 2 8.3 KUZAVA/HARRIS CG
153 Sep 30 Sep 30 H NYY L L 5 2 0 0 0 2 6 BYRNE
154 Oct 1 Oct 1 H NYY W R 5 4 1 0 0 3 4 LOPAT/FORD
334 106 24 1 28 55
APRIL 20 9 2 0 3 4
MAY 113 30 7 1 8 16
JUNE 116 42 13 0 13 16
JULY 19 5 0 0 1 4
SEPT 61 16 1 0 3 12
OCT 5 4 1 0 0 3

[Ubiquitous]

Alright I fixed both the 1949 and 1950 logs. I believe neither has any errors now.

In the 1949 log I had been searching in vain for a missing hit in August. I narrowed it down to a certain week and then finally a day. August 11th. In that game all the box scores say he went 3-4 with the 4 at bat being a ROE. I'm betting that after the game that ROE was changed to a hit. I'm guessing this happened because the major league leader boards have him at 136 hits before that game (which I too had) and then after that game they have him down for 140 hits, while I had him down for 139 hits. That ROE is the only thing I can think of, either that or Ted really does have one less hit for his career and nobody knows it.

[Ubiquitous]

I've edited my 1947 post above. I am currently looking into whether or not the Sporting News has a yearly leader breakdown for 1947. I believe they do, I just have to find it.

[Ubiquitous]

Well unfortunately for me the Sporting News does have a yearly breakdown for 1947 and it has Ted at 40 doubles.

[Ubiquitous]

Here are Ted Williams 1952 and 1953 Game Logs:



Gm m Opp PH AB H 2B 3B HR 1B BB K LI NAME
1 Apr 15 Apr 15 A @WSH W R 3 1 0 1 0 0 PULLED A LEG MUSCLE
2 Apr 16 Apr 16 A @WSH L R 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
3 Apr 17 Apr 17 A @WSH W - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 Apr 18 Apr 18 H PHA W R 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 Apr 19 Apr 19 H PHA W - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6 H PHA W - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7 Apr 20 Apr 20 H WSH W R 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0
8 Apr 21 Apr 21 H WSH L R 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
9 Apr 22 Apr 22 H WSH W - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10 Apr 23 Apr 23 H NYY W - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
11 Apr 24 Apr 24 H NYY W - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
12 Apr 30 Apr 30 H DET W R 3 2 0 0 1 1 1 LITTLEFIELD
10 4 0 1 1 2 0 1

1953
Gm m Opp PH AB H 2B 3B HR 1B BB K LI NAME
108 Aug 6 Aug 6 H SLB L R 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
109 Aug 7 Aug 7 H CLE W - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
110 Aug 8 Aug 8 H CLE W - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
111 Aug 9 Aug 9 H CLE L R 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
112 Aug 10 Aug 10 A @WSH L R 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
113 Aug 11 Aug 11 A @PHA W - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
114 A @PHA W R 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
115 Aug 12 Aug 12 A @PHA W - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
116 Aug 13 Aug 13 A @PHA L R 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
117 Aug 15 Aug 15 H WSH L L 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 8.6 STOBBS FACED LEFTY
118 H WSH L R 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
119 Aug 16 Aug 16 H WSH W - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
120 H WSH L R 3 2 1 0 1 0 0 0
121 Aug 18 Aug 18 H PHA W R 3 1 0 0 0 1 1 1
122 Aug 19 Aug 19 H PHA W R 2 1 0 0 1 0 1.6 MARTIN
123 Aug 21 Aug 21 A @WSH L L 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 STOBBS
124 A @WSH W R 4 4 0 0 1 3
125 Aug 22 Aug 22 A @WSH W R 3 2 0 0 0 2
126 Aug 23 Aug 23 A @WSH W R 3 1 0 0 1 0
127 Aug 27 Aug 27 A @CHW L R 4 1 0 0 0 1
128 Aug 28 Aug 28 A @CHW W R 3 1 1 0 0 0 DOUBLE TO LEFT
129 Aug 29 Aug 29 A @CHW L R 4 2 0 0 0 2
130 Aug 30 Aug 30 A @CLE L R 2 1 0 0 1 0
131 A @CLE L - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
132 Aug 31 Aug 31 A @CLE W R 4 1 0 0 1 0 1 WIGHT
133 Sep 1 Sep 1 A @CLE L - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
134 Sep 2 Sep 2 A @DET W L 3 1 0 0 0 1 7 HOEFT
135 Sep 3 Sep 3 A @DET L R 1 1 0 0 0 1
136 Sep 6 Sep 6 A @PHA W R 2 2 0 0 1 1 1
137 A @PHA W - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
138 Sep 7 Sep 7 H NYY W R 4 2 0 0 1 1 1 KUZAVA
139 H NYY L R 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 UNDER TODAYS RULES A SAC FLY
140 Sep 9 Sep 9 H CLE L R 3 0 0 0 0 0 1
141 Sep 10 Sep 10 H CLE W R 4 2 0 0 2 0
142 Sep 11 Sep 11 H SLB L R 4 0 0 0 0 0
143 Sep 12 Sep 12 H SLB W R 4 0 0 0 0 0 4.3 LITTLEFIELD
144 Sep 13 Sep 13 H CHW W L 3 1 1 0 0 0 7 PIERCE
145 Sep 14 Sep 14 H CHW L R 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
146 Sep 15 Sep 15 H CHW L R 3 2 0 0 0 2
147 Sep 16 Sep 16 H DET L - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
148 Sep 17 Sep 17 H DET W R 4 1 0 0 1 0
149 Sep 19 Sep 19 H NYY W R 2 2 1 0 0 1
150 Sep 20 Sep 20 H NYY L L 3 1 1 0 0 0 5.3 FORD
151 Sep 25 Sep 25 A @NYY W L 3 2 1 0 0 1 6 KUZAVA
152 Sep 26 Sep 26 A @NYY W R 1 0 0 0 0 0
153 Sep 27 Sep 27 A @NYY W L 3 1 0 0 0 1 9 FORD
91 37 6 0 13 18