Clash of the Titans!

[RuthMayBond]

Jeff,

You were AWOL during the All Time position player polls. Does Bagwell crack your top 10? If not, why?

Does Palmeiro crack your top 20? Again why or why not.

Bill BurgessI had to do the research. I assume you're talking top 10/20 among 1B, right? Bagwell cracks my top 10 1B, AND Palmeiro cracks my top 20 1B.

[Bill Burgess]

BoSox Rule,

Just wondered how'd you rank Roger Clemens against Pedro Martinez. I assume you got to see both a long while on your TV set. I realize you were quite young when Clemens was ringing up the K's in his prime.

Bill Burgess

[Bill Burgess]

Potato,

I don't remember if I ever asked you, but how'd you rate Charlie Bennett, defensively, against Schalk or Kling, or Jimmy Archer? I really do respect your judgement on the early catchers.

As a matter of fact, I wouldn't mind seeing your top catchers, ranked in order pre-1910. You seem to have put in the time/work in working that era. You and Chancellor both have.

Bill Burgess

[Bill Burgess]

Jeff,

"I had to do the research. I assume you're talking top 10/20 among 1B, right? Bagwell cracks my top 10 1B, AND Palmeiro cracks my top 20 1B."


Of course, Jeff, natch. It wouldn't make any sense otherwise, would it? I haven't lost my last marble yet! But you forgot to note why.

I know. How about let's see your top top 1B, with 10 Honorable Mentions. Overall. Not only defense.

Bill Burgess

[RuthMayBond]

Jeff,

"I had to do the research. I assume you're talking top 10/20 among 1B, right? Bagwell cracks my top 10 1B, AND Palmeiro cracks my top 20 1B."


Of course, Jeff, natch. It wouldn't make any sense otherwise, would it? I haven't lost my last marble yet! But you forgot to note why.

I know. How about let's see your top top 1B, with 10 Honorable Mentions. Overall. Not only defense.

Bill BurgessI'll start with Gehrig, then Foxx. From what I've read, Buck Leonard probably fits in next, although there's not much room between Foxx & FThomas (as of now, not sure where Thomas will end up, always risky doing active guys). Then Brouthers (I haven't adjusted for era, I probably should), McGwire, Bagwell (another active), Anson, McCovey, then Mize. Flame away :laugh

[Bill Burgess]

Jeff,

Wow. I'm impressed. Leonard, Brouthers, Anson, Mize. Nice homework, Jeff.

I doubt if you would have considered them last year. You've come a long way, yes? You're finally "finding your voice." Leaving mainstream behind feels exposed at first, but it quickly goes away. Be brave, my groovey buddy.

Bill

[Bill Burgess]

More clash of the Titans:

Giambi/Beltran
Randy Johnson/Clemens
Schilling/Jason Schmidt

[ElHalo]

More clash of the Titans:

Giambi/Beltran
Randy Johnson/Clemens
Schilling/Jason Schmidt

Hm. Not sure if you mean right now, or over time.

Giambi/Beltran... right now, the edge in career value has to go to Giambi, but Jason seems to be at the end of the line, while Carlos is just getting started. Please note, though, that Carlos' career OPS+ is 111, and his career high is 136... add to that that he's not exactly Mike Cameron on defense, and Beltran is probably a little overrated at this point, though you can't argue with his postseason record.

Everybody would say Clemens has been more valuable over his career, but I disagree. Randy had some bad years in his 20's, but Rocket had some bad years in NY and at the end of his Boston stay. Rocket has never, in my opinion, been as absolutely dominating as Randy Johnson has been at his best (not even in 86 or in his Toronto days did I truly see Rocket as being as overpowering as Randy in 97 or 2002). I take Randy, but just barely.

As to Schilling/Schmidt, it's not remotely close, although Schmidt could possibly be better this year if Schilling's ankle is still a problem.

[Bill Burgess]

Jim,

I have a hunch that Jason Schmidt is only now getting his legs under him. And with the new closer we have now aquired, I think you will see Schmidtie slowly starting to pull farther and farther ahead of Curt Schilling, over time. Sometimes a team needs to support their starters with better bullpen guys, and now I think we've finally replaced Robb Nen. You wait and see.

I also suspect that Giambi may have under-performed recently, due to subconscouse fears of the scandal. Now that it's out there in the open, I feel he may have a better yr. this season. Stress can hamstring performance. He also may have feared that if he had hit at Bonds level, he'd have called too much suspicion upon himself.

Bill

[ElHalo]

Well, it'd be pretty hard for him to do worse than he did last year. The question is... is a Giambi without steroids a Carlos Delgado? Or is he a Tony Clark?

[RuthMayBond]

More clash of the Titans:

Giambi/Beltran
Randy Johnson/Clemens
Schilling/Jason SchmidtGiambi/Beltran is a strange pairing. A 1B probably in the decline of his career vs. an OF getting into the prime of his.
As soon as Randy chucks 1100+ more IP, we'll talk.
JSchmidt is gonna have to make up a LOT of ground to catch Curt.

[Bill Burgess]

Jeff,


Giambi/Beltran is a strange pairing.
(Don'tcha just love it. I take intense pleasure comparing those things which should not be compared. A devious mind like yours SHOULD UNDERSTAND.)


As soon as Randy chucks 1100+ more IP, we'll talk.
(Ah, stop being a sissy and answer the question. This house compares sluggers with 5,000 less PA, and pitchers like Young/Marinez all the time! What's the problem?)


J. Schmidt is gonna have to make up a LOT of ground to catch Curt.
(Yeah, but he's chuggin' hard and closin', don't you think? And now he has a good closer, who knows?)

Bill Burgess

[ElHalo]

Bill,

I think you'll like this one, brought up on a seperate thread here.

Ozzie Smith / Honus Wagner.

Not on defense. Just on all around play.

[Bill Burgess]

Ozzie Smith / Honus Wagner

Easiest shoot-out I ever did. I give Ozzie an edge in D. by a small margin, and everything else ever imagined go to Sir Honus. Hitting, running, clubhouse, dugout, intangibles, reputation, on & on.

Honus not only beats him, he slaughters him, packs him at the meathouse, and sells his ribs on the corner barbacue. Ozzie at the plate just disappears.

Bill Burgess

[BoSox Rule]

BoSox Rule,

Just wondered how'd you rank Roger Clemens against Pedro Martinez. I assume you got to see both a long while on your TV set. I realize you were quite young when Clemens was ringing up the K's in his prime.

Bill Burgess
Sorry, I don't check out this thread often, so I just saw this. I think Pedro is better than Roger, pretty easily actually. You can't deny that Roger has had the better career, but Pedro was much better at his best. I've never seen anybody dominate like Pedro. Not Clemens, not Randy, not Maddux, not anybody. Like you said, I didn't actually see much of Clemens live but I've seen quite a bit of video, and I saw a lot of his starts in Toronto, and I believe those are his two best years, or at least one of them was his best. 1990 may have been better than one of them, but I don't have the numbers right in front of me. I know he had a 2.05 ERA season in 1997 or 1998.

Pedro has the best stuff I’ve ever seen, and mixed it up like nobody else can do.

[ElHalo]

Pedro at his best certainly had the best stuff I've ever seen. The only starters that really come close in my mind are Randy Johnson in 1997, and Doc Gooden in 1986. Among guys I've seen.

[ElHalo]

But Bill, you've got to admit that the guy arguing for Ozzie over Honus had some pretty good points:


- "Wagner played in an era where he was a man among boys and did not have the competition Smith did".
- "Smith was a good hitter later on in his career".
- "Smith has a similar career batting average to Mark McGwire, and you can not honestly tell me that McGwire was a bad hitter".
- "Smith's defense is ten times more important than the hitting advantage that Wagner has because defense wins championships".


I mean, those are pretty hard to overcome, wouldn't you say?

[Bill Burgess]

Allow me to suggest a face off with a little more meat on the bone.

The following is Defense ONLY!

Rabbit Maranville/ Marty Marion, defense only.

Luis Aparicio/ Omar Vizquel, defense only.

Brooks Robinson/Ozzie Smith, defense only.

Would love more than a stat analysis. Arms? Go to left or right? Good on bunts?

Bill Burgess

[ElHalo]

Allow me to suggest a face off with a little more meat on the bone.

The following is Defense ONLY!

Rabbit Maranville/ Marty Marion, defense only.

These two aren't really comparable. Marion was certainly the leading defensive player of his day, but Maranville is arguably the leading defensive player of all time. Marion's big strength was his length, which he used to snare balls shorter players couldn't quite get to, but he didn't have anywhere near the range of Maranville. Rabbit, easy.


Luis Aparicio/ Omar Vizquel, defense only.

I'm gonna give this one to Aparicio based on one thing. Both were considered incredibly smooth fielders who could make any play easily, and both were thought to have sure hands and excellent footwork. However, Aparicio's arm was much more respected than Vizquel's, and I'll give Luis the edge based on that.

[Bill Burgess]

- "Wagner played in an era where he was a man among boys and did not have the competition Smith did".

(Bill - Same argument for Cobb/Ruth. Not THEIR fault that their competition were that much worse than them. I thought that was a GOOD thing, not a bad one.)

- "Smith was a good hitter later on in his career".

(Bill - Really? He stepped up his A game from .245 to .275. With that kind of improvement, you BETTER bring a HEAVENLY glove.)

- "Smith has a similar career batting average to Mark McGwire, and you can not honestly tell me that McGwire was a bad hitter".

(Bill - Have we really come to this? Are we comparing Ozzie's bat with Mark's? Mark brought other resources to the plate with him. Gettin' a LITTLE painful.)

- "Smith's defense is ten times more important than the hitting advantage that Wagner has because defense wins championships".

(Bill - That argument only works if Wagner stunk in the field. Since Wagner is arguably the greatest all around natural fielder who ever lived, the argument is bizarre. Since I only rank Ozzie defensively better than Honus by a very small amount, that means to me that Honus won a many things with his glove as Ozzie did, only Honus did it with a crap little glove. Honus won championships with his bat, running and glove.

Bill Burgess

[ElHalo]

RMB seems to think that Honus was just a slightly above average fielder, but I have to say, that Mark McGwire comment was quite possibly the dumbest thing I've ever heard in my life.

[Bill Burgess]

I have to rank both Koufax and Nolan Ryan as having the most stuff I've ever witnessed on a field. And that by far. Just personal opinion.

Bill Burgess

[Bill Burgess]

Wagner's defense:

He led his league in POs twice, assists never, DPs 4 times, FA 4 times.

His .940 fielding percentage was considered astonishing for turn of the century conditions.

Is it possible that Wagner's defensive stats were adversely affected due to relatively good pitching of his team?

But there is more to fielding than stats. An amazing defensive sparkler does not count as anything more than a PO. Hence, those who could do the miracles got no extra credit for them. Jeter and Wagner and Herman Long did the impossible, and these do not turn up in the stats. Just another out, as far as the record book is concerned.

We know of Brooks Robinson and Ozzie Smith, and others through word of mouth, TV video.

Stats can deceive. For example. Shortstops can register more DPs if the pitching is bad, and allow more runners. Same thing for assists. Bad pitching can put more traffic on base, and give more opportunities to fielders to rack up the assists/POs/DPs. See how it can go?

Some of the best pitching staffs were:

Phil. A's - 1910-14
Red Sox - 1915-19
Yankees - 1921-25
Dodgers - 1962-66

I'll bet the DPs, Assists were low for those infielders. Too lazy to check, but I'll just bet.

Bill Burgess

[RuthMayBond]

RMB seems to think that Honus was just a slightly above average fielder.Let's try this again. Wagner was an above average SHORTSTOP (didn't lead league much) but an excellent fielder (because of his versatility).

[RuthMayBond]

Wagner's defense:

He led his league in POs twice, assists never, DPs 4 times, FA 4 times.

His .940 fielding percentage was considered astonishing for turn of the century conditions.

Is it possible that Wagner's defensive stats were adversely affected due to relatively good pitching of his team?

But there is more to fielding than stats. An amazing defensive sparkler does not count as anything more than a PO. Hence, those who could do the miracles got no extra credit for them. Jeter and Wagner and Herman Long did the impossible, and these do not turn up in the stats. Just another out, as far as the record book is concerned.

We know of Brooks Robinson and Ozzie Smith, and others through word of mouth, TV video.

Stats can deceive. For example. Shortstops can register more DPs if the pitching is bad, and allow more runners. Same thing for assists. Bad pitching can put more traffic on base, and give more opportunities to fielders to rack up the assists/POs/DPs. See how it can go?

Some of the best pitching staffs were:

Phil. A's - 1910-14
Red Sox - 1915-19
Yankees - 1921-25
Dodgers - 1962-66

I'll bet the DPs, Assists were low for those infielders. Too lazy to check, but I'll just bet.

Bill BurgessDPs also depend upon more than the SS. You've said yourself FA doesn't mean all that much. And you're guessing about DP/A. I'll check your pitching staffs :laugh

[Bill Burgess]

Jeff,

I think we may have stumbled onto something important. Why you downrate Wagner's D.

His 2B might not have been good enough to create first-class stats, and his pitching might have been too good at keeping the bases relatively clear. Think we're onto something telling?

Bill Burgess

[RuthMayBond]

Jeff,

I think we may have stumbled onto something important. Why you downrate Wagner's D.

His 2B might not have been good enough to create first-class stats, and his pitching might have been too good at keeping the bases relatively clear. Think we're onto something telling?

Bill BurgessThat's a lot of "might have"s

[Bill Burgess]

That's 2!!! Is 2 a lot of reasons in JeffreyLand? It's not a lot in BurgessLand.

Bill Burgess

[RuthMayBond]

That's 2!!! Is 2 a lot of reasons in JeffreyLand? It's not a lot in BurgessLand.

Bill BurgessIt's enough "might have"s. Enough reasons to change my plans about my trip to BurgessLand :laugh

[Bill Burgess]

Frank Robinson/Ricky Henderson


Bill Burgess

[Bill Burgess]

Since the last one proved so popular, I thought I'd offer some more.

Aaron/Musial
Lajoie/E. Collins
Brett/Yaz
E. Murray/Winfield
ElHalo / BondMayBonds
Cubbieinexile / Leecemark
DoubleX / Imapotato


Bill Burgess

[ElHalo]

Since the last one proved so popular, I thought I'd offer some more.

Aaron/Musial Musial, of course. Aaron's got a defense and baserunning argument, but Musial's bat was magic.

Lajoie/E. Collins
Lajoie. Collins is the better baserunner, Lajoie's the better everything else.


Brett/Yaz

Brett, easy.



E. Murray/Winfield


Really, really, REALLY don't care.

[RuthMayBond]

Frank Robinson/Ricky Henderson


Bill Burgess

Anyone interested in the UFC (Ultimate Fighting Championships)? It's on now on Channel 40, FSN. FreePorbably Frank. Not only could he score, he could drive them in.

[RuthMayBond]

Since the last one proved so popular, I thought I'd offer some more.

Aaron/Musial
Lajoie/E. Collins
Brett/Yaz
E. Murray/Winfield
ElHalo / BondMayBondsI'll go with Aaron since Musial had to be moved to 1B
Probably Lajoie because of OPS+ and Range Factor+
Apples/oranges but I'll go with Brett, if a corner OF can't keep up with a 3B OPS+
Same, Winfield, if 1B can't keep up with OF OPS+
Since their IS no BondMayBonds, I'll begrudge ya ElHalo :laugh Trying to compare us is like trying to dance about architecture :laugh

[Bill Burgess]

Musial over Aaron
E. Collins over Lajoie, but close.
Brett over Yaz
E. Murray over Winfield


All winners:
ElHalo / RuthMayBonds
Cubbieinexile / Leecemark
DoubleX / Imapotato


Bill Burgess

[RuthMayBond]

All winners:
ElHalo / RuthMayBonds
Cubbieinexile / Leecemark
DoubleX / Imapotato


Bill BurgessI always said you are ok :laugh

[Bill Burgess]

Here's an "oddball" match-up.

Richie Ashburn/Luke Appling

Charlie Gehringer/Ryne Sandberg


Bill Burgess

[ElHalo]

Charlie Gehringer/Ryne Sandberg


Bill Burgess

Don't know what to make of that first one, but this one... man, I really don't know what to say about this. I consider Gehringer just a half step below Eddie Collins, a full step above Joe Morgan. I consider Ryno a half step above Lou Whitaker, maybe a step and a half below Morgan. Can't believe you'd compare these two.

[csh19792001]

Here's an "oddball" match-up.

Richie Ashburn/Luke Appling

Charlie Gehringer/Ryne Sandberg


Bill Burgess

An even odder matchup

Clash of the extremely underrated current young stars

Bobby Abreu/Brian Giles

[csh19792001]

An even odder matchup

Clash of the extremely underrated current young stars

Bobby Abreu/Brian Giles

What can I say, Bill- I love underrated players. :)

Ill take Abreu, even though his OPS is lower. He has very unusual (in a good way) numbers. How many guys hit annually .300, with HR power, draw lots of walks (OBP over .400 every year), steal bases (at a great rate), hit lots of doubles, and field extremely well? Very rare combo of skills.

Abreu is one of three players in ML history to have 50 doubles, 20 homeruns, and 30 steals in a season.

He and Alfonso Soriano are the only two players in history to have more than 45+ doubles, 30 homeruns, and 40 steals in a season.

http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/stats/mlb_individual_stats_player.jsp?playerID=110029

[RuthMayBond]

Here's an "oddball" match-up.

Richie Ashburn/Luke Appling

Charlie Gehringer/Ryne Sandberg


Bill BurgessAppling had a better OPS+ for longer at a position where much less offense is expected. Gehringer over Sandberg in EVERYTHING but running.

[RuthMayBond]

An even odder matchup

Clash of the extremely underrated current young stars

Bobby Abreu/Brian GilesExcellent observation. Maybe Giles so far but Abreu is younger.

[ElHalo]

Can't believe you'd compare these two.


And that is why I do this. Comparing things which shouldn't or can't be compared is where the fun is. Pure Pleasure. Why not take a shot? You might feel good.

Bill Burgess


Ok.

Ty Cobb / Vince Coleman.

About as even a matchup as Gehringer / Rhyno.

[RuthMayBond]

Ok.

Ty Cobb / Vince Coleman.Vince Coleman had three years of 107+ SB, Cobb had none. Gotta be Vin Man :laugh :laugh :laugh

[Captain Cold Nose]

Ok.

Ty Cobb / Vince Coleman.

About as even a matchup as Gehringer / Rhyno.

Cobb in everything except for fire-cracker throwing and tarp cuisine.

Curt Flood or Vada Pinson?

[RuthMayBond]

Cobb in everything except for fire-cracker throwing and tarp cuisine.

Curt Flood or Vada Pinson?If longevity counts for anything, Pinson & his bat will beat out Flood's glove

[ElHalo]

There's something about throwing lit firecrackers into crowds of autograph seekers that just really endears you to a guy.

But then again, my favorite basketball player ever is Bill Laimbeer, and I am wearing an OJ Simpson throwback jersey right now.

Joking about the firecrackers being endearing, but oddly not joking about Laimbeer or OJ.

[Windy City Fan]

Ok.

Ty Cobb / Vince Coleman.

About as even a matchup as Gehringer / Rhyno.

Now I'll agree Gehringer is ahead of Rhyno by a good margin, but Gehringer is my sixth best second baseman and Rhyno comes in any where between 7th and tenth. Not a huge gap.

Coleman isn't even in the same universe as Cobb - but you knew that. :)

[RuthMayBond]

Coleman isn't even in the same universe as Cobb - but you knew that. :)Coleman couldn't even carry Cobb's, uh ...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
spike file :laugh

[ElHalo]

Now I'll agree Gehringer is ahead of Rhyno by a good margin, but Gehringer is my sixth best second baseman and Rhyno comes in any where between 7th and tenth. Not a huge gap.


I have Gehringer as my fourth best 2Bman (behind Hornsby, Lajoie, Collins), and Ryno just outside my top 10, depending on whether or not I feel he's better than Alomar/Biggio that day.

Gehringer I consider one of the top 30 players ever to lace up spikes. Not sure Ryno cracks my top 100.

[Windy City Fan]

I put Morgan and Robinson ahead of Gehringer. Frisch, Alomar, Biggio and Sandburg compete to round out the top ten. Sometimes I consider Carew, but then I remember his glove and that he only played half his career there.

[WillieMaysHayes]

I'm a pretty serious BB fan so here goes.

Potsie or Ralph :laugh

Ok all kidding aside. How bout Bernie Williams/Dale Murphy
David Cone/Mike Mussina
Larry Jones/Rocky Colavito

[ElHalo]

Bernie Williams/Dale Murphy
David Cone/Mike Mussina
Larry Jones/Rocky Colavito

Now here's some good ones!

Murphy has the MVP's, that Bernie can't really touch. But Murphy's MVP's came against some pretty sorry competition. The guys who finished second the years Murphy won are Lonnie Smith and Andre Dawson, with Pedro Guerrero right behind both years.

Bernie only has two top 10's in MVP voting, but he had some pretty heady competition... he finished one slot behind Manny Ramirez in 1998, and again in 2002.

Bernie leads in OPS+, 130 to 121, though Bernie's in decline mode... can't see him dropping to 121, though. Bernie's a much better hitter for average and has much better plate discipline, while Murphy's more of a slugger than Bernie. Murphy does have a 30/30 season, but on the whole I'd say that they're equivalent baserunners. Both were exceptional gloves, though Murphy got moved to the corner outfield around age 30, while Bernie's looked worse as he's stayed in CF. I'll call that one a tossup.

This seems pretty close to me. I give Bernie a slight edge, because Murphy had 6 excellent years scattered through his career, while Bernie had 8 excellent years consecutively, from 1995 to 2002. Close, though.

[WillieMaysHayes]

Now here's some good ones!

Murphy has the MVP's, that Bernie can't really touch. But Murphy's MVP's came against some pretty sorry competition. The guys who finished second the years Murphy won are Lonnie Smith and Andre Dawson, with Pedro Guerrero right behind both years.

Bernie only has two top 10's in MVP voting, but he had some pretty heady competition... he finished one slot behind Manny Ramirez in 1998, and again in 2002.

Bernie leads in OPS+, 130 to 121, though Bernie's in decline mode... can't see him dropping to 121, though. Bernie's a much better hitter for average and has much better plate discipline, while Murphy's more of a slugger than Bernie. Murphy does have a 30/30 season, but on the whole I'd say that they're equivalent baserunners. Both were exceptional gloves, though Murphy got moved to the corner outfield around age 30, while Bernie's looked worse as he's stayed in CF. I'll call that one a tossup.

This seems pretty close to me. I give Bernie a slight edge, because Murphy had 6 excellent years scattered through his career, while Bernie had 8 excellent years consecutively, from 1995 to 2002. Close, though.


The one thing was how highly regarded Murphy was when he was playing, certainly more so than Bernie.
I know its been beaten to death, but how many people would have said Murphy wasn't going into the Hall circa 1987?
I mean this guy basically just fell off a cliff, the likes which we havn't seen to often.
As a side note, I wonder how many guys broke in as a catcher and became a GG CF?

[therealnod]

Cobb in everything except for fire-cracker throwing and tarp cuisine.

...Ouch...

[ElHalo]

The one thing was how highly regarded Murphy was when he was playing, certainly more so than Bernie.
I know its been beaten to death, but how many people would have said Murphy wasn't going into the Hall circa 1987?
I mean this guy basically just fell off a cliff, the likes which we havn't seen to often.
As a side note, I wonder how many guys broke in as a catcher and became a GG CF?

Well, Biggio isn't exactly a GG CF, but he's pretty good, and he was pretty good at C too.

[Iron Jaw]

Vince Coleman had three years of 107+ SB, Cobb had none. Gotta be Vin Man :laugh :laugh :laugh

Ty never threw firecrackers at little girls though.....Although he did a few other things that would make Vince look like a puritan.

But, overall, Vince wasn't much of a hitter. And Ty was the greatest singles hitter who ever played the game. Not really a contest.

[Cheval 52]

:eek: The Baseball Bat incident. :eek:

What was even more shocking was when JUAN MARICHAL became a DODGER years later..... :laugh :laugh :laugh GO FIGURE!

[Cheval 52]

I went to school with George Brett, EL SEGUNDO HIGH SCHOOL (1967- 1971)
also the same school that produced Scott MacGregor (class of 72).
In fact Sports Illustrated did a few articles on Coach Stevenson over the years, one of the highest rated High School coaches etc.

[Bill Burgess]

Roberto Alomar/Alfonso Soriano

Albert Belle/Richie Allen

[Bill Burgess]

Here's the killer. The mother of tough face-offs!

Wagner/Mays

Only the stout-hearted will attempt this one! Anyone of true grit still standing?


Bill Burgess

[RuthMayBond]

Ok all kidding aside. How bout Bernie Williams/Dale Murphy
David Cone/Mike Mussina
Larry Jones/Rocky ColavitoMussina has more left in the tank.
Chipper, who has played a harder defensive position for most of his career.

[RuthMayBond]

Here's the killer. The mother of tough face-offs!

Wagner/Mays

Only the stout-hearted will attempt this one! Anyone of true grit still standing?


Bill BurgessI would have to go with Honus. The only SS who are within less than THIRTY points of OPS+ are AT LEAST FOUR THOUSAND plate apps short :eek: Only one SS within 140 SB. He was, uh, pretty versatile defensively

[RuthMayBond]

Roberto Alomar/Alfonso Soriano

Albert Belle/Richie Allen1) WAY to early to be talking about Soriano
2) Probably Allen because he at one time played a tougher defensive position,
and had a better OPS+ for more plate apps

[RuthMayBond]

I'm still waiting for anyone to tackle in a serious way,

Wagner/Mays


Bill BurgessA shortstop almost out OPS+ing an outfielder is just sick. While Wagner has the best OPS+ for a shortstop, Mays only has at best the third-highest OPS+ considering only center fielders.

[Windy City Fan]

I might give some indepth analysis to the issue a little later, but the short answer is Wagner.

[RuthMayBond]

Thank you, Jeffrey! You're the only one with the balls to grapple with such a gut-wrencher.Well, I have caught over one hundred of them. Oh, you meant . . . :laugh :laugh

[torez77]

Wagner vs. Mays (in my view)

Hitting - Wagner is better in hitting for average. Mays is better in power, deadball or no deadball. Wagner has a paper-thin edge in OBP. Mays has a big edge in SLG. But Wagner is a shortstop. But just because he's a shortstop, do we automatically say he's a better hitter than Mays, because SS's usually don't hit that well? Is Alex Rodriguez a better hitter than Barry Bonds? Right now, I'm giving the edge to Mays, but I may come back and rethink this one later.

Running - Sigh. We don't have access to Wagner's SB% numbers. I doubt they were better than Mays'. Wagner has more total SBs, but better SB% is more impressive. Mays and Wagner are both very good in triples. Mays scored 300 more runs, but did play in 200 more games. All things considered - I'll take Mays, but not by much.

Fielding/Throwing - Wagner was a good fielding SS for his day, but didn't become a great fielder until the 10's. Mays was certainly the best fielding CFer ever of his day, and arguably ever. Wagner could play multiple positions. We really can't tell how good he was by looking at the stats. From what I've read, Wagner was sometimes a sloppy fielder, but got the job done. SS is the most demanding position to field. In his day, was Wagner, as a fielder, the equal of Ozzie Smith, Luis Aparicio, or Omar Vizquel? Personally, I don't think so, at least not until late in his career. Is Mays comparable to Tris Speaker and Max Carey? Absolutely! Gotta give the edge to Mays here.

I've always said that throughout the 1st decade of the 20th century, Wagner was definitely the best player in the NL. But there was a gentleman in the other league named Nap Lajoie who topped Wagner several times in BA throughout the decade. Lajoie and Wagner are equal in all-time OPS+. As an all-around player, I gotta give the edge to Wagner because he played a more demanding position and was a better baserunner. All in all, Wagner dominated the NL, not the entire MLs. But he was the best all-around player of the 1900's.

During the 50's and 60's, two decades worth, Willie Mays was the best all-around player in the entire MLs. Arguments can be made for Mantle, and if not for his injuries he might have been better than Mays. As it was, Mays remained the best player in the league probably longer than any other player in history. He didn't dominate his league offensively quite the way Wagner did his (as far as leading the league). An argument for Mays is that he played in a much deeper league. Mays didn't have a weakness in his game. Come to think of it, Wagner didn't either. Both were great hitters. Mays has a 157-150 edge in OPS+. The fact that Wagner is a SS makes who was the better offensive player argument very interesting, but I'm sticking with Mays. In my view, Mays was also better defensively and a better runner. Wagner was more diverse and played more positions (including pitching), but didn't excel at any of them besides SS.

All things considered, and there are many things to consider, I'm going with Mays. Now I know I'm Satan to some of you for not glorifying Wagner, but that's just the way I see it right now.

OK, let the arrows come! I got my shield up! :hp

[Captain Cold Nose]

Willie Davis/Tommy Davis

[leecemark]

--I'll take both Willies, with Mays vs Wagner the closer call than Davis vs Davis. Both Willie Mays and Honus Wagner had an extended period where they were, at least arguably, the best hitter, defender and baserunner in their leagues. Wagner was more dominant in comparison to his league and played SS to Mays CF. If they had faced anywhere near the same quality of opposition that would easily tilt the balance towards Wagner.
--However, they did not face the same quality of opposition. Wagner played 60 years earlier in a league that was not fully developed and which, for most of his best years, was weakened by raids from the new AL. Mays played in a league which had perhaps reached the highest level of competition in the history of the game. Either has a reasonable argument as the best player ever, but my money is on Mays.

[RuthMayBond]

Wagner vs. Mays (in my view)

Running - Sigh. We don't have access to Wagner's SB% numbers. I doubt they were better than Mays'. Wagner has more total SBs, but better SB% is more impressive.

I thought more SB runs/SB wins was more impressive

Fielding/Throwing - Mays was certainly the best fielding CFer ever of his day, and arguably ever. Is Mays comparable to Tris Speaker and Max Carey? Absolutely!

Well, there was that Ashburn guy in Mays' time, and Speaker and Carey might disagree about all-time

Lajoie and Wagner are equal in all-time OPS+.

More offense is expected at 2B than at SS

[prof93]

Mays v. Mantle

Hitting:We already know that Mays played longer and performed at a quality pace longer. But who was best at their respective peaks? Lets take the 15 best season for both...say 1951-1965 for Mantle and 1951 and 1954 thru 1967 for Mays.

Mantle 1951-1965

G-2015
AB-6894
R-1517
RBI-1298
HR-454
BA-.306
BB-SO- 1463-1424
SB-CS-145-34 FOR 81%
OBA-.427
SLGA-.567
SLOB-24.21


Mays 1951,54-67

G-2264
AB-8505
R-1662
RBI-1552
HR-560
BA-.310
BB-SO-1054-1049
SB-CS-283-86 FOR 69.6%
OBA-.386
SLGA-.586
SLOB-22.62

Mantle is this period misses 89 games due to injury although he leads Mays in the most important number OBA by a wide margin. His stolen base % is considerably higher. And though Mays batted 1600 more times he only leads Mantle by 106 HRs. Still not conviced huh???? Lets define peak as their 12 best seasons, we will eliminate their rookie seasons for both and Mantle's 1963 season even though he hit .314 that year, coincindentally that brings us through Mays MVP seasons of 1954 and 1965

Mantle 1952-62,64
G-1722
AB-6020
R-1372
RBI-1198
HR-426
BA-.321
BB-SO-1308-1242
SB-CS-131-25
OBA-.433
SLGA-.589
SLOB-25.50

Mays 1954-1965

G-1850
AB-7003
R-1421
RBI-1311
HR-481
BA-.318
BB-SO-876-816
SB-CS-264-81
OBA-.393
SLGA-.556
SLOB-21.85

At first Mays appears to have a clear advantage, more HRs,runs,RBI, more hits, more SBs. But it doesn't take long to see that Mantle is the superior hitter, and by a decisive margin. In their 12 best seasons Mays plays in 128 games, but their total production isn't that different. Lets use one more table:

Mantle 1952-62,64
AB-6020
BB-1308
PA-7327
H + BB = 1871 + 1307 = 3178

Mays 1954-65
AB-7003
BB-876
PA-7879
H + BB = 2224 + 867 = 3100

Look again so no one says I stacked the deck in Mantle's favor. Mays plays in 128 more games than Mantle in their 12 best seasons and had nearly 1000 more official plate appearences and 552 more at-bats. YET MANTLE REACHES BASE 78 MORE TIMES!!! In their 15 best season Mays batted 1600 more times and reached base only 121 more times than Mantle. Mantle's SLOB was superior to Mays's. And over their 12 peak seasons Mantle had a higher OBA and SLGA. What does SLOB say?? Well when you multiply slugging times on-base average, Mantle jumps into a clear lead 25.50 to 21.85 or 3.65 more runs per 100 at-bats. While its true that Willie Mays created more runs than Mickey Mantle in his career its also true that Mickey Mantle created more runs per game.

Mantle-
LED MAJOR LEAGUES IN RUNS, 1950S: 994
LED MAJOR LEAGUES IN STRIKEOUTS, 1950S: 899
LED MAJOR LEAGUES IN OBA, 1950S: .425
LED MAJOR LEAGUES IN OPS, 1950S: .995
LED MAJOR LEAGUES IN RCAA, 1950S: 655
LED MAJOR LEAGUES IN OFFENSIVE WINNING PERCENTAGE, 1950S: .814
LED MAJOR LEAGUES IN RUNS CREATED/GAME, 1950S: 10.03
LED MAJOR LEAGUES IN SECONDARY AVERAGE, 1950S: .474

LED OUTFIELDERS IN HOMERUN PERCENTAGE, 1960S: 7.06
LED OUTFIELDERS IN WALKS, 1960S: 841
LED OUTFIELDERS IN OBA, 1960S: .415
LED OUTFIELDERS IN OFFENSIVE WINNING PERCENTAGE, 1960S: .794
LED OUTFIELDERS IN RUNS CREATED/GAME, 1960S: 8.84
LED OUTFIELDERS IN ISOLATED POWER, 1960S: .259
LED OUTFIELDERS IN SECONDARY AVERAGE, 1960S: .503
LED OUTFIELDERS IN BPA, 1960S: .618

Edge: Mantle

Baserunning:The baserunning argument is an interesting one. Mantle has the higher stolen base percentage, and the Yankees hit well as a team and won enough that Mantle wasn't asked to run has often has Mays was for the Giants. When Mantle did run, it was because his team need the stolen base, from 1952-1964 Mantle steals 133 bases in 159 attempts or almost 84% success rate. Mays is largely considered the better baserunner, well 2 ways to look at it our SB % and GIDP, Mantle has the clear advantage in both. Although Mantles teams didn't have to run as much he leads in SB% that should not penalize Mays however. If you attempt more you run the risk of being caught. Mays played in 591 more games and hit into 251 double plays- Mantle hit into 113 in 2401 games. Not convinced Jackie Robinson played in 1019 less games than Mantle and hit into the same number!!! Mantle was the superior bunter, and the faster player. Stolen bases alone don't give the edge to Mays. DRAW

Fielding/Throwing:Could Mantle play the outfield? When Joe DiMaggio quit and Mickey took over in center field there was no lowering of standards. What a compliment. Maybe he didn't quite have DiMag's arm, but he had more than Joe's speed. He, too, could outrun a fly ball. Lets look at fielding Mantle leads in FA .982 to Mays's .981 yet Mays has a edge in total chances per game at 2.56 to 2.26 so Mays got to 1 fly ball every 3-odd games that Mantle didn't. We could analyze the whys and they are numerous but the difference is very little. While it is possible that the Yankees employed more "groundball type pitchers" as Stengel liked to call then, that is a poor argument. Judging their arms is difficult, Mays recorded more assists, and double plays, yet he played more games in the outfield than Mantle. Edge:Mays

Overall:When all things are considered equally, and Mantle's playing with injuries is factored in:"1951, right knee cartilage operation; 1952, right knee again; 1954, knee cyst removed; 1955, pulled groin muscle; 1956, left knee sprained; 1957, right shoulder injury; 1959, broken finger; 1961, hip abscess; 1962, left knee injury; 1963, broken metatarsal bone left foot; 1965, right shoulder surgery, right elbow and left knee injuries." Mays should have blown him away, but he didn't. At their respected bests, Mantle was the better player, when did it ever happen, before Mantle, that the biggest hitter on any team, the guy who hit the farthest in the league, was also the fastest man on his team and its best bunter? Never. Of Mantle's lifetime 536 homeruns a 118 of them were game winning HRs, including 13 in extra innings. Mantle had 3 years in which he reached double digits in game winning HRs--11 in 1955, 12 in 1956, 11 in 1961. Mantle was the better player when both were at their respected peak of talent, and in this posters opinion, when judging a player, you want to know who was better period, not who played longer.

The choice here is Mantle

[torez77]

Running -

I thought more SB runs/SB wins was more impressive

Fielding/Throwing - Mays was certainly the best fielding CFer ever of his day, and arguably ever. Is Mays comparable to Tris Speaker and Max Carey? Absolutely!

Well, there was that Ashburn guy in Mays' time, and Speaker and Carey might disagree about all-time

Lajoie and Wagner are equal in all-time OPS+.

More offense is expected at 2B than at SS


RMB said --- "I thought more SB runs/SB wins was more impressive"

Well, since we don't have access to Wagner's SB%, Stolen Base Runs or Wins (at least I don't, somebody else?) how can we judge this? SB Runs and Wins have a lot to do with SB%, which is more valuable to the team. The only year I see SB% and SBR recorded for Wagner is 1915, and he has a not-so-good 59% and -2 SBR. Mays has a 77% career SB% and is 32nd on all-time SBR and 30th on SBW - Total Baseball, 1999. I doubt Wagner was better in these areas. In his younger days, he was certainly comparable, and he amassed almost 400 more SB than Mays throughout his career. But that's do to much more stolen base attempts, in an era where almost everybody was an attempted thief. All in all, I doubt Wagner has Mays beat in SB%, Wins or Runs.


RMB said --- "Well, there was that Ashburn guy in Mays' time, and Speaker and Carey might disagree about all-time"

Yep, but I'd compare Mays defensively to those three a lot faster than I would Wagner to Smith, Aparicio, or Vizquel. Willie won 11 straight Gold Gloves during Ashburn's latter years (GG didn't come in until '57) and still holds the record for most career putouts by an OFer.

RMB said --- "More offense is expected at 2B than at SS"

True, but I'm careful about how much value I put into this. Does that make Wagner a better hitter than Hornsby, or for that matter, Ty Cobb, just because he has all the other SS's beat by a bigger margin that Cobb does OFers? Are we going to create a new stat - SS relative average?

[RuthMayBond]

RMB said --- "I thought more SB runs/SB wins was more impressive"

Well, since we don't have access to Wagner's SB%, Stolen Base Runs or Wins (at least I don't, somebody else?) how can we judge this? SB Runs and Wins have a lot to do with SB%, which is more valuable to the team. The only year I see SB% and SBR recorded for Wagner is 1915, and he has a not-so-good 59% and -2 SBR. Mays has a 77% career SB% and is 32nd on all-time SBR and 30th on SBW - Total Baseball, 1999. I doubt Wagner was better in these areas. In his younger days, he was certainly comparable, and he amassed almost 400 more SB than Mays throughout his career. But that's do to much more stolen base attempts, in an era where almost everybody was an attempted thief. All in all, I doubt Wagner has Mays beat in SB%, Wins or Runs.


RMB said --- "Well, there was that Ashburn guy in Mays' time, and Speaker and Carey might disagree about all-time"

Yep, but I'd compare Mays defensively to those three a lot faster than I would Wagner to Smith, Aparicio, or Vizquel. Willie won 11 straight Gold Gloves during Ashburn's latter years (GG didn't come in until '57) and still holds the record for most career putouts by an OFer.1) In Wagner's day it was harder to score runs so you didn't have to have as good a SB% to be as successful.

2) Willie may have won some GG on reputation (at least '65, '67, '68), and Willie did have good longevity

[torez77]

1) In Wagner's day it was harder to score runs so you didn't have to have as good a SB% to be as successful.

2) Willie may have won some GG on reputation (at least '65, '67, '68), and Willie did have good longevity

So give me your most solid arguments why you think Wagner was a better runner and fielder.

[RuthMayBond]

So give me your most solid arguments why you think Wagner was a better runner and fielder.We don't quite know what kind of a runner Wagner was, but I'm not going to assert that Mays was definitely better. Wagner was a more versatile fielder than Mays, filling in wherever needed. Surprisingly, Mays only led his league in PO once :eek:

[torez77]

We don't quite know what kind of a runner Wagner was, but I'm not going to assert that Mays was definitely better. Wagner was a more versatile fielder than Mays, filling in wherever needed. Surprisingly, Mays only led his league in PO once :eek:

Adding everything up, I'm asserting there's a better chance Mays was a better runner than Wagner than Wagner was better than Mays.

Wagner was a more versatile fielder, but more versatile doesn't necessarily mean better. At his primary position, was Wagner as good as Mays was at his primary position? Well, it is very hard for me to compare SS to OF. I did my best in my analysis, but the argument will go on and on.

[AG2004]

"Surprisingly, Mays only led his league in PO once" - RuthMayBond

The Phillies' pitching staff is partly responsible for that. Although it sounds like a ridiculous excuse, it isn't as farfetched as it sounds.

In Bill James' newest historical abstract, there's an interesting essay for Granny Hamner. The Phillies raw double play totals were very low, and traditional fielding analysis rates Hamner as a poor defensive player for that, and for several other reasons.

However, the Phillies pitchers didn't walk a lot of people, and they gave up more fly balls (and fewer ground balls) than the other teams in the league. If you adjust for those totals, the Phillies made about as many double plays during Hamner's career as you would expect - sometimes a few more, sometimes a few less, but their low DP totals are due almost exclusively to the fact that they didn't have as many chances to turn the DP as the other NL teams.

On the other hand, the Phillies gave up more fly balls than other teams. We also see that Richie Ashburn often led Mays in putouts. In order for a center fielder to record a putout, the ball has to be a fly ball to the outfield - and the Phillies pitchers gave up more such balls than the Giants pitchers, hence it was easier for Ashburn to lead the NL center fielders in putouts than it was for Mays. As Bill James concluded, "He [Ashburn] made far more putouts per season in the outfield than any other player in history, although this is partially due to the fact that the Phillies pitching staff, led by Robin Roberts, was dominated by fly-ball pitchers."

If you adjust for this fact, then Mays may very well come out ahead of Ashburn as a defensive player, despite Ashburn's high PO totals.

Does anyone want to take on Mays vs. Ashburn, defense only?

[ElHalo]

In order for a center fielder to record a putout, the ball has to be a fly ball to the outfield

Just wanted to tackle this one.

This isn't true. If you have a CF playing shallow, a la Tris Speaker, and he gets a grounder with a man on first base, he can run in and start the DP from second base... thus recording a putout on an outfield grounder.

[AG2004]

My mistake - "Most of the time" is more accurate.

Just about anything can happen in baseball - left fielder Brant Alyea once recorded a putout at third on a K-7-6-7 play.

[RuthMayBond]

However, the Phillies pitchers didn't walk a lot of people, and they gave up more fly balls (and fewer ground balls) than the other teams in the league.That could be, although I'm surprised someone was tracking that back then

[RuthMayBond]

Just wanted to tackle this one.

This isn't true. If you have a CF playing shallow, a la Tris Speaker, and he gets a grounder with a man on first base, he can run in and start the DP from second base... thus recording a putout on an outfield grounder.Well, let's take the last, uh, EIGHTY years plus :laugh

[Bill Burgess]

Wagner over Mays:

From 1900-1910, Wagner achieved an almost impossible feat. On the whole, he was the best hitter, fielder and runner in his league. Others may have had a better year than he did in one of the skills, but overall - he was dominant.

Now, I am fully informed that Potato will immediately post that the only reason Honus could do that was due to the chronic weakness in the NL, due to the incessant AL raids. And he may be quite right on that. But does anyone doubt that Hans couldn't have done that even if his league had stayed strong? Holding a man responsible for the inherent weakness of his competition is so wrong.

Many players only play as good as they have to to win, and can improve their game if their rivals push them. Like Cobb/Jackson, 1911-13, or Ruth/Gehrig, '27.

In hitting, Wagner led his league so many more times than Willie in hitting categories that it isn't even funny. Now I am also aware, that Willie had to contend with a level of competition in the 1950-60's, mostly in the form of fellow black players, that Hans didn't face.

Honus may have appeared easy-going, but beneath the Lincolnesque facade, burned an intensely competitive spirit. Could he have remained supreme, if John "Pop" Lloyd had been in the NL? I think he could have, and if you know me, I'm saying a mouthful! So that is how highly I regard Wagner!

Fielding: I must consider Wagner much the better fielder, because the best SS is better defensively than the best CF. Mays had rivals in Ashburn. Even considering Richie's fly-ball throwing pitching staff. Mays had a much bigger OF turf to patrol in the Polo Ground, which allows more flys to be caught, up to '57. If Mays was as good a fielder, he'd have been an infielder. No one good enough to handle the infield, especially SS, is assigned the gardens. You put your sluggish sluggers there. Willie wasn't sluggish, by any means, but not agile enough to handle an infield post, surely not SS.

To those who cry foul, at comparing a SS with an OF, let me remind you, that SS is a far more demanding post than CF, and requires more defensive talent.

I wouldn't call Honus the best fielding SS of his day. Bobby Wallace was probably better, but not by a lot. Very slight margin.

Running: Again, I must rate Hans over Willie. Yes, Wilie ran very well, but Hans was one of the all time runners. Willie was not. And when a SS runs that well, that is something. Simply because we lack SB% in his era, we can't assume that Wagner was a poor % runner. Hans was expected to run, while Willie was not. So I do give Mays extra bonus points, but not nearly enough to overcome Wagner's SB totals. Hans is still 10th all time, with 722 SB. Hans was leading a league of base stealers 5 times, while Willie was leading a league of non-runners 4 times.

Honus Wagner--BA---Hits--2B---3B---HR Runs---RBI---TB---OBA--SLG.--SB
Led league------8-----2----7----3----0----2------5-----7----4-----6---5


Willie Mays---BA---Hits---2B---3B---HR---Runs---RBI---TB---OBA---SLG.--SB
Led league----1----1------0----3----4----2------0------3----2------5----4


Although Willie led his league in homers 4 times, Honus finished in the top 5 in homers 4 times. It is easy to see at a glance that in hitting, both super-stars are among the elite hitters. Their stats cut across the board, in the same way as Cobb, Hornsby, Bonds and several others. They didn't merely bunch their good numbers in a few power categories, but cuts across the boards.

And they both star at both ends, actually are triple threats. But Wagner edges Willie in defense/running, and holds him to a draw in hitting. Hans' weaker league is compensated for, by leading it much more often, as he needed to do, given the discrepancy in league strength.

Summary: Honus in all 3 categories. We cannot assume that Wagner would have been found wanting in power, had he been accorded his chances.

Bill Burgess

[torez77]

Nice post, Bill. I find it very difficult to compare players from different eras, but you do it nicely.

[Bill Burgess]

Thanks, torez77!! I appreciate that, really.

Bill

[RuthMayBond]

If Mays was as good a fielder, he'd have been an infielder.

Like a 1B? :D

No one good enough to handle the infield, especially SS, is assigned the gardens.

Tell it to Chipper Jones, Pete Rose

You put your sluggish sluggers there.

Tell it to Richie Ashburn, Max Carey, Willie Wilson ...

[RuthMayBond]

Jeffrey,

Does it give you so much pleasure to find the exceptions to the general truths I write? Does it make your day?

Rose? I think he makes my point for me quite nicely.

Do you dispute my generalization, that those who can handle an infield post, are generally used there, with few exceptions? Even if you can find all of them?

And did you read it to mean that I implied that ALL OFers are sluggish. I don't think it reads that way. Please interpret sensibly, Jeffrey, or I won't let you clap erasers after school for me anymore.

Bill BurgesssWouldn't dispute it if it was a generalization, but you said "NO ONE good enough to handle the infield". How does Rose make your point?

[RuthMayBond]

Rose: When you're not good enough to handle the infield, they put you in the OF. That was my point. Just because Pete was used in the IF, doesn't mean he could cut it there. Says his team was desperate for good fielders, to me.

Bill BurgessOK, although Pete led 1B in A & field% in 1980. His Range Factor+ at 1B is above average. If Pete was THAT bad in the infield, I'd think they could have found someone else.

[RuthMayBond]

They did. Which is why Rose is best remembered as an OF.

Bill BurgessWell they didn't find someone else for the infield for 16 of Rose's 24 seasons

[RuthMayBond]

Jeffrey,

Picky, picky. Always the technical details.

Bill BurgessI didn't think it was that technical

[four tool]

The last couple of messages about Rose in the infield remind of a post civil war story. One confederate veteran was talking about how they invaded Kentucky occupied Columbus and when the Yankees came, chased the Yankees all the way to the Ohio River. Another veteran pointed out that what really happened was the Yankees chased them into Tennessee. the firsat veteran's commnet :"Darn! There goes another good story spoiled by an eyewitness."


I always saw Rose as more of an infielder myself, but the 1975 may be giving me a bias.

[four tool]

should be a smiley after the quote.

[RuthMayBond]

The last couple of messages about Rose in the infield remind of a post civil war story. One confederate veteran was talking about how they invaded Kentucky occupied Columbus and when the Yankees came, chased the Yankees all the way to the Ohio River. Another veteran pointed out that what really happened was the Yankees chased them into Tennessee. the firsat veteran's commnet :"Darn! There goes another good story spoiled by an eyewitness."


I always saw Rose as more of an infielder myself, but the 1975 may be giving me a bias.Burgess, what does that say about eyewitnesses "best remembering" something?

[RuthMayBond]

I's a don't know that one. Y'all tell me, massa bossman.

Dunce who believes eye witnesses.

PS. If eye witnesses are so unreliabale, how come courts rely on them? Tell me that one, Oh exalted Wizard of ER.

DunceMan1) 'Cause sometimes that's ALL you got
2) Just because courts rely on them doesn't make them reliable, and what if eyewitnesses disagree?
3) I didn't say witnesses are always unreliable, I said they are not always infallible. But at least they go under legal oath.

[four tool]

Any police officer investigating an accident will tell you how contradictory eyewitness statements can be. I once witnessed an accident, made notes because I knew the insurance company would contact me, and still had trouble remembering everything a month later when they finally asked for the details.

As for sports, we get impressions and our memories tend to validate our strong impressions, pro or con. Many fans I know say so and so can't hit, Every time I see him he strikes out. However the player in question is leading the league in BA and the fan speaking has seen him 3 times all year, all against the same team.

Or take a classic example, why do many people think Carlton Fisk was a great clutch hitter? (Hint, 1975 postseason).

[Bill Burgess]

Understood. I have always asserted that peer opinion should go hand and hand with stats. I have never advocated throwing stats out the window, have I?

I feel we should use both in our evaluations. They can be useful in breaking ties. We should use EVERYTHING we have at our disposal. Not just one or the other.

There is another thread called Statistical anomalies, whereby some people have stat lines which are beyond comprehension. Like the following.

1987 Nolan Ryan SO 270 led league, ERA 2.70 led league, ERA+ 142 led league, Opponents BA .199 led league, W-L 8-16!

211.2 IP, 270 Ks, 1.14 WHIP, 2.76 ERA, 11.5 K/9 IP, 8 wins, 16 losses!!!!
(Honus Wagner Rules showed this in Stat anomalies)




Or Ed Walsh:
1910 ERA 1.27 led league, ERA+ 189 led league, Opponents BA 1.87 led league, Opponents OBA 2.26 led league, W-L 18-20!

Ed Walsh leading the league in ERA (1.27), WHIP (0.83), walks/9 IP (1.49)....
and losses (20, with only 18 wins) in 1910. (Peachiro showed this from Stat anomalies)


Stats don't normally misrepresent, but they can.


Bill Burgess

[RuthMayBond]

There is another thread called Statistical anomalies, whereby some people have stat lines which are beyond comprehension. Like the following.

1987 Nolan Ryan SO 270 led league, ERA 2.70 led league, ERA+ 142 led league, Opponents BA .199 led league, W-L 8-16!

Or Ed Walsh:
1910 ERA 1.27 led league, ERA+ 189 led league, Opponents BA 1.87 led league, Opponents OBA 2.26 led league, W-L 18-20!

Stats don't normally misrepresent, but they can.


Bill BurgessGood stat people know W-L is a team function

[RuthMayBond]

Yes, understood, but one would think . . . Do those lines appear misrepresentative to YOU? Cut me some slack here?!

Bill BurgessThey do appear misrepresentative, but no more so than someone who tries to tell me Lange was in the top 30

[RuthMayBond]

Jeffrey,

Have you ever tried "Scream" therapy. Spoussed to help mesmerized folks let things go.

If you don't use it, I'm going to have to resort to "Scream" therapy.

"Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeellllllllllllllllllllllllllppp ppppppppp!!!!!!!!!!!

Bill BurgessIt didn't work for you

[RuthMayBond]

Yeah, looks like I have to live with your Lange obsession. Oh well.

Bill BurgessMaybe someday you'll see the light that he really belongs in the top 30. :grouchy statheads :laugh :laugh

[torez77]

Here's a clash between two all-time greats that's about as tight as can be - Stan Musial vs. Joe DiMaggio. This may have been done already, but I thought I'd bring it back. What do y'all think? Who's better - Stan "The Man" or "Joltin'" Joe?

[Bill Burgess]

Joe went higher in how good he got, but Stan lasted so much longer, he'd have to rank higher in all time rankings. His longevity was the factor which wins the day.

I'd put them on a par as hitters.


Bill Burgess

[torez77]

Joe went higher in how good he got, but Stan lasted so much longer, he'd have to rank higher in all time rankings. His longevity was the factor which wins the day.

I'd put them on a par as hitters.


Bill Burgess

Yeah, as hitters they are almost carbon copies of eachother, just from different sides of the plate. Stan has a slight edge in OPS+, 159-155. Stan leads in BA, while Joe leads in SLG.
An argument for Joe is that he is probably the biggest winner in baseball history. He won like 10 titles, didn't he? Stan won a few. Joe played on better teams, but hey, his Yanks won more titles than the Ruth-Gehrig Yanks, and he was unquestionably the leader of those teams, so Joe has the advantage over Stan here.
Ranking them defensively, Stan was more versatile, as he played a good amount of games at all 3 OF spots, as well as many games at 1B. Joe was almost 100% in CF. From what I've read, Joe made it look so easy. He wasn't spectacular, but he always got the job done. This is a tough call. Stan was more versatile, but I'm not sure he was as good an OFer as Joe was. And if Joe could play CF that well, he could've played LF and RF well too. He just never really got the chance. Plus, Joe leads Stan in Fielding Runs and Wins by a wide margin - Joe is at 51 while Stan is at -38.
You bring up a good point that Stan lasted longer, but also consider that Joe lost 3 years to WWII. Stan lost 1 year, so factor that in and Stan still leads Joe by 7 years. So Stan gets the edge in longevity. At their best, I'd give the edge to Joe by a smidgen.
Also, remember Joe's 56-game hitting streak!

Well Bill, I hate to disagree with you again, but I gotta go with Joe over Stan by a smidgen. Boy, it is close though. They are close in every aspect of the game, but I give the edge to Joe in almost all of them.

[RuthMayBond]

Ranking them defensively, Stan was more versatile, as he played a good amount of games at all 3 OF spots, as well as many games at 1B. Joe was almost 100% in CF. From what I've read, Joe made it look so easy. He wasn't spectacular, but he always got the job done. This is a tough call. Stan was more versatile, but I'm not sure he was as good an OFer as Joe was.Not the versatility thing again. If Stan was good enough to patrol CF more, he would have, If the Yanks had found someone to patrol CF better ,they would have (assuming no favoritism).

[torez77]

Not the versatility thing again. If Stan was good enough to patrol CF more, he would have, If the Yanks had found someone to patrol CF better ,they would have (assuming no favoritism).

That was pretty much my point, RMB. Being versatile is good though, especially for the team, and Stan should get points for that. You're right though that Joe was good enough in CF that he stayed there his whole career, while Stan moved all over the field. Two ways to look at it - but I give the advantage to Joe.

[torez77]

Well, the sports writers made Joe wait 2 years to get into the Hall, and put Stan in right away. Wonder that that means?

Bill Burgess

Don't tell me you're relying on the VC to get it exactly right, Bill.

[torez77]

I didn't say that. Just being a Devil's Advocate. Like to stir the pot now and again.

Any theories?

Bill Burgess

Well, according to my source, Total Baseball, DiMaggio was elected into the HOF just one year after he was eligible. Stan was elected in '69. '63 was his last year - isn't that one year after he's eligible?

[Bill Burgess]

DiMag decided to not play in the spring training of 1951, when a player report made him feel humiliated. There was no election in 1952.

DiMag had to wait in 1953, and 1954. He got in, in 1955. While on his honeymoon with Marilyn Monroe, he requested a TV in his room, to see if the writers would vote him in. TV on your honeymoon with Mayilyn? America groaned.

Stan retired after 1963, & went in, in 1969, his 1st year of eligibility. They have to wait 5 full years after retirement before their name can appear on the ballot. The suspect theory is that distance in time will confer perspective on the voters.

Total Baseball, 6th ed., 1999, pp. 277, 281.

Bill Burgess

[torez77]

OK, I see on p. 281 that was his 1st year of eligibility. I didn't look at that initially, I just counted the years and I guess I counted one too many.
DiMaggio's mini-biography in the 400 Greatest Players section said he was inducted one year after he was eligible.

[torez77]

Geoff,

Is Joey D. one of your special boys?

Bill Burgess

Uh, no. Not really. Why?

[Yankees7]

Mays v. Mantle

Hitting:We already know that Mays played longer and performed at a quality pace longer. But who was best at their respective peaks? Lets take the 15 best season for both...say 1951-1965 for Mantle and 1951 and 1954 thru 1967 for Mays.

Mantle 1951-1965

G-2015
AB-6894
R-1517
RBI-1298
HR-454
BA-.306
BB-SO- 1463-1424
SB-CS-145-34 FOR 81%
OBA-.427
SLGA-.567
SLOB-24.21


Mays 1951,54-67

G-2264
AB-8505
R-1662
RBI-1552
HR-560
BA-.310
BB-SO-1054-1049
SB-CS-283-86 FOR 69.6%
OBA-.386
SLGA-.586
SLOB-22.62

Mantle is this period misses 89 games due to injury although he leads Mays in the most important number OBA by a wide margin. His stolen base % is considerably higher. And though Mays batted 1600 more times he only leads Mantle by 106 HRs. Still not conviced huh???? Lets define peak as their 12 best seasons, we will eliminate their rookie seasons for both and Mantle's 1963 season even though he hit .314 that year, coincindentally that brings us through Mays MVP seasons of 1954 and 1965

Mantle 1952-62,64
G-1722
AB-6020
R-1372
RBI-1198
HR-426
BA-.321
BB-SO-1308-1242
SB-CS-131-25
OBA-.433
SLGA-.589
SLOB-25.50

Mays 1954-1965

G-1850
AB-7003
R-1421
RBI-1311
HR-481
BA-.318
BB-SO-876-816
SB-CS-264-81
OBA-.393
SLGA-.556
SLOB-21.85

At first Mays appears to have a clear advantage, more HRs,runs,RBI, more hits, more SBs. But it doesn't take long to see that Mantle is the superior hitter, and by a decisive margin. In their 12 best seasons Mays plays in 128 games, but their total production isn't that different. Lets use one more table:

Mantle 1952-62,64
AB-6020
BB-1308
PA-7327
H + BB = 1871 + 1307 = 3178

Mays 1954-65
AB-7003
BB-876
PA-7879
H + BB = 2224 + 867 = 3100

Look again so no one says I stacked the deck in Mantle's favor. Mays plays in 128 more games than Mantle in their 12 best seasons and had nearly 1000 more official plate appearences and 552 more at-bats. YET MANTLE REACHES BASE 78 MORE TIMES!!! In their 15 best season Mays batted 1600 more times and reached base only 121 more times than Mantle. Mantle's SLOB was superior to Mays's. And over their 12 peak seasons Mantle had a higher OBA and SLGA. What does SLOB say?? Well when you multiply slugging times on-base average, Mantle jumps into a clear lead 25.50 to 21.85 or 3.65 more runs per 100 at-bats. While its true that Willie Mays created more runs than Mickey Mantle in his career its also true that Mickey Mantle created more runs per game.

Mantle-
LED MAJOR LEAGUES IN RUNS, 1950S: 994
LED MAJOR LEAGUES IN STRIKEOUTS, 1950S: 899
LED MAJOR LEAGUES IN OBA, 1950S: .425
LED MAJOR LEAGUES IN OPS, 1950S: .995
LED MAJOR LEAGUES IN RCAA, 1950S: 655
LED MAJOR LEAGUES IN OFFENSIVE WINNING PERCENTAGE, 1950S: .814
LED MAJOR LEAGUES IN RUNS CREATED/GAME, 1950S: 10.03
LED MAJOR LEAGUES IN SECONDARY AVERAGE, 1950S: .474

LED OUTFIELDERS IN HOMERUN PERCENTAGE, 1960S: 7.06
LED OUTFIELDERS IN WALKS, 1960S: 841
LED OUTFIELDERS IN OBA, 1960S: .415
LED OUTFIELDERS IN OFFENSIVE WINNING PERCENTAGE, 1960S: .794
LED OUTFIELDERS IN RUNS CREATED/GAME, 1960S: 8.84
LED OUTFIELDERS IN ISOLATED POWER, 1960S: .259
LED OUTFIELDERS IN SECONDARY AVERAGE, 1960S: .503
LED OUTFIELDERS IN BPA, 1960S: .618

Edge: Mantle

Baserunning:The baserunning argument is an interesting one. Mantle has the higher stolen base percentage, and the Yankees hit well as a team and won enough that Mantle wasn't asked to run has often has Mays was for the Giants. When Mantle did run, it was because his team need the stolen base, from 1952-1964 Mantle steals 133 bases in 159 attempts or almost 84% success rate. Mays is largely considered the better baserunner, well 2 ways to look at it our SB % and GIDP, Mantle has the clear advantage in both. Although Mantles teams didn't have to run as much he leads in SB% that should not penalize Mays however. If you attempt more you run the risk of being caught. Mays played in 591 more games and hit into 251 double plays- Mantle hit into 113 in 2401 games. Not convinced Jackie Robinson played in 1019 less games than Mantle and hit into the same number!!! Mantle was the superior bunter, and the faster player. Stolen bases alone don't give the edge to Mays. DRAW

Fielding/Throwing:Could Mantle play the outfield? When Joe DiMaggio quit and Mickey took over in center field there was no lowering of standards. What a compliment. Maybe he didn't quite have DiMag's arm, but he had more than Joe's speed. He, too, could outrun a fly ball. Lets look at fielding Mantle leads in FA .982 to Mays's .981 yet Mays has a edge in total chances per game at 2.56 to 2.26 so Mays got to 1 fly ball every 3-odd games that Mantle didn't. We could analyze the whys and they are numerous but the difference is very little. While it is possible that the Yankees employed more "groundball type pitchers" as Stengel liked to call then, that is a poor argument. Judging their arms is difficult, Mays recorded more assists, and double plays, yet he played more games in the outfield than Mantle. Edge:Mays

Overall:When all things are considered equally, and Mantle's playing with injuries is factored in:"1951, right knee cartilage operation; 1952, right knee again; 1954, knee cyst removed; 1955, pulled groin muscle; 1956, left knee sprained; 1957, right shoulder injury; 1959, broken finger; 1961, hip abscess; 1962, left knee injury; 1963, broken metatarsal bone left foot; 1965, right shoulder surgery, right elbow and left knee injuries." Mays should have blown him away, but he didn't. At their respected bests, Mantle was the better player, when did it ever happen, before Mantle, that the biggest hitter on any team, the guy who hit the farthest in the league, was also the fastest man on his team and its best bunter? Never. Of Mantle's lifetime 536 homeruns a 118 of them were game winning HRs, including 13 in extra innings. Mantle had 3 years in which he reached double digits in game winning HRs--11 in 1955, 12 in 1956, 11 in 1961. Mantle was the better player when both were at their respected peak of talent, and in this posters opinion, when judging a player, you want to know who was better period, not who played longer.

The choice here is Mantle

I do think most people who actually saw both players would be able to say that Mantle was the better player at their peaks, I had not seen those figures before broken down quite that way. It would have interesting to see how Snider compared in his 12 best seasons to both Mantle and Mays. While I'm sure Duke would fall somewhat short, it wouldn't be has bad as some might think

[therealnod]

Interestingly, Baseball Prospectus sort of addressed this in the Jim Edmonds player comment. They examined the best five-year spans of the best CFs. Here are the results:

Player----------Total WARP3
W. Mays (1954-58)----------64.7
M. Mantle (1955-59)---------62.8
J. DiMaggio (1937-41)--------60.0

T. Cobb (1909-13)-----------56.5
K. Griffey, Jr. (1996-2000)----52.6
D. Snider (1952-56)----------51.0

J. Edmonds (2000-04)--------50.8

Given the title of this thread, you might enjoy how the Edmonds comment ends:

In other words, he's had one of the greatest peaks of any center fielder in baseball history, short of the Mays-Mantle clash of titans
:clapping

[RuthMayBond]

Interestingly, Baseball Prospectus sort of addressed this in the Jim Edmonds player comment. They examined the best five-year spans of the best CFs. Here are the results:

Player----------Total WARP3
W. Mays (1954-58)----------64.7
M. Mantle (1955-59)---------62.8
J. DiMaggio (1937-41)--------60.0

T. Cobb (1909-13)-----------56.5
K. Griffey, Jr. (1996-2000)----52.6
D. Snider (1952-56)----------51.0

J. Edmonds (2000-04)--------50.8

Given the title of this thread, you might enjoy how the Edmonds comment ends:

:clappingI can only imagine where Speaker 1912-16 or BHamilton 1891-95 rate. Usually it's a list biased in favor of old-timers, now the opposite

[Bill Burgess]

Speaker/Mays

Jackie Robinson/Joe Morgan

Sandberg/Gehringer

[RuthMayBond]

Speaker/Mays

Jackie Robinson/Joe Morgan

Sandberg/GehringerI thought we did some of these.

Speaker/Mays is so tough to call, I'd hate to.

I don't know how much time if any Jackie missed because of segregation, but despite that, he chose to retire early, and still ended up with no better OPS+ than Morgan, with a lower adjusted Range Factor, down in Putout titles 3-1, and WAY down in SB. Now in standing up to segregation, no one equals Jackie :clapping

Gehringer's got Sandberg beat in OPS+, plate apps, and Putout titles.

[RuthMayBond]

Jackie Robinson/Joe MorganMorgan's stats are basically Jackie Robinson doing his ML career . . .
. . . and then doing it again

[torez77]

Speaker/Mays

Jackie Robinson/Joe Morgan

Sandberg/Gehringer

Mays over Speaker - Speaker was not the best of his era (deadball), Cobb was. Mays was the best of his era, and he played in a more competitive, integrated league.

Morgan over Robinson - If Jackie started earlier and played more years, I'd probably choose him over Morgan. As they stand, Morgan by a hair.

Gehringer over Sandberg - almost equal with the glove, Gehringer better offensively

[RuthMayBond]

Mays over Speaker - Speaker was not the best of his era (deadball), Cobb was. Mays was the best of his era, and he played in a more competitive, integrated league.

Morgan over Robinson - If Jackie started earlier and played more years, I'd probably choose him over Morgan. As they stand, Morgan by a hair.
Some say Mays was not the best of his era, it was Mantle (which is not the question anyway).
But that's a BIG hair :D

[torez77]

Some say Mays was not the best of his era, it was Mantle (which is not the question anyway).


If you ask the majority, they'd say Mays over Mantle, much more than they'd say Speaker over Cobb.

[ElHalo]

If you ask the majority, they'd say Mays over Mantle, much more than they'd say Speaker over Cobb.

Ah, this is true, but many, many more would say Cobb over Speaker than would say Mays over Mantle.

And if you're just talking peak value, almost everyone would say Mantle over Mays.

[torez77]

Ah, this is true, but many, many more would say Cobb over Speaker than would say Mays over Mantle.


Thought we were comparing just Mays and Speaker.

[RuthMayBond]

Thought we were comparing just Mays and Speaker.Then why did you bring up Cobb? :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh

[Bill Burgess]

Hey kids! We're doing Speaker/Mays here! You guys are dancing all over the school-yard.

Hows's bout some good, high quality, in-depth analysis. There's plenty of meat on the bone here. Not just one liners.

[torez77]

Then why did you bring up Cobb? :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh

Well, gee, I don't know - to show that Speaker was not the best of his era but that Mays was probably the best of his. See the comparison? Or would you like me to clarify it some more?

[RuthMayBond]

Well, gee, I don't know - to show that Speaker was not the best of his era but that Mays was probably the best of his. See the comparison? Or would you like me to clarify it some more?No thanks, you've, uh, done enough :crazy

[Bill Burgess]

Kids! Stay on pointe!

School Master

[four tool]

Mays over speaker, mostly on intangibles, but it's close. If we take the best CF of all time, alll five tools the shole nine yards, it might or might not be Mays, but but it wouldn't be Spoke,

[torez77]

This is one that I'm itching to straighten out - Cobb vs. Mays! I can't decide who should be my #2 all-time player or #3! Lately, I've leaned towards Cobb (yes Bill, because of some of your arguments), but am not totally decided. I'll offer my thoughts on them later, but anyone else care to chime in?
Actually, Bonds probably would've been my #2, but you know.....

[torez77]

No one wants to tackle this? I would, but it's getting late. I'd like to hear someone else's opinion.

[ElHalo]

Cobb and Mays are my two and three, but I have a dirty little secret... I only rank Mays that high because of peer pressure. I really don't see what makes Mays any better than Tris Speaker, except for an era adjustment, and I rank Spoke 7th all time. Is an era adjustment really worth moving Mays up over Rogers, Gehrig, Wagner? I'm not sure, but I do it anyway.

[leecemark]

--Torrez, the Top 10 CF poll thread was primarily a debate between Mays and Cobb supporters for which was #1. There was some good discussion on the topic if you'd like to check it out or resurrect it. I won't spoil the ending by telling you who came out ahead, but it was a close, hard fought match.
--Mantle was 3 and Speaker 4 if that helps with the current question.

[Bill Burgess]

I won't spoil the ending by telling you who came out ahead, but it was a close, hard fought match.

How humiliating.

[AG2004]

This is one that I'm itching to straighten out - Cobb vs. Mays! I can't decide who should be my #2 all-time player or #3! Lately, I've leaned towards Cobb (yes Bill, because of some of your arguments), but am not totally decided. I'll offer my thoughts on them later, but anyone else care to chime in?
Actually, Bonds probably would've been my #2, but you know.....

I picked Mays over Cobb for #2 at CF. I counted MVP-type seasons for each, using a definition of 30+ win shares as such a season. Mays had 13, and might have had one more if he hadn't been in Korea; Cobb had 12. Cobb had four seasons where he led all MLB position players in win shares; Mays had two as leader, and three more where he was tied for the lead. Now, I will admit that Mays' peak season was 43 win shares; Cobb had a few (4 or 5) seasons with more win shares than that.

It was the Ron Artest factor which edged Mays ahead. I know I'm going to get a lot out of Mays. With Cobb, I could get even more out of him, but I'd be afraid of his getting into fights and drawing long suspensions and being left with nothing. I'm not sure I'd want to take that risk. I can't argue with those who rank Cobb ahead, though; I concluded that the difference between the two is very close, and, if I weren't the "play it safe" type, I would probably have picked Cobb instead.

When it came to top center fielder ever, though, I had to go with Charleston.

Which, in turn, leads to one very interesting Clash of the Titans matchup.

Anyone want to try Josh Gibson vs. Oscar Charleston?

[four tool]

Too hard to compare a catcher to a center fielder.

[torez77]

Cobb vs. Mays -

No one, except Ruth, has dominated their league more than Cobb did, so if we're comparing dominance Cobb wins hands down over Mays. Mays was the best in his league for a longer time than Cobb, but that is mostly because of the arrival of Ruth and the liveball. Cobb beats Mays in OPS+ 167-156, but Mays has a slight edge in EqA .325-.323. Mays was a better fielder than Cobb, hands down. Cobb was better at the plate, as OPS+ indicates, and I'd give Cobb a slight edge in baserunning, but Mays may have been the more effective overall offensive player, as EqA indicates. And EqA does quite a good job in adjusting for era.

And that is a big factor when comparing Cobb and Mays - the big difference in era, and many people have argued that Mays' era was the most competitive ever, making it harder to stand out as the best. (Metal Ed gives a better analysis of this) When comparing eras, I'd say the advantage goes to Mays.

Man, this isn't getting any easier. I haven't considered every single solitary thing here, but am making a general comparison. I have reasons to choose Cobb (peak, dominance level) and reasons to choose Mays (tougher era, higher EqA). Perhaps the difference in era should be the tiebreaker - perhaps Mays should win because it was more difficult to dominate in his time, but he was the best of that time (though Mantle had a better peak). On the other hand, Cobb dominated and accomplished more in a shorter period of time than Mays, and as I've said before, every player in every era faces their own conditions against players with the same conditions, and what they accomplish against those conditions is relative to all eras. I've hinged on this statement before, but Metal Ed makes a great argument concerning integration and a deeper league, which suggests it is harder to dominate in later eras than in past ones, which is why we haven't seen the likes of Ruth and Cobb since (well, there's Bonds, but not without a little help)

Looking at it statistically, EqA is the best available stat I know of that takes era adjustments into account and makes stats relative to all eras, and since Mays has a slight edge over Cobb there, maybe he should be the winner - especially since he was superior defensively.

[Bill Burgess]

Geoff,

Ty/Willie is a good debate. I thank you for showing interest in it. Below are some of the elements you forgot to consider in your nice post. Want to take another crack at the old apple. Second bite is the sweetest. I just made that up!

Rel. BA, Rel. Onbase, Rel. SGL, home/away, black/grey, win shares, Total Player Rating, longevity, peaks, etc.

Advantages in ave, power, arms, range, running game, intangibles, etc.

Bill

[torez77]

Geoff,

Ty/Willie is a good debate. I thank you for showing interest in it. Below are some of the elements you forgot to consider in your nice post. Want to take another crack at the old apple. Second bite is the sweetest. I just made that up!

Rel. BA, Rel. Onbase, Rel. SGL, home/away, black/grey, win shares, Total Player Rating, longevity, peaks, etc.

Advantages in ave, power, arms, range, running game, intangibles, etc.

Bill

Yes, alot to consider. I don't have access to Rel OBP, Rel SLG or home/away stats. Somebody else can post those. I know Cobb has the 2nd most win shares in history - so that would be a reason to choose Cobb. I believe I discussed longevity and peak to an extent.

No doubt Cobb has the advantage in BA. Willie has the advantage in power. They were probably equal in arm strength - Cobb may have been stronger before he hurt his. Willie had much better range, even better than Speaker.

Cobb has much more black and grey ink - illustrative of his dominance of his period. Going by stats alone, without considering the quality of eras, Cobb has a big lead over Mays. But when measuring overall offensive value that adjusts for era and home park, the end-all be-all stat for me is EqA, and it's Mays by a hair over Cobb.

I hardly ever look at Total Baseball's TPR, since it certainly has question marks about the way it does things.

I've illustrated before how Cobb's SBs were somewhat inflated by his era, but no doubt he was the most disruptive baserunner of his time and arguably of all time. I think if Cobb played in Mays' era, I know he wouldn't have as many SBs, but I still think he would've had more than Mays.

All the intangibles.....sheesh! How many are there? Cobb probably has the edge in most of those, when considering he was a player/manager and a great hitting coach.

In my previous post, I leaned towards Mays, but there are reasons to choose either. Don't ask me to decide right now! :)

[therealnod]

I'm not sure how Speaker even gets in the debate, but between Cobb and Mays, I'll take Mays in a flash.

Adjusted For All Time
Player---------------EQA-----EQR----------BRAA----------FRAA-----WARP3
Willie Mays-----------.325----2358----------1012----------131-------208.7
Ty Cobb-------------.323-----2341----------979----------(-5)-------191.4
Tris Speaker----------.315----2012----------770-----------129-------182.2

[torez77]

I'm not sure how Speaker even gets in the debate, but between Cobb and Mays, I'll take Mays in a flash.


Well, I mentioned Speaker to show how great Mays' CF range was. He was 66 points higher than the league average, while Speaker was 60 points higher. I showed that Mays' range was not only better than Cobb's, but even better than Speaker's, so it was that much better than Cobb's.

[Bill Burgess]

Cobb/Mays:

Offense--G-----PA-----Outs---AB---------H------D----T---HRs---R------RBI-
TC----3,035--13,072--7,718--11,434---4,189--724--295--119--2,249--1937
WM---2,992---12,493--8,056--10,881----3,283--523--140---660--2,062--1903


-------BB----SO----SB---TB----SH--GIDP--HBP--Rel.BA--Rel.OBP--Rel.SLG.
TC---1249--658*--892--5854--295---?-----94----1.34----1.26----1.40
WM--1464--1526--338--6,066--13---251---44----1.14----1.16----1.39

*SO were not documented until 1913. I had to re-construct a curve based on his SO totals post 1913. I added 301 SOs to his totals to give him an estimated 658 career SOs.


Defense:
-----------PO----A------DP----E----PO/G-----A/G------DP/G------E/G
TC------6361----392----107---271---2.168---.133------.036------.092
WM-----7095----195-----60---141----2.49----.086------.021------.049


Home---BA---on-base----SLG---Away-----BA-----on-base-----SLG
TC-----.370---.438------.515------------.363-----.428-------.510
WM----.302---.389-------.567------------.301-----.385-------.549


------Blck Ink---Gry Ink--Hall/Fame Stand.-OPS+--Hll/Fme Monitor-----Win Shares----TPR
TC-----150--------417--------74.9--------168----------451.0-----722--90.6
WM-----57---------337--------75.9---------156----------357.5-----642--89.6

Now, the subjective human interpretation. Ty simply buried Willie in league leads, as shown by black/grey inks. To those who counter with Cobb's league being much weaker competitively, I give this rebuttal.

Yes, TC's peers were not up to Willie's. Ty crushed an inferior league, while Willie did quite well indeed with the amazing level of the 1950's. This was evidenced by Willie's remarkable grey ink score. But there are some subtleties involved here.

It's true that Cobb only played from 1905-28, but history has judged him in direct competition with all players from 1870's till now. His "competition" was everyone.

Ty won 3 amazing competive polls/surveys in 1931, 1936, 1942.

1931 --- Cobb 55 points, Wagner 38 points, Ruth 17 points, Lajoie 13, Collins 12, Keeler 7, Simmons 6, Speaker 4, Joe Jackson 3, Sisler 3, Klein 3, Hornsby 2, Parent 2, Ferguson, Chase & Terry = 1 point. -- 1931 Poll, conducted by the Philadelphia Public Ledger, C. William Duncan. July, 1933;
(Voters: Connie Mack, John McGraw, Clark Griffith, Wilbert Robinson, Dan Howley, Bucky Harris, Joe McCarthy, Bill McKechnie, Kid Gleason, Walter Johnson, Jim Burke, Gabby Street. Tabulation went thusly: 1st place vote = 5 points, 2nd place = 4 votes, 3rd place = 3 points, 2nd place = 2 points, 1st place = 1 point.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
1936 --- Original Hall of Fame vote, Feb. 2, 1936, votes counted at the Commissioner's office in Chicago, IL. 226 Total Voters; Cobb 222, Wagner 215, Ruth 215, Mathewson 205, Johnson 189, Lajoie 146, Speaker 133, Young 111, Hornsby 105, Cochrane 80, Sisler 77, E. Collins 60, J. Collins 58, Alesxander 55, Gehrig 51 --
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
1942 --- Sporting News, April 2, 1942, 102 former players, managers. Cobb 60, Wagner 17, Ruth 11, Hornsby 2, 10 players received 1 vote each: Delahanty, Gehrig, Speaker, DiMaggio, Ott, Sisler, E. Collins, Johnson, Mathewson, Jerry Denny.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
It wasn't until 1950, that Babe won his very first poll/survey ever.
1950 Associated Press poll, Feb. 4, 1950, NYC --- Ruth 253, Cobb 116, Gehrig 8, W. Johnson 7, DiMaggio 5, Wagner 2, Mathewson 2.

One can see at a glance the huge abyss between the polls of 1942 and 1950. The difference is obviously, that the voters in 1942 had all seen whom they were asked to evaluate, while the 1950 sports writers, for the most part, had not seen either Ruth or Cobb, and definitely not Wagner.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

So the issue of league strength, while valid, does not seem out of proportion. Cobb is expected to crush those bums, and does so admirably. His quest for league leads was not conducted against the masses, but the elite top end.

Ty's rivals - Speaker, Jackson, Collins, Sisler, Baker, Lajoie, Crawford, Ruth, Harry Heilmann, Bobby Veach, Bob Meusel, Ken Williams, Joe Sewell, Sam Rice, Bob Fothergill, Leon "Goose" Goslin, Baby Doll Jacobson, Bucky Harris, Jimmy Dykes, Tillie Walker were not competitively inferior to Willie's elite top end.

And when Ty was at the end of the line, he had to contend with talents of the calibre of Lou Gehrig, Tony Lazzeri, Charlie Gehringer, Jimmie Foxx, Al Simmons, Heinie Manush, Lew Fonseca, Joe Hauser.

And the level of pitching that Cobb had to cope with was not inferior to that which Willie had to deal with.

Ty's pitchers: W. Johnson, Eddie Cicotte, Carl Mays, Doc White, Nick Altrock, Babe Ruth, Urban Shocker, Ed Walsh, Rube Waddell, Cy Young, Addie Joss, Herb Pennock, Sam Jones, Dutch Leonard, Jack Coombs, Chief Bender, Eddie Plank, Joe Wood, Jack Chesbro, Jim Bagby, Bullet Joe Bush, Waite Hoyt, Red Faber, Bob Shawkey, Ray Caldwell, Ray Collins, George Mogridge, Earl Hamilton, George Uhle, Stan Coveleskie. Later on he faced Eddie Rommel, Red Ruffing, Ted Lyons, and even Lefty Grove for 2 seasons.

Willie's rivals: Aaron, Clemente, Musial, Frank Robinson, Banks, Snider, Ralph Kiner, Big Klu, Eddie Mathews, Wally Moon, Vada Pinson, Tommy Davis, Ken Boyer, Ron Santo, Junior Gilliam, Dick Groat, Red Schoendienst, Gil Hodges, Orlando Cepeda, Willie McCovey, J. Robinson, Campanella, Ashburn, and later, Joe Morgan, Pete Rose, Billy Williams, Felippe Alou, Willie Stargell, Richie Allen, Tony Perez.

He also had to face Spahn, Robin Roberts, Roy Face, Lew Burdette, Curt Simmons, Harvey Haddix, Johnny Antonelli, Vern Law, Bob Purkey, Billy Pierce, Johnny Podres, Joe Nuxhall, Don Newcombe, Koufax, Ron Perranoski, Bob Gibson, Bob Veale, Dick Ellsworth, Jim Maloney, Don Drysdale, Chris Short, Jim Bunning, Bob Friend, Niekro, Nolan Ryan, Tom Seaver, Steve Carlton, Ferguson Jenkins, Jim Palmer, Milt Pappas, Jerry Koosman, Dock Ellis.


Peak: I give them a draw.
Longevity: I give Ty a slight edge.
Arm: I give Willie a slight edge over the early Ty, and a big edge over the later Ty.
Range: I give Willie a big advantage.
Ave.: Ty, as the world's best ave. hitter, buries Willie.
Power: Ty, with 8 SLG titles, and 5 others in the top 3, with 5 times in the top 3 in HRs, Ty cleans Willie's clock nicely. Plus his Rel. SLG tops Willie's.
Running: Not only does Ty bury Willie in SB, but does even better as a base-runner. Most disruptive runner ever.
Intangibles: Ty was the living model of the smartest players ever. Collins, Sisler, Hornsby, Cochrane, Simmons, and many others. They all enjoyed watching Ty, and watched him like a hawk, to learn how to execute all the subtleties.

My overall summary. Ty, by a landslide.

Bill Burgess

[leecemark]

--Now theres a surprising result.

[therealnod]

--Now theres a surprising result.
Not to mention complete and utter hogwash. Nobody has Mays by a landslide. Unless we want to forego the "Bonds on steriods" consideration.

[BoSox Rule]

That was a good read Bill.

[torez77]

Cobb/Mays:

His quest for league leads was not conducted against the masses, but the elite top end.

Bill Burgess

Very good point. Cobb proved himself against the best of his time.

[leecemark]

--Did he? What about guys like Lloyd and Charleston?

[torez77]

--Did he? What about guys like Lloyd and Charleston?

I mean the best in the Majors, the best league in the world. Yes, you bring up a good point with Lloyd and Charleston, but if Cobb distanced himself that much from his top ML peers in the deadball, why should we automatically conclude Lloyd and Charleston would have matched him? Remember, Negro League records are very fuzzy. But yes, I concede it's very possible they may have stolen a few batting and slugging titles from him.

[Bill Burgess]

Nod,

"Not to mention complete and utter hogwash. Nobody has Mays by a landslide. Unless we want to forego the "Bonds on steriods" consideration."

"hogwash"? Do you know how long it took me to assemble that much information. I seldom take that much time to try to be that comprehensive. I showed as many numbers as I could find. Even those like Win Shares that I don't understand.

Willie got skunked in hitting, for both average and power, and running, for both stealing and agression. Willie lost in Wins Shares, Relative BA, Rel. onbase, and Rel. SLG. Willie was less an inspiration in so far as fewer all time greats were trying to be him, as Cobb was.

Willie only prevailed in the areas of Defense, and how many think that defense can make up for offense and running?

Willie's other big line of defense is that his era featured a tougher level of competition. And while that is true enough, the elite top end guys do not contest their league leads with the worst to average journeymen players. They clang swords with the other elite top end guys.

And I think I showed that Cobb's top end was easily the equal of Willie's top end. And I also showed how the pitching that Ty had to cope with, also easily was a match for the pitching Willie had to deal with.

Another aspect to Cobb/Mays involves era. TC had to carve his glory out of the granite known as the Deadball era. He was able to compile huge counting stats, in an era that should not have allowed that to happen. At all. Rate stats would not be affected, but TC's counting stats should have reflected the pitchers/defensive balance of that day.

That fact that Ty Cobb was able to find a way to overcome such a deadly disadvantage as the deadball and lack of HRs, to compete in Total Bases, with such bombers as Mays, Musial and Aaron, is a miracle of heart, mind, will and tenacity. Sure TC played 9 seasons in the 20's, but so what? He was benching himself to play his young OFers, managing, and had lost the speed which had allowed him to beat out grounders.

The other aspect to era, level of dominance, such as Relative rate stats, is also not as definitive as advertised. OK, Ty didn't have to face the black stars, but yet, it would seem impossible that an increased competitive environment, due to the presence of black/Hispanic pitchers, could have cramped Ty's edge much. Why? Because blacks, for reasons which no one can figure out comprehensively, have not gravitated towards mound glory.

Sure, there was "Smokey Joe" Williams, and he might have shaved some points off Ty's BA, but how many of him were there? Not many. I do believe that guys like Lloyd, Charleston, John Beckwith, Santop, and Bruce Petway would have added a wonderful overlay of color, excitement, excellence, etc. But it would have taken all of their power to muscle TC out of his league leads. Joe Jackson, Speaker, Collins found that out.

Ruth, indeed, stole Ty's thunder, but how many Babes have there been? Not many! NONE actually.

So, I throw down a challenge to you Nodman. I have went back and strengthened my Cobb/Mays. Added to who comprised their competition. I'd like to see you go back and give your own spin to the numbers I've shown. If you can. Or is that challenge - just a little too challenging?

Hogwash? I think not.

Bill Burgess

[torez77]

Actually, I overlooked something when considering Cobb's dominance level in the deadball era. He was first most of the time in statistics, but for several of those years he had a contender very close to him - Joe Jackson. Jackson came close to winning batting and slugging titles, but was always edged out by Cobb. Also, Jackson just happens to have Cobb beat in OPS+ 170-167, and is very close in EqA, .320-.323. Jackson's numbers likely would've gone down had he been allowed to play out his entire career in the MLs (or perhaps gone up, had he made a good adjustment to the liveball). Speaker was another hitter who was very close to Cobb in some of the deadball years.

Interesting fact. Perhaps Cobb didn't separate himself from the pack as much as we think. He won a lot of close races.

[torez77]

Also, I neglected to mention that Jackson won one slugging title from Cobb in 1913, led in OBP in 1911, and Speaker swept Cobb in BA, OBP and SLG in 1916.

[therealnod]

Bill, I suppose you missed this in an earlier post of mine:

Adjusted For All Time
Player---------------EQA-----EQR----------BRAA----------FRAA-----WARP3
Willie Mays-----------.325----2358----------1012----------131-------208.7
Ty Cobb-------------.323-----2341----------979----------(-5)-------191.4

Saying that Cobb wins by "a landslide" and saying Willie gets "skunked" by Cobb in hitting, after acknowledging that Mays' playing environment was more competitive, is way overboard. Not only that, the fielding of Cobb's time was not as good according to fielding percentage. How many ground balls that would've been outs in Willie's league were hits in Cobb's? There's a relatively large amount of variance in batting averages of Cobb's time, less so in Mays', an indication of umprovement from the early parts of the 20th century to the "Golden Age" of the 50s. Batting averages by decade yields coefficients of variation thusly:

Decade-----CoV
1900s----------14.97
1910s----------13.97
1920s----------12.70
1930s----------12.00
1940s----------12.23
1950s----------12.25
1960s----------12.31

Furthermore (or as a way to explain such variation), Mays didn't have the benefit of competition between leagues like Cobb did. In Mays' days the majors were the destination for serious professional baseball players, while in Cobb's time there were several professional leagues that had players that would probably have been stars in MLB but never chose to play there. Cobb's competition was even less competitive than Mays' if you consider that fact.

I'm not in any way suggesting that Cobb isn't one of the best players of all time, but I don't think he's better than Mays, so I certainly wouldn't take well to the suggestion that Cobb "skunks" Sey Hey.

[Sirmudgeon]

I just discovered this thread and read the last of the Cobb/Mays debate. Kudos to you statmasters and to the tools at your disposal. Perhaps, though, we ought recall Twain, "there are lies, damn lies, and statistics", and take care not to over-rely on a process that can prove darn near anything if manipulated in a determined fashion. Likewise, contemporary polls are theoretically indicative yet suffer from currency bias (see McGwire on the Sporting News All-Century Team). Era-emblamatic players (Ruth and the live ball, Koufax and the pitchin' Sixties, Bonds and 'roids) may or may not be blown out of proportionate perspective. Seeing a player, live, may be of great relevancy to a judgement that might also be clouded by the transcendental swoon of That Perfect Day, when Mantle was a God, or Joe D. set sail, Insert Your Gilt-Edged Memory Here. Character is even a delimiter, see ya Shoeless Joe and Ty and Barry and... I guess that all of these, taken in conjunction by a reflective soul with a love for the game, make for a fairly defensible position. Really, though, the intangible gut reaction may be the telling differentiation. Consider all of the above factors, listen to the experts, form an opinion, then compare it to your first impression. How often in life are our first, under-informed impressions proven on the money? For myself, a noteworthy preponderance. Nonetheless, taking all those brilliant arguments into consideration, if I wanted a team to win a game, I'd sure start with Cobb over Mays, and maybe even over Ruth.

But I'd cage the little misanthrope at night.

[Sirmudgeon]

Both way ahead of their peers, in a number of ways. Go with Ruth, he changed the game more, though Barry changes each game more. Thanks for the education, though, folks. I have certainly learned an awful lot since discovering this site.

[therealnod]

Twain sometimes gets credit for that quote on statistics, but Benjamin Disraeli is the correct source.

Some Twain quotes:

"Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are more pliable."

"Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please."

The truth of the matter is that statistics don't lie, people lie.

[baseball79]

Nolan Ryan is one of baseball's most over-rated pitchers of all time if you ask me. Also, the reason why Feller's stats aren't as good is because he served a lot of time in the military during his prime.

[baseball79]

the big unit has been able to pitch longer, but i'm not sure he was as dominant as sandy was in his all too brief prime. i'll take sandy.

bob feller or nolan ryan?
Nolan Ryan is one of baseball's most over-rated pitchers of all time if you ask me. Also, the reason why Feller's stats aren't as good is because he served a lot of time in the military during his prime.

[Bill Burgess]

Nod,

I will try to clarify my position vs. Cobb/Mays.

I do agree that the general level of play improves with each decade. From the worst to the average level. I do not agree that the elite top end improves over time. The elite top end is so much involved with instinct, intuition, knowlege. The lower level improves due to Stronger, Faster, Bigger.

The best players are beyond that. They rose to the top due to pychology, technique, heart, practice.

With respect to Cobb/Mays, yes, Mays overall competition was superior to Ty's. But one doesn't go head to head with the journeymen. You fight with the elite top end for your league leads. And in that one respect, Ty's peers were as tough to best as Willie's. I posted the league leaders below, as evidence of the parity at the top.

Willie's league wasn't really that integrated in his prime. Of course it was better mixed than Ty's lily-white, Eastern/Southern peers.

Ty's rivals - Speaker, Jackson, Collins, Sisler, Baker, Lajoie, Crawford, Ruth, Harry Heilmann, Bobby Veach, Bob Meusel, Ken Williams, Joe Sewell, Sam Rice, Bob Fothergill, Leon "Goose" Goslin, Baby Doll Jacobson, Bucky Harris, Jimmy Dykes, Tillie Walker were not competitively inferior to Willie's elite top end.

And when Ty was at the end of the line, he had to contend with talents of the calibre of Lou Gehrig, Tony Lazzeri, Charlie Gehringer, Jimmie Foxx, Al Simmons, Heinie Manush, Lew Fonseca, Joe Hauser.

And the level of pitching that Cobb had to cope with was not inferior to that which Willie had to deal with.

Ty's pitchers: W. Johnson, Eddie Cicotte, Carl Mays, Doc White, Nick Altrock, Babe Ruth, Urban Shocker, Ed Walsh, Rube Waddell, Cy Young, Addie Joss, Herb Pennock, Sam Jones, Dutch Leonard, Jack Coombs, Chief Bender, Eddie Plank, Joe Wood, Jack Chesbro, Jim Bagby, Bullet Joe Bush, Waite Hoyt, Red Faber, Bob Shawkey, Ray Caldwell, Ray Collins, George Mogridge, Earl Hamilton, George Uhle, Stan Coveleskie. Later on he faced Eddie Rommel, Red Ruffing, Ted Lyons, and even Lefty Grove for 2 seasons.

Willie's rivals: Aaron, Clemente, Musial, Frank Robinson, Banks, Snider, Ralph Kiner, Big Klu, Eddie Mathews, Wally Moon, Vada Pinson, Tommy Davis, Ken Boyer, Ron Santo, Junior Gilliam, Dick Groat, Red Schoendienst, Gil Hodges, Orlando Cepeda, Willie McCovey, J. Robinson, Campanella, Ashburn, and later, Joe Morgan, Pete Rose, Billy Williams, Felippe Alou, Willie Stargell, Richie Allen, Tony Perez.

Willie's pitchers: Spahn, Robin Roberts, Roy Face, Lew Burdette, Curt Simmons, Harvey Haddix, Johnny Antonelli, Vern Law, Bob Purkey, Billy Pierce, Johnny Podres, Joe Nuxhall, Don Newcombe, Koufax, Ron Perranoski, Bob Gibson, Bob Veale, Dick Ellsworth, Jim Maloney, Don Drysdale, Chris Short, Jim Bunning, Bob Friend, Niekro, Nolan Ryan, Tom Seaver, Steve Carlton, Ferguson Jenkins, Jim Palmer, Milt Pappas, Jerry Koosman, Dock Ellis.

So, I repeat my challenge to Willie's supporters.

Hitting: Ty
Power: Ty
Running: Ty
Defense: Willie
Clubhouse/Dugout: Willie
Overall: Ty Cobb over Willie Mays. And I still can't see your argument that it is close.

Bill Burgess

[therealnod]

You've lost it, man. Probably not the first time you've heard that. You and EH should form a fraternity of "I'll never be convinced of that no matter how wrong I may be," MAS. Yeah, Cobb leads Mays in power. :laugh

I'll get back to you.

[Bill Burgess]

Cobb's Power Case:

When Cobb retired following the '28 season, he held the ML records for:
G, AB, BA, Hits, Runs, RBIs, TB, SB, steals of Home, EBHs, singles, runs produced. He was second in: doubles, triples, extra bases on hits. A collection truly Ruthian, or should I say Cobbian.

Overall, Ty set more records than the Babe, or anyone else, 90. His records lasted the longest. 30 still stand. Using traditional stats, Ty led his league more often than anyone else, I think around 60.

Today 75 yrs later, he is STILL:

1st: BA, Relative BA, Runs Produced
2nd: hits, runs, triples, OF assists, OF DPs,
3rd: Relative OBA for this century
4th: SB, G, AB, doubles, triples, OF putouts
8th: OBA unadjusted, extra bases,

But there's more. Mr. Cobb hung up these impressive achievemets.

HRs - top 3 in the league - 5 times, won 1
RBIs - top 3 in the league - 7 times, won 4
TBs - top 3 in the league - 10 times, won 6
SLG. - top 3 in the league - 14 times, won 8

Looked at from another angle, Mr. Cobb led his league in the following years, in the following categories.

1907---BA, SLG, TB, RBI, H, OPS, OPS+, BR+,
1908---BA, SLG, TB, RBI, H, D, T, OPS, OPS+, BR+,
1909---BA, OBP, SLG, TB, RBI, R, H, HR, OPS, OPS+, BR+, SB,
1910---BA, OBP, SLG, R, OPS, OPS+,
1911---BA, SLG, R, H, D, T, RBI, SB, OPS, TB, OPS+, EBH,
1912---BA, SLG, H, OPS, OPS+, BR+, SB,
1915---BA, OBP, TB, R, H, OPS, OPS+, BR+, SB, SBR,
1917---BA, OBP, H, D, T, SLG, SB, OPS, TB, EBH, OPS+,
1918---BA, OBP, T, OPS, OPS+, BR+,

Power? Let's talk about it. From the 1893-1919 era, here is the list:

1. Zack Wheat ------132
2. Gavvy Cravath---119
3. Jimmy Ryan------118
4. Tilly Walker------118
5. Ty Cobb---------117
6. Tris Speaker-----117
9. Ed Delahanty----101
9. Honus Wagner---101
11. Sam Crawford---97
12. Frank Baker-----96
14. Herman Long----91

My most impressive stat is that Ty came in the top 3 in SLG. ave. 14 times! He won 8. That is a record that I don't think Willie can compete with. Willie's power case cannot withstand that level of firepower!

Willie came in the top 3 in SLG. 8 times, and won 5.

Willie's peers tougher in power? Oh really.

Ty's peers: Ruth, Lajoie, Joe Jackson, Crawford, Speaker, Frank Baker, Sisler, Harry Heilmann, Bobby Veach, Bob Meusel, Ken Williams, Bob Fothergill, Leon "Goose" Goslin, Tillie Walker.

Willie's peers: Aaron, Clemente, Musial, Frank Robinson, Banks, Snider, Ralph Kiner, Big Klu, Eddie Mathews, Orlando Cepeda, Willie McCovey, J. Robinson, Campanella.

I've lost it? Maybe. I'm not trying to be personal or argumentative. Just calling them as I see them. I don't see why my arguments are so invalid.

Yeah, Cobb leads Mays in power? It's just my opinion, Nod. Doesn't make me right, or you wrong. I'm just sharing my gut. Hope I don't come across as rude or hostile. I feel neutral.

Bill Burgess

[leecemark]

--Bill, I don't think any of us are going to see you as a nuetral party in any debate involving Cobb.

[Bill Burgess]

Ty/Willie: Power

Willie's Home Run Record:

1954-41-3
1955-51-1
1956-36-5
1957-35-4
1958-29-6
1959-34-5
1960-29-6
1961-40-2
1962-49-1
1963-38-3
1964-47-1
1965-52-1
1966-37-3
1968-23-9

Ty's Home Run Record:
1907-5-2
1908-4-6
1909-9-1
1910-8-2
1911-8-2
1912-7-3
1913-4-8
1916-5-5
1917-6-4
1918-3-7
1921-12-9

Willie 14 times came in the top 10 in HRs. Ty did that 11 times. Obviously, Ty hurt himself in the 20's, when he chose not to go for HRs, when others did. Still, Willie came in his top 3, 8 times, Ty 5 times. Why have I lost it?

Bill Burgess

[Bill Burgess]

If we all focused on Cobb/Mays, maybe we could move forward, and learn from each other.

I am giving the house the very best I know how to do, and am trying to post as honestly & clean, and free of rhetoric, bogus angles, as I know how. I am so hoping to keep the focus off me, and on baseball. Willie/Ty is a great debate. So thanks guys for doing your best too.

But, . . . I AM trying my utmost to win this debate. And I use all my resources to do it. I fight tough, but I fight clean.

Bill

[leecemark]

--I don't know why you've lost it Bill, but you deserve credit for realizing it anyway :D . The problem with comparing how Cobb and Mays ranked in HRs in their day is that HR were almost meaningless for determining who the best hitters were in Cobb's day, but extremely important in Mays' day.
--Who cares whether you hit 6 or 8 HRs a year. You not going to make a big difference in your teams fortunes doing so. I'd guess a pretty high percentage of Cobb's HR were in the park jobs anyway and reflected as much on his speed as his power.

[Bill Burgess]

Well, Mark, seeing if you feel that way, as I do, then how can you feel that May's power exceeds Cobb's? Again, why have I lost it for feeling that Mr. Cobb's power case, given his circumstances, was every bit as impressive as Mr. Mays'.

Ultimately, it isn't on power that we rank them, but overall excellence.

Bill Burgess

[Sirmudgeon]

Boy howdy, you guys come to a verbal slumgullion all prepared, an' stuff. I've been Dizzed out of my Raeli by one of you, seen another argument 'twixt fellow aficionados cleave opinion well nigh in Twain, and generally think this is all well and good, but the "gut" is largely cast by the wayside. So, fellows, you have a team, and you have a choice of the entire gamut of centerfielders from which to choose. Your objective is to win the game, with the best player. DiMag? Mantle pre-knees? Griffey pre-hammies? Tris? OK, let's get real, the Peach or Say Hey are your two best options. Which will do more to help your team win, today? Gotta go with Cobb. Mr. Burgess has made a fairly straightforward and succinct argument for Ty's power vis-a-vis anyone, including Willie, using comparisons with other league leaders. That and range was the big difference. Era has only to do with numbers against inferior lower-tier competition, and is correctable by comparing stats to other top players of said era. Cobb separated himself more than Mays. Plus, he was meaner (P.C., had more competitive fire) than Mays. No real drama, folks. Be honest, all you dissed Maysians, who would you back, $$, in any comparitive confrontation?

Also, are we sure that Benjamin didn't steal that line from Samuel?

[Bill Burgess]

Thanks, Sirmudgeon. I appreciate all the support I can get. You must be a pro writer, or an aspiring one. Good words, word man.

Bill Burgess

[Sirmudgeon]

If the 1950s are the linchpin of baseball, the most competitive time o' plenty, the culmination of all that went before (notwithstanding my ignorance and thus tacit dismissal of 1800s baseball) and the harbinger of all that ensued, a time of full-feathered minor leagues and an acknowledged top of the heap pre heap-hop, reasonably integrated, how rate the 90s in comparison?

Let's talk players of each era: Mantle vs. Maddux (drinker vs. thinker?), Maglie vs. Canseco (barber vs. chemist?), Randy vs. Snider (ducal units, do they spend?), Spahn vs. Bonds, Mays vs. Clemens, these are some classics. Furillo vs. Pedro, attitude adjustment looking to happen... this could be fun.

PS, Mr. Burgess, no pro I, just a guy with a penchant for purple prose and pedantry. Used to live in your area, though, now in Napa via Australia and points elsewhere. O what tangled webs we weave when first we practice to perceive (sic).

[torez77]

Here's a clash that's probably closer than people think - Willie Mays vs. Hank Aaron. Whaddy'all think?
Both are practically even offensively, with Mays having a razor-thin edge in EqA and OPS+. Mays was better defensively, but is it only because he was a CFer? Aaron was a very good RFer. But no doubt Mays was one of the 3 best, if not the best all-time in CF, so it's obvious Mays has the edge defensively.
Mays has the edge, but is it by the margin most people think? It seems Aaron gets underrated because he did everything quietly.

[Teddy Ballgame]

Both way ahead of their peers, in a number of ways. Go with Ruth, he changed the game more, though Barry changes each game more. Thanks for the education, though, folks. I have certainly learned an awful lot since discovering this site.

- SIRMUDGEON ... BARRY BONDS spent 80% of his career not even in the same league as the two greatest hitters of all time, The Babe and The Splendid Splinter. And the 20% of his career when he was performing at a comparable level to Ruth and Williams were the 20% of his career when everyone else except for Williams (remember his .388 average at age 39, third highest BA in the past 65 years and Williams had the highest BA in this period as well?) was either finished or in decline. Something ain't kosher here and the something is clearly steroids. Therefore, it is as ridiculous to rate Bonds on steroids against the two aforementioned giants not on steroids (Ruth was on beer and Williams on ice cream) as it would be to rate a current Formula One driver in a new car against a Formula One driver using a 1960 racing machine.

Before Bonds hooked up with his old friend and alleged steroid merchant Greg Anderson in '98, he had 411 homers in 6,621 at-bats, one per 16.1 at bats. The next two years, as he acquired and adjusted to a new body, he hit 83 in 835 at-bats, one per 10 at-bats.

In the last four seasons, from ages 37 to 40, as he has done the deeds and committed the offences against his sport for which he will always be remembered, Bonds hit 209 home runs in 1,642 at bats — one every 7.9 at bats.

In those four years, Bonds won four straight National League most valuable player awards, two batting titles and set the all-time single-season records for home runs, slugging percentage, on-base percentage, walks and intentional walks.

All those records are now a steroid lie. Without Anderson's illicit help, there is no reason whatsoever to believe Bonds could have approached, much less broken, any of the all-time marks for which he lusted so much that he has now ruined his name.

Throw every record that Bonds has set in the last four years into the trash can that history reserves for cheats.

Let Bonds keep his 411 homers and three MVPs before he linked his fate to Anderson in '98, though we can't be sure what he might have used to aid his play before that. At least we now know what he's willing to use: anything that's put into his hands.

There is no reason Bonds should ever again be considered one of the top 10 hitters who ever lived. The true elite — including Ruth, Williams, Aaron and Mays — are back where they belong. If you seek current players to keep them company, start with Alex Rodriguez and his 381 home runs at age 29. At that juncture, Bonds had 222.

The career of the authentic Bonds was long and well defined, lasting 12 seasons until he was 35. After that point, almost all players decline in productivity. Without Anderson in his life in recent years, Bonds' production would probably have dwindled. Certainly, it would not have drastically increased which is simply against the laws of nature in any sport except for the less physically intensive ones like golf in which, as Lee Travino says, the round bellies can sometimes beat the flat bellies. Now, we'd be grouping Bonds with other 500-homer hitters, like Rafael Palmeiro (551) and Ken Griffey Jr. (501) who coped with age and injury all by themselves even as Bonds, the glory thief, stole their headlines.

Bonds wears his demons on his sleeve and has used them as an excuse throughout his career to put his ambitions and ego, his personal pain and problems, ahead of anything else. So, he shouldn't be surprised if baseball now values its own good name above his shame and discounts much of what he has done by a factor of 25 pounds of muscle that he never earned.

The thing about baseball is it is one of the few remaining team sports that is not played against the clock, that has time stand still. Maybe this is one reason that tradition and longevity rather than change and flashes in the pan are so much more important in baseball than in other sports. Whatever it is, there are thankfully still a lot of purists following basebell, including me, who will never put an artificially enhanced, lying and cheating weasel like Bonds in the same ranks as the true greats of the game.

Interestingly, and tellingly, when Ted Williams wrote "Ted Williams' Hit List" in 1995, after Bonds had already been playing for ten or eleven years, he did not see fit to include Bonds even in his "Some Young Hitters to Keep an Eye On" chapter of the book. The real Bonds, you see, just wasn't that good. Among the young hitters of that time who were better than Bonds and recognized accordingly by Williams were Ken Griffey Jr., Frank Thomas, Gary Sheffield, Mike Piazza and Jeff Bagwell.

[RuthMayBond]

- All those records are now a steroid lie. Without Anderson's illicit help, there is no reason whatsoever to believe Bonds could have approached, much less broken, any of the all-time marks for which he lusted so much that he has now ruined his name.

Let Bonds keep his 411 homers and three MVPs before he linked his fate to Anderson in '98, though we can't be sure what he might have used to aid his play before that. At least we now know what he's willing to use: anything that's put into his hands.Yeah, you think you know a lot

The career of the authentic Bonds was long and well defined, lasting 12 seasons until he was 35. After that point, almost all players decline in productivity.

Except that Williams didn't from '54-'57. Was he on illegal substances?

Without Anderson in his life in recent years, Bonds' production would probably have dwindled. The real Bonds, you see, just wasn't that good. Among the young hitters of that time who were better than Bonds and recognized accordingly by Williams were Ken Griffey Jr., Frank Thomas, Gary Sheffield, Mike Piazza and Jeff Bagwell.

Yeah, those pesky 3 MVPs (and one or more that was deserved), Bonds wasn't good :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh

[Teddy Ballgame]

Yeah, you think you know a lot

The career of the authentic Bonds was long and well defined, lasting 12 seasons until he was 35. After that point, almost all players decline in productivity.

Except that Williams didn't from '54-'57. Was he on illegal substances?

- THE ESSENTIAL DIFFERENCE HERE is that Williams became the greatest non-chemically enhanced old hitter by KEEPING HIS PRODUCTION AT OR CLOSE TO HIS PREVIOUS LEVELS for all but one season (1959 when his neck injury dogged him for most of the year and he hit under .316 for the only time in his 19 years in Boston) in the final seven seasons of his great career while Bonds under the influence of chemical enhancements which among other things added over 25 pounds of muscle to his previously slender frame GREATLY INCREASED HIS PRODUCTION such that he added nearly fifty points to his BA and he almost DOUBLED his HR/AB ratio. Therefore, exactly as I said, almost everyone declines in productivity in baseball after age 35, only Williams was able to keep his stats pretty close to his prime years average, and NOBODY EXCEPT BONDS drastically increased his productivity at the plate, not to mention being UNRECOGNIZABLE physically after the full impact of his steroids regime kicked in.

Without Anderson in his life in recent years, Bonds' production would probably have dwindled. The real Bonds, you see, just wasn't that good. Among the young hitters of that time who were better than Bonds and recognized accordingly by Williams were Ken Griffey Jr., Frank Thomas, Gary Sheffield, Mike Piazza and Jeff Bagwell.

Yeah, those pesky 3 MVPs (and one or more that was deserved), Bonds wasn't good :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh
- DON'T BE FOOLISH. I NEVER SAID BONDS "WASN'T GOOD". AS I HAVE POSTED BEFORE, Bonds in his prime was an excellent all around player with all five essential baseball tools - he could run, throw, field, hit and hit with power. He also was (perhaps not now) a lock for the Hall of Fame at least on the second or third ballot. But he was not in his prime years as good a combination power and average hitter as were the ones that Williams identified in his final book on baseball in 1995. And he sure as hell wasn't ANYWHERE NEAR THE LEVEL OF EXCELLENCE in hitting for power and average as The Babe, The Splinter, and at least a couple of dozen other greats of the game.

REMEMBER - READ, THINK, POST IS THE BEST SEQUENCE FOR THESE DEBATES.

[RuthMayBond]

sheffield by '95 a better hitter than Bonds, what a joke

[west coast orange and black]

...Willie 14 times came in the top 10 in HRs. Ty did that 11 times. Obviously, Ty hurt himself in the 20's, when he chose not to go for HRs, when others did. Still, Willie came in his top 3, 8 times, Ty 5 times. Why have I lost it?
while i do not even consider that you "have lost it", bill, your emphasis on this one comes by directly comparing the number of times that cobb and mays gathered top 10 spots... without mentioning that cobb played in an era of but eight teams while mays in an era of 8-12 teams.
also, it just might be that during cobb's years there was a greater ratio of really bad teams compared to when mays played.
i have not done the numbers but as i recall reading it there were quite a number of years when the bottom-tiered teams finished as far back as 40-50 games. i do not think that that occurred at the same regularity while mays was playin'.
what i'm sayin' is, maybe some of cobb's top 10s are due to more inferior competition even though there were fewer teams. i'm talkin' ratio here, bill.

[Metal Ed]

Can't believe I ignored the Willie/Ty debate this long.

Here's how I see it : The efforts so far to prove who was better seem to focus mostly on hitting, as Mays' superiority in the field is not in question. And the debate over who was the better hitter between Cobb and Mays has been an unsuccessful attempt to come to an agreement over how to strike the proper balance between Cobb's obvious edge in relative dominance with the obviously tougher conditions Willie faced.

Bill, your argument is that while the bottom feeders in the league were better in Mays' day, the elite hadn't improved much. That may be so. You proceed to argue that Cobb beat out HIS elite peers more often than Mays beat out HIS elite peers and conclude, based on the assumption that their peers were equal, that Cobb was indeed better than Mays.

The flaw in this reasoning that your adversaries have tried to point out, is that while the elite individuals may not improve much with each generation, simply having more of these individuals crammed into one place is going to make it a mathematical certainty that it is less likely for each individual to win batting, home run and slugging titles.

We can agree that Cobb and Mays were the best players of their respective generations, yes? So let's say that the elite individual in question (be he Cobb or Mays) is, in objective reality, better than all of his near-equals.

But the more near-equals he has, the greater the odds that random chance, and the normal fluctuations that occur in every individuals' performance over time, will not allow this true superiority to be reflected in their totals at the end of every single season.

In his prime Cobb hit anywhere from .324 to .420, with a career mean of .366. Why didn't he hit .324 every year? Why didn't he hit .420 every year? Why didn't he hit .366 every year? This IS the same Cobb every year, right? The same guy? Why the fluctuation? Because every player has dips and peaks, oftentimes seemingly random ones that have nothing to do with age or experience. Cobb had a better batting average at 24 than at 28, but then he was better at 30 than at 28. Did he really get worse, then better? I mean in objective reality, was he really worse, then better? Or is this just the normal random fluctuation that naturally occurs over the course of a very huge sample size (11,434 career at bats)? I say the latter. And I say that with more near-equals, the odds of one or several of them overtaking Cobb during one of his natural dips, goes up- especially if it coincides with one of their natural peaks - and the more of them there are, the more often it will happen.

In simpler terms, you may still win the race, but the more people you have nipping at your heels, the less likely it is that you'll lead for the entire course of the run. Especially if it's a marathon.

I will post again later using the fully-adjusted numbers from Michael Schell's book. These numbers adjust for both the league mean AND the deviation around that mean (to account for the change in league quality/talent pool). This is a mathematical analysis of the competing factors of Mays' tougher conditions versus Cobb's greater dominance. I think such an analysis has been sorely lacking so far in this debate. I don't have the book in front of me, so I don't remember the numbers. I do remember that it was mighty close between Mays and Cobb - as it should be between the elite of every generation. Right, Bill? As it should be between the greatest players who ever lived.

[therealnod]

Can't believe I ignored the Willie/Ty debate this long.
I was thinking the exact same thing.

I don't have the time or inclination to attack a debate like this with the enthusiasm it takes to be persuasive verbally, so I give numbers. I had been thinking of you as a partner of sorts, one that basically does the talking.


Also, are we sure that Benjamin didn't steal that line from Samuel?
It's my understanding that the reason for the confusion is that Twain quoted Disraeli in his biography.

[Metal Ed]

Willie most definitely did NOT get "skunked" in hitting unless all era considerations are tossed out the window.

I don't know how this "equivalent average" is calculated, but if it is what I THINK it is (some sort of adjustment for both league mean and league quality), then it is probably going to give a result similar to Schell's work. If I remember correctly, Schell had Willie beating Cobb by a hair, just as equivalent average does.

Torrez is correct when he says that it is extremely close between Ty and Willie, and that era is probably the tie-breaker here.

Nod, who wants to be the good cop and who the bad cop? :)

[therealnod]

Nod, who wants to be the good cop and who the bad cop? :)
How 'bout you be both while I dig through the records? :D

H + TB + 1.5*(BB + HBP) + SB
----------------------------
AB + BB + HBP + CS + SB/3

OK, here is how EqA is actually computed:
{[H+TB+1.5*(BB+HBP)+SB]/[AB+BB+HBP+CS+SB]}/3

That's the most basic form. The adjustment is made for league difficulty. Here is the article from BP that explains EqA:


http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2596

Oops, I have to edit out the articles mistake. Order of operations will make that come out wrong.

[torez77]

I don't know how this "equivalent average" is calculated, but if it is what I THINK it is (some sort of adjustment for both league mean and league quality), then it is probably going to give a result similar to Schell's work. If I remember correctly, Schell had Willie beating Cobb by a hair, just as equivalent average does.


OK, you just answered the question I had on the other thread.

[Metal Ed]

How 'bout you be both while I dig through the records? :D

H + TB + 1.5*(BB + HBP) + SB
----------------------------
AB + BB + HBP + CS + SB/3

OK, here is how EqA is actually computed:
{[H+TB+1.5*(BB+HBP)+SB]/[AB+BB+HBP+CS+SB]}/3

That's the most basic form. The adjustment is made for league difficulty. Here is the article from BP that explains EqA:


http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2596

Oops, I have to edit out the articles mistake. Order of operations will make that come out wrong.



Thanks. It looks like a useful stat. But where is the adjustment for league quality?

[Bill Burgess]

Burgess to The Lord: Maysmen in the wire! Penetrating outermost defense perimeter at all points. MAYDAY! MAYDAY! Fresh Cobb clones requested at once! Send cavalry at once I tell you. May not be here in morning!!!

OK guys. Pile on. My powder's dry, and I'm fresh & ready!

Seriously though, as usual I fight alone, with my back to the wall. No allies in sight yet, so I'll have to hold the fort until they arrive.

Meanwhile, back in the trenches. I do indeed believe in era adjustments! It's the only way Cobb stands a chance in a debate with Willie. You seem to feel that Willie's tougher league up through the journeymen level pushed the elite top end higher, in terms of difficulty in leading one's league. While logic does suggest that that is an immutable conclusion, it is a slippery slope you're mining there.

A few counter-arguments. Willie is famed for lasting a long time, but Ty not only lasted longer, but held onto his value longer. Willie really ran out of gas towards the end, and while Ty did too, Ty declined with a less steep slope.

In 1922, Ty's career BA was around .372, and after he finished in '28, it had settled at .366. Now that's not bad. He sacrificed 6 points. Of course he had the inflated 20's to thank for that, but still his Relative BA still tops Willie's by a whopping margin. And Rel. stats equalize different era conditions.

It looks as if both of you guys, Ed/Nod are betting the battle on Willie tougher league strength. I have looked over who both had to contend with, and it just seems that Ty's rivals had a qualitative edge over Willie's.

I did the work already, but I'll repost them here again for us, to refresh our memories.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ty's rivals - Ruth, Speaker, Jackson, Collins, Sisler, Baker, Lajoie, Crawford, Harry Heilmann, Bobby Veach, Bob Meusel, Ken Williams, Joe Sewell, Sam Rice, Bob Fothergill, Leon "Goose" Goslin, Baby Doll Jacobson, Bucky Harris, Jimmy Dykes, Tillie Walker. And later, Lou Gehrig, Tony Lazzeri, Charlie Gehringer, Jimmie Foxx, Al Simmons, Heinie Manush, Lew Fonseca, Joe Hauser.

Willie's rivals: Aaron, Clemente, Musial, Frank Robinson, Banks, Snider, Ralph Kiner, Big Klu, Eddie Mathews, Willie McCovey, Wally Moon, Vada Pinson, Tommy Davis, Ken Boyer, Ron Santo, Junior Gilliam, Dick Groat, Red Schoendienst, Gil Hodges, Orlando Cepeda, J. Robinson, Campanella, Ashburn, and later, Joe Morgan, Pete Rose, Billy Williams, Felippe Alou, Willie Stargell, Richie Allen, Tony Perez.



And the level of pitching that Cobb had to cope with was not inferior to that which Willie had to deal with.

Ty's pitchers: W. Johnson, Ed Walsh, Rube Waddell, Cy Young, Addie Joss, Eddie Cicotte, Carl Mays, Babe Ruth, Chief Bender, Eddie Plank, Joe Wood, Jack Chesbro, Urban Shocker, Doc White, Nick Altrock, Herb Pennock, Sam Jones, Dutch Leonard, Jack Coombs, Jim Bagby, Bullet Joe Bush, Waite Hoyt, Red Faber, Bob Shawkey, Ray Caldwell, Ray Collins, George Mogridge, Earl Hamilton, George Uhle, Stan Coveleskie. Later on he faced Eddie Rommel, Red Ruffing, Ted Lyons, and even Lefty Grove for 2 seasons.

Willie's pitchers: Spahn, Robin Roberts, Koufax, Bob Gibson, Bob Veale, Dick Ellsworth, Jim Maloney, Don Drysdale, Nolan Ryan, Tom Seaver, Steve Carlton, Ferguson Jenkins, Jim Palmer, Roy Face, Lew Burdette, Curt Simmons, Harvey Haddix, Johnny Antonelli, Vern Law, Bob Purkey, Billy Pierce, Johnny Podres, Joe Nuxhall, Don Newcombe, Ron Perranoski, Chris Short, Jim Bunning, Bob Friend, Niekro, Milt Pappas, Jerry Koosman, Dock Ellis.

So, the place where the defining action happened, at the top, were not as competitively dissimilar, as first assumed. Or do you still disagree? Yes, the Mays league was tough. And yes, Ty's league was inferior, but the top ends, where both had to survive, was intense in both eras.

After showing the actual personnel, I don't know how you're going to capture our fort. We will never lower our flag. You must come in, kill us all, and drag it down yourselves. If you can. We don't feel your army is big enough. Or tough enough. ARRRGGGHHH.

Bill Burgess

[leecemark]

--Bill you always mention Ruth as a competitor of Cobb's. I suppose that is partially true, but the thing is after Ruth went to the outfield full time he blew Cobb away. Tyrus never led the league in anything important or was really close to being the leagues best player after Ruth stopped pitching.

[Metal Ed]

Quoting the names of players that are associated with great stat lines in the record books does not constitute a defense of the context in which those stat lines were compiled. You've offered zilch in defending Cobb's contemporaries. What would NOT be zilch would be explaining to me why I shouldn't consider at least half of the "great ones" Cobb had to contend with as relative frauds, lesser talents (compared to the Clementes and Frank Robinsons), their numbers inflated by the very same low league quality that we are now debating.

But on the plus side, you have a great sense of humor.

[Bill Burgess]

Mark,

"Bill you always mention Ruth as a competitor of Cobb's. I suppose that is partially true, but the thing is after Ruth went to the outfield full time he blew Cobb away. Tyrus never led the league in anything important or was really close to being the leagues best player after Ruth stopped pitching."

I think you are misunderstanding this part of my defense in Ty/Willie.

Part of the argument of Willie's supporters is that it was so much harder for Willie to dominate than it was for Ty. And to this, I spit on that part of their argument. Here the Babe actually helps my case. Once Babe arrived on the scene in 1918, NO ONE was able to secure their rightful quota of league leads in HRs, Slg., onbase, walks, OPS, etc.

So, how can the Mays supporters claim that it was so much harder for Wiilie to dominate than it was for Cobb?! If Willie had Babe, instead of Hank or Robinson, Snider, Clemente, Musial, then maybe he wouldn't have had as many of his black ink either!

And before 1920, Ty had great rivals in Nap, Tris, Collins, Baker, J. Jackson and after 1920, Ty had a galaxy of high ave. contact specialists. So I really can't see that argument as giving Willie that much of a advantage.Bill Burgess

[leecemark]

--The competition is not just for league leadership. There is a large element of luck involved in whether or not a player has a giant like Ruth (or Cobb for that matter) to block them off from the top of leaderboards. What I am talking about in level of competiton is the league overall and its effect on relative stats. I'm sure you've seen what I mean by that in the Reggie thread, where I posted on the same topic earlier today. Arguing the same topic in multiple threads is a little confusing, but I'm sure were both up to it.

[Metal Ed]

Fully adjusted stats from Schell's latest book:

OPS:

Mays .960
Cobb .958


Event Specific Batting Runs (like batting runs in Total Baseball, assesses run productivity of players compared to that of an average player. Each of the basic offensive events used in the formula has received a separate adjustment for both park and era effects.)

Cobb 48.1
Mays 46.7

I remembered incorrectly. Cobb edges out Mays by a slim margin on one stat, loses on the other. Looks like Cobb should be regarded as the slightly better hitter. Now we're down to fielding and baserunning contributions to their overall game.

You guys don't even want to know about Babe Ruth and Ted Williams' ESBR's.

[therealnod]

You guys don't even want to know about Babe Ruth and Ted Williams' ESBR's.
You guys? I'm interested in the whole thing. Does Schell go in depth on the math? Maybe you can post a separate thread where I can ask questions?

[Bill Burgess]

It's not that I'm not interested in the math, or Babe/Ted. It's simply that the math is SO far over my head, that it isn't funny. I do addition, subtraction, division, multiplication on my little hand calculator. I understand decimals, fractions, and once upon a time, very basic algebra. 2A = 4. A = 2.

Beyond that, (pi, advanced algebra, calculus, physics, geometry) and I'm out of it. It's not lack of interest, just lack of math education.

Some of the formulas you showed were not complicated, but understanding the why's of such formulas seem arbitrary.

Bill Burgess

[torez77]

Come on Ed! Don't hold us in suspense! Spill it out! :)

If ESBR is like Total Baseball's Adjusted Batting Runs, like you say, then Ruth is 1st with 1382 and Ted is 2nd with 1024. Cobb has Mays beat by a bigger margin, 1004-844, then he does with Schell's ESBR, so apparently there is some difference. I'm not sure how to get a decimal figure of ABR. Reading thru the definition of Batting Runs in Total Baseball, it seems to consider everything.

Does Schell have a stat like EqA that measures overall offensive value, and not just hitting?

[torez77]

Actually, I think TB's ABR adds up their total career BR and doesn't average anything out. That's why Hank Aaron is 5th with 914, since he had so many plate appearances. Would you just divide the total number of BR by plate appearances to get an average?

Help!!!

[therealnod]

When I first learned about sabermetrics, I fully expected to be lost, as well. Then I came to realize that there's nothing all that difficult about the math. When I began learning some of the formulae used to produce sabermetrics, I discovered that nothing more complicated than addition, subtraction, multiplication,and division were taking place. Even squaring a number is just another form of multiplication; in fact, there isn't any algebraic operation that invloves anything more complicated than those four operations. As for what gets selected to perform these operations on:

It's simple, really. We've arrived at weighted measures through the process of linear regression. Sound intimidating? It's not, trust me. Well, it is when dealing with baseball on paper, but with a computer and the right program, it's a snap. Linear regression deals with x and y values and the correlation between the two. (Just to make this totally unpretentious, there is a lot of terminology in math that seems "high falutin" but is really just notational monstrosity--greek symbols like E, which simply means "sum of.")Edit: there should appear in the place of E the greek symbol for sigma, which looks a lot like an E.

Anyway, linear regression measures the strength of the impact one event has on another. For instance, it has long been known that the ratio of the amount of runs a team scores and allows will closely track with winning percentage. How? Linear regression. You take the ratio of RA to RS (in the simplest form, but technically its RS squared and RA squared--well technically it's gotten beyond even that, but the message is the same), and you make that x, then you take a team's actual win % and make that y, then you plot the line. If y=x, the correlation is perfect; as x increases. y increases at the same rate, and the correaltion is said to be 1. the further you get from one, the less perfect the correlation is. If correlation is zero, x has no effect on y. Correlation is always between -1 and 1; either something is perfectly negatively correlated or perfectly positively correlated, with a negative correaltion meaning that as x increases, y decreases and a positive correlation being where x increases and y increases. Think of a line graph on graphing paper. The line y=x is represented by the line that divides each box in half diagonally; ie, when x=1, y=1 (x is the horizontal axis, y is the vertical axis). That is perfect positive correlation. The closer to 1 (or -1) a stat gets, the better, more or less.

In short (yeah right), a stat like EqA has been put through the ringer to examine how well it can determine the W/L record of a team.

[torez77]

Holy mackerel, Nod! I'll have to read through that a dozen times over to completely understand it, and I still might not. Like Bill, I was never a math whiz. I was pretty good at basic math, but not algebra and the graphing stuff you're talking about.

All in all, I don't care how the statisticians arrived with those complicated stats, just so long as I know they're accurate and every other statistician agrees they're accurate, then I trust them.

[therealnod]

Ignore what was previously posted here. 'Twas gibberish; heck, I confused even myself. Maybe it's more complicated to explain than to understand.

[Sirmudgeon]

The Nod has explained very well what correlation analysis encompasses, and what it may indicate (a likelihood of an anticipated result, notwithstanding the intangible human factor). By the same inexact token, TeddyBallgame has endeavoured to lecture on Bonds' supposed ineligibility for legendary status prior to steroid ingestion at "x" or "x + 6" date or whenever said date is bestowed uponst Bonds. Like you, I've watched Bonds his entire career, and watched him learn to hit, learn to run, learn to field, all at a level not just far beyond his peers, but far beyond what he was born with, trained for, etc. Chemically enhanced? Yeah, I don't doubt it. Sosa, McGwire, heck, let's bring up Brady Anderson, it's all in good fun 'till someone loses an eye... fact remains, Barry sees the ball better than anyone in 75 years, and his totals vis-a-vis his contemporaries show that out.

Once and for all, folks, every single era in baseball, or any sport, or pursuit, has been marked by performance "enhancers". We happen to be more aware of "transgressions" now, in the insta-info age. Tell you what, the strike was a heck of a lot worse, in terms of believing in baseball. So get over your churlishness, it's nearly Opening Day!!!

PS, a buddy called and I get to go to a Giants/Dodgers game in early April, and I haven't been to a game since the strike. I am excited...

[Teddy Ballgame]

The Nod has explained very well what correlation analysis encompasses, and what it may indicate (a likelihood of an anticipated result, notwithstanding the intangible human factor). By the same inexact token, TeddyBallgame has endeavoured to lecture on Bonds' supposed ineligibility for legendary status prior to steroid ingestion at "x" or "x + 6" date or whenever said date is bestowed uponst Bonds. Like you, I've watched Bonds his entire career, and watched him learn to hit, learn to run, learn to field, all at a level not just far beyond his peers, but far beyond what he was born with, trained for, etc. Chemically enhanced? Yeah, I don't doubt it. Sosa, McGwire, heck, let's bring up Brady Anderson, it's all in good fun 'till someone loses an eye... fact remains, Barry sees the ball better than anyone in 75 years, and his totals vis-a-vis his contemporaries show that out.

Once and for all, folks, every single era in baseball, or any sport, or pursuit, has been marked by performance "enhancers". We happen to be more aware of "transgressions" now, in the insta-info age. Tell you what, the strike was a heck of a lot worse, in terms of believing in baseball. So get over your churlishness, it's nearly Opening Day!!!

PS, a buddy called and I get to go to a Giants/Dodgers game in early April, and I haven't been to a game since the strike. I am excited...

- SIRMUDGEON ... Enjoy the Giants/Dodgers game. As for our ongoing debate on Bonds versus the other greats of the game, I'm not going to regurgitate my previous comments.

- But I will say that your instant dismissal of Bonds' unnatural advantages through cheating and lying about it by the flip comment "everybody cheats" is really just a sad commentary on the current state of morality and honesty in American society. It explains why Slime Buckey Billy Clinton remains so popular long after it has been proven that he lied under oath, suborned perjury of others and tried to subvert justice, lied repeatedly to the American people on camera and to his wife off camera. So sad that the new morality is that the selfish end justifies any end. Reminds me of Williams "negotiating" his final contract when he took it and ripped it up because it was for the same amount ($125,000 which, in 1960, was the biggest contract in baseball) as the previous year and he then insisted on a 35% CUT because he'd had his worst year ever in 1959 (due to a nagging neck injury) and therefore felt he hadn't earned his big salary. You and certainly Bonds and Clinton probably wouldn't understand or admire this. I do.

- As to Barry Bonds seeing the ball better than anyone in 75 years, this is both highly unlikely and impossible to prove. Perhaps you are unaware that Ted Williams saw the ball pretty well, too. He had 20/10 vision whe he came up (i.e. he could see at twenty feet what a normal person with perfect eyeside could see at ten feet) which the WWII naval testing verified made him a 1 in 10,000 medical marvel. He used his great eyesight and hand-eye co-ordination to then set the all time air gunnery accuracy records, records which were never broken with the equipment of the time. When he retired with a HR in his last at bat, his eyesight had "deteriorated" to 20/15.

- I trust you'll not add to your whopper about Bonds "learning to play the game" over his first 12 or 14 seasons by saying that he now "sees the ball" better with 40 year ol eyes than he did with 25 year old ones.

- Such sad rationalizations of a lying, cheating, unfairly competing, self centered weasel. Why it almost reminds me of Slime Bucket Billy explaing one lie with "that depends on what the meaning of 'is' is ".

[Metal Ed]

Okay, okay. When I get home tonight I'll post the top 10- no, the top 25! - from Schell's second book.

Torrez, Schell doesn't have one stat that measures TOTAL offensive value. He does have a stat, ESBR, that is like OPS in that it is a broad stat, but it only encompasses pure hitting, not total value. Stolen bases and such don't get factored in.

But, he has done work on stolen bases and has a separate list of fully adjusted stolen base stats, which I can post if anyone is interested.

Actually, he's got stats for fully adjusted everything. Batting average, on base percentage, slugging percentage, home runs, doubles, doubles plus triples, stolen bases, walks.

Bill, what did you mean when you said, "Some of the formulas you showed were not complicated, but understanding the why's of such formulas seem arbitrary. " The second part of that statement is cryptic to me.

Teddy Ballgame, don't insult my intelligence with your shrill warnings about modern moral decay and corruption. Plenty of ballplayers from your childhood used hold outs and walk outs to get higher salaries. If they played today, they'd milk the current situation for all the money they could get. While I admire Williams' moral integrity, your attempts to make Williams' high character representative of an entire age of greater morale comes across as ridiculous. In any time, there are good and bad men. Curt Schilling and Mark McGwire give millions of dollars to charity; in contrast, Barry Bonds won't even buy a house for his living-out-of-his-car steroid-supplier, Greg Anderson, under the ludicrious and racist rationale that "he's white and I'm black, so I'm keeping my money." Ted Williams asked for a pay cut for his poor performance; plenty of others, like Sandy Koufax, Don Drysdale, Mickey Mantle, and Whitey Ford, were famous for not showing up at spring training and threatening not to play until they got the higher pay that they demanded. So much for all that ******** about playing for the "love of the game". You could ask Mickey about that, when he got done shoving down the kids who asked him for his autograph. Today's baseball has the enigma of steroids; your baseball had the enigma of black baseball players receiving death threats just for being black and wanting to play professional baseball.

Let's not act like we live in age of lost innocence and moral character. You gotta have something first before you can lose it.

[four tool]

What is the name of Schell's book?

[Bill Burgess]

Brothers of Fever,

While Barry Bonds usage of Balco products can not be defended, anabolic steroids have been around since the mid-1950's. They were used by the entire body-building sport, and most of the Track and Field weight men. Read that to mean - shot putters, discus throwers, javelin throwers, and hammer throwers.

Also the entire weight-lifting sport. I would be very sceptical if professional athletes in other sports never heard of these aids to training. And that would include baseball players. Perhaps the negative side to health wasn't as well-known or documented, but to get so haughty when some get caught is unseemly. Why should we assume that the 1950's-60's ballplayers didn't investigate and use them? Why not Mantle/Mays or Rose/Allen/Belle.

I wouldn't put using anabolic steroids past ANYONE serious about improving their game! And if you do, you've naive.

Metal Ed:
I merely said I don't understand why math formulas are put together the way they are. NOT impugning anyone's credability.

Bill Burgess

[Metal Ed]

Schell's books: Baseball's All-Time Best Hitters and Baseball's All-Time Best Sluggers.

[four tool]

Say Thankya!

[leecemark]

--Bill, "conventional wisdom" in baseball for many years was that lifting weights made players muscle bound and it was discouraged. That was generally true until the 80s, although there were of course a few players who lifted anyway. Honus Wagner was the only or one of the few players who lifted weights in his day. You'd think that would have givem baseball men a clue, but baseball men have always been slow to accept anything new.
--Anyway, nobody was striving for or achieved the appearance of professional weightlifter or field event guys in the 50s or 60s or 70s. There were some big, well muscled guys but nobody who grew to the hulkish dimensions of McGwire, Sosa or Bonds.

[Bill Burgess]

Mark,

You may be right, of course, but I'm now a cynical person. Wasn't always. Been made this way by recent decades.

Bet you never imagined your "walk on the Wild Side" could be so much fun, did ya? Those comparisons? Pure Dark Side. Enjoy the ride. It gets better. Goodbye, safety of Mainstream Main St.!

Hello darkness, my old friend. I've come to talk with you again.

BB

[Metal Ed]

Mark,

You may be right, of course, but I'm now a cynical person. Wasn't always. Been made this way by recent decades.

Bet you never imagined your "walk on the Wild Side" could be so much fun, did ya? Those comparisons? Pure Dark Side. Enjoy the ride. It gets better. Goodbye, safety of Mainstream Main St.!

Hello darkness, my old friend. I've come to talk with you again.

BB


Exactly. Eras in baseball come and go, and we can debate all the ways how the game has changed, but human nature still remains the same.

[Sirmudgeon]

- SIRMUDGEON ... Enjoy the Giants/Dodgers game. As for our ongoing debate on Bonds versus the other greats of the game, I'm not going to regurgitate my previous comments.

- But I will say that your instant dismissal of Bonds' unnatural advantages through cheating and lying about it by the flip comment "everybody cheats" is really just a sad commentary on the current state of morality and honesty in American society. It explains why Slime Buckey Billy Clinton remains so popular long after it has been proven that he lied under oath, suborned perjury of others and tried to subvert justice, lied repeatedly to the American people on camera and to his wife off camera. So sad that the new morality is that the selfish end justifies any end. Reminds me of Williams "negotiating" his final contract when he took it and ripped it up because it was for the same amount ($125,000 which, in 1960, was the biggest contract in baseball) as the previous year and he then insisted on a 35% CUT because he'd had his worst year ever in 1959 (due to a nagging neck injury) and therefore felt he hadn't earned his big salary. You and certainly Bonds and Clinton probably wouldn't understand or admire this. I do.

- As to Barry Bonds seeing the ball better than anyone in 75 years, this is both highly unlikely and impossible to prove. Perhaps you are unaware that Ted Williams saw the ball pretty well, too. He had 20/10 vision whe he came up (i.e. he could see at twenty feet what a normal person with perfect eyeside could see at ten feet) which the WWII naval testing verified made him a 1 in 10,000 medical marvel. He used his great eyesight and hand-eye co-ordination to then set the all time air gunnery accuracy records, records which were never broken with the equipment of the time. When he retired with a HR in his last at bat, his eyesight had "deteriorated" to 20/15.

- I trust you'll not add to your whopper about Bonds "learning to play the game" over his first 12 or 14 seasons by saying that he now "sees the ball" better with 40 year ol eyes than he did with 25 year old ones.

- Such sad rationalizations of a lying, cheating, unfairly competing, self centered weasel. Why it almost reminds me of Slime Bucket Billy explaing one lie with "that depends on what the meaning of 'is' is ".

I feel like the red-headed stepchild here, and I am rapidly losing my few remaining follicles. Drat. In any event, Teddy brings up some valid points, which ensuing posters have addressed in rather succinct fashion. I do, of course, feel the underwhelming urge to clarify, Mr. Ballgame.

I overstated the time gap involved, because of course Williams is in that "see the ball, Danny, be the ball" Caddyshack pantheon, with Ruth, Bonds, and probably a few others. But these folks are seldom seen, and no, I don't think it is dependent on excellent eyesight alone, though "no movies for me" Hornsby seemed to think so. It needs also be dependent on experience, recognition, yes, on learning. Yes, I think Bonds sees the ball better now than he did at age 25, and yes, he is more dialed in, how else do you explain a fellow that sees one strike a game amongst 16 pitches, and hits it out of the park? This is from a fan's perspective, but also from his fellow players- I can't put my finger on the quote, but it seems that Bonilla said that about him, and said that this quality is much more evident in recent years than earlier in his career, though it was always there. This seems to indicate learning, and improvement.

On morality, fair dinkum, ought not be so easily dismissed. I was postulating from the side of cynical advocacy, read reality. This does not mean I approve or in any way condone playing fast and loose with integrity. But, to quote Metal Ed, I think it was, you can't lose what you didn't have to begin with, innocence. Let's be grownups here, without voting for Clinton. Disgusting but true, and all that rot. For myself, when I played hoops in college (not that well, I might add, and not for that long), I used performance enhancers: air casts, because I have torn my ankle ligaments so often they are non-existent. These were unavailable 10 years beforehand- does this make me a cheater? Maybe. Bonds has been castigated for his elbow protection in the same vein.

Bonds on 'roids? Looks it. Aaron? Hey, check out his late career photos, puffy face, big biceps, kinda gives you pause for thought. Bottom line: many used enhancers, only Bonds is putting up the astro-numbers (not just HRs, but BBs, avg., # of heart palpitations per pitcher, etc.).

Of self-centeredness, read the excellent book "Teammates", by Halberstam, to learn a bit more about Teddy. On my approval of Bonds, refer to some of my other posts in this and other threads- I vote for him because he's a Giant, despite that he's a jerk. I think his current imbroglio is well-deserved due to his karmic deposit box. But I do think he's being singled out, unfairly, in light of what so many others have done.

Och, laddie, enow said at the current. Thanks for the good wishes on the game, it would be cool if Bonds was playing but I can't wait to see the G'ints, and SBC, and BASEBALL for the first time in a decade. And, they're playing the Dodgers, making them both of my favorite teams. How ineffably cool.

[Teddy Ballgame]

I feel like the red-headed stepchild here, and I am rapidly losing my few remaining follicles. Drat.

Yes, I think Bonds sees the ball better now than he did at age 25, and yes, he is more dialed in, how else do you explain a fellow that sees one strike a game amongst 16 pitches, and hits it out of the park? This is from a fan's perspective, but also from his fellow players- I can't put my finger on the quote, but it seems that Bonilla said that about him, and said that this quality is much more evident in recent years than earlier in his career, though it was always there. This seems to indicate learning, and improvement.

Of self-centeredness, read the excellent book "Teammates", by Halberstam, to learn a bit more about Teddy. On my approval of Bonds, refer to some of my other posts in this and other threads- I vote for him because he's a Giant, despite that he's a jerk. I think his current imbroglio is well-deserved due to his karmic deposit box. But I do think he's being singled out, unfairly, in light of what so many others have done.

Och, laddie, enow said at the current. Thanks for the good wishes on the game, it would be cool if Bonds was playing but I can't wait to see the G'ints, and SBC, and BASEBALL for the first time in a decade. And, they're playing the Dodgers, making them both of my favorite teams. How ineffably cool.

- SIR - THANKS for a good natured and persuasive post. As to losing your hair, I recommend the method developed by Errol Flynn for retaining your remaining roots. Flynn said he'd poor a quart of vodka in the sink (stopper in of course) every morning, take a stiff hairbrush in each hand, lean over the sink and brush vigourously in two handed fashion for about an hour. This, he said, greatly stimulated one's follicles and thereby helped to keep the hair alive and on one's head as well as providing a terrific cardio vascular work out. And, claimed Flynn, if all this effort gave you a heart attack, your head would fall into the sink and the vodka would revive you. He had a full head of hair when he died (mind you, he was only fifty years old when he died.) Hope it helps

- As to Bonds "seeing" the ball better, I yield without hesitation to your more comprehensive definition of what seeing the ball entails and agree that you may very well be right in Bonds' case.

- As to "Teammates", I have read it and also pondered as to why the two best baseball authors alive - Halberstram and George Wills - are also leading political authors. I have no answer to that puzzle. But one thing it is safe for me to say - when Barry Bonds is in his eighties, it is most unlikely that his teamates in their eighties with their own infirmities and health problems will drive thousands of miles to see him one last time (or cross the road in Bonds case) as Johnny Pesky and Dom Dimaggio did with Ted. Another thing almost as safe to say - when Bonds is 81 and tossing out the ceremonial pitch at an All Star Game, he will not be surrounded with the awe and affection and even hero worship with which Williams was showered at the 1999 All Star Game. He's just not in that league of greatness.

[Sirmudgeon]

Senor Ballgame, I agree wholeheartedly with you on Bonds' legacy, especially vis-a-vis Teddy's. I believe that Bonds' teammates will, however, always note that they felt themselves in the presence of greatness. Refer to my post on another thread, I think started by yourself, for further commentary. I hate to repeat myself, on the grounds that I wasn't that interesting in the first place, and boredom is like exhaustion, it leads to a face full of vodka. Gotta love those boys from Tazzie.

In a somewhat eerie fashion, reading your posts regarding Ted Williams, as a hero for the ages, reminds me of my own hero. My dad. He's over 70 now, never was much of a ballplayer (he boxed, Golden Gloves champ) (but he taught me to catch and throw a ball), he's a two-war vet, was a salesman, then an attorney, then a judge, now he fishes (he taught me that, too). Not a fly fisherman like Teddy, but a fisherman (which is not the same as a catcherman, another quality I've inherited from him). Good to have worthy heroes, never goes out of style. Thanks for the reminder, and before you say anything, I just called him yesterday.

[AG2004]

The Cobb vs. Mays matchup:

Anyone who thinks Herb Cobb is anywhere near the pitcher Carl Mays was needs his head examined.

Now let's turn to some more head-to-head matchups.

Williams (Bernie) vs. DiMaggio (Dom)
Bill Bergen vs. Ray Oyler
Christian Frederick Wilhelm von der Ahe vs. Charles O. Finley
Pete "Leather Lung" Adelis vs. Mary "The Horse Lady" Ott
Babe Ruth vs. Shanty Hogan in an eating contest

BONUS: Explain how Pepper Martin was better than Reggie Jackson, if possible.

[Bill Burgess]

AG2004,

You forgot a couple.

Flash/Green Lantern
Dracula/Jack the Ripper
Bruce Lee/The Cat
Monica (KneePads) Lewinsky/Michael Jackson
Werner Erhart/Dr. Phil
Dr. Laura/Judge Judy
Jim Bakker/Oral Roberts
Dame Edna/Amarosa(The Aprentice)
Leona Hemsley/Emelda Marcos

[Sirmudgeon]

AG2004, for your anticlimactic and o so obvious answer, go no further than the nicknames: Wild Horse of the Osage vs. Mr. October. I mean, c'mon. Or, we could segue into Popular Foods, Named After division. How many times do you use pepper vs. how many Reggie bars have you eaten lately, and no, being out of production is not only not an excuse, it is perhaps the point. Not to ruth-lessly cobb-le together an argument, or anything.

[AG2004]

AG2004,

You forgot a couple.

Flash/Green Lantern

I think Joe Gordon wins this one.



Dracula/Jack the Ripper


Jack Clark.



Bruce Lee/The Cat


Are you sure you don't mean "The Big Cat"?



Monica (KneePads) Lewinsky/Michael Jackson


Is that Michael Warren Jackson or Michael Ray Jackson?



Jim Bakker/Oral Roberts


I found Bip, Brian, Curt, Dale, Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave, Grant, Jim, Leon, Ray, Red, Robin, Skipper, and Willis, but no Oral.

I'm not sure what all the other people you mentioned have to do with baseball.

Now here's one for you.

All-Star pitcher Bill Lee vs. All-Star pitcher Bill Lee.

[Bill Burgess]

Bruce Lee/The Cat

The Cat referred to Gogan Yamaguchi, the most legendary, mystical mixed martial arts, free-style fighter ever produced by Japan.
Born: Jan. 20, 1909 - Died: May 20, 1989.

[csh19792001]

Bonds on 'roids? Looks it. Aaron? Hey, check out his late career photos, puffy face, big biceps, kinda gives you pause for thought. Bottom line: many used enhancers, only Bonds is putting up the astro-numbers (not just HRs, but BBs, avg., # of heart palpitations per pitcher, etc.).

Aaron got FAT around age 40. He didn't put on 40 pounds of hulking muscle and become an action figure.

[AG2004]

The Cat referred to Gogan Yamaguchi, the most legendary, mystical mixed martial arts, free-style fighter ever produced by Japan.
Born: Jan. 20, 1909 - Died: May 20, 1989.

Which team did he support? Did he like the Hanshin Tigers, or was he a Seibu Lions fan instead?

[Bill Burgess]

He was a Campfire Legend in martial arts circles. Perhaps the only figure more famous or revered than Bruce Lee.

He probably never saw a ballgame, but I could be mistaken. It's happened once long ago.

BB

[four tool]

while Bill's at it,

Beatles/Rolling Stones

Pam Anderson/ Paris Hilton

[Bill Burgess]

Beatles over Stones, but don't be fooled. I LOVE the Stones.

Anderson/Hilton: Don't think either can win it. I'd take Joey Heatherton over either one. Or Yvette Mimeaux over any.

Mariel Hemingway/Patricia Arquette would be most juicy. Neither could lose.

What a DREAM COME TRUE!

Bill Burgess

[torez77]

Beatles over Stones, but don't be fooled. I LOVE the Stones.


Hell, no! Stones over the Beatles by a landslide! Only cuz I like 'em more! No doubt the Beatles were more popular, but I don't see why! The Stones are the true originators of classic rock!

By the way, Elvis is the King and beats 'em all!

Now back to baseball. :)

[four tool]

OK, back to baseball

Bill James/Pete Palmer

Giamatti/Vincent

Landis/Selig

[Yankees7]

If he lives Buddy Holly is bigger than Elvis, and the true king of Rock-n-Roll is Chuck Berry.

[torez77]

If he lives Buddy Holly is bigger than Elvis, and the true king of Rock-n-Roll is Chuck Berry.

Hmmm....well since Buddy and Elvis both performed in the '50s, and Buddy wasn't even close to Elvis' level then, I wonder what facts you have to support that statement.
Admittedly, the blacks created Rhythm & Blues, many before Berry, but Rock & Roll by definition is a combination of R&B, gospel and country, and Elvis combined them better than anybody to make it popular with the white community, among other communities. Without Elvis, Rock & Roll would never have been as popular worldwide.

Don't get me started on this board! You wanna duel with me on Elvis vs. anybody you can PM me or e-mail me.

What did I say before? Back to baseball! :)

I mentioned Mays vs. Aaron before. Anyone wanna take a crack at this?

[Metal Ed]

As promised. From Michael Schell: Baseball's All-Time Best Sluggers

Career Leaders: ESBR's/550 NFP (number of time facing a pitcher)

1. Babe Ruth 74.9
2. Ted Williams 70.4
3. Rogers Hornsby 60.1
4. Barry Bonds 57.4
5. Lou Gehrig 55.6
6. Mickey Mantle 52.3
7. Stan Musial 49.9
8. Ty Cobb 48.1
9. Jimmie Foxx 47.1
10. Willie Mays 46.7
11. Mel Ott 45.5
12. Joe Dimaggio 45.4
13. Honus Wagner 45.3
14. Joe Jackson 45.3
15. Frank Thomas 45.0
16. Mark McGwire 44.2
17. Manny Ramirez 44.0
18. Dan Brouthers 43.9
19. Frank Robinson 43.7
20. Tris Speaker 41.2
21. Gavy Cravath 41.1
22. Dick Allen 41.0
23. Hank Greenberg 40.8
24. Johnny Mize 40.8
25. Hank Aaron 40.7


These numbers reflect pure hitting only and have nothing to do with baserunning or defense.

All statistical analyses are based on assumptions. Schell states his primary assumption: "After adjusting for effects, a pth percentile player in one year is equal in ability to a pth percentile player in another year for each basic offensive event." Schell admits that this assumption may not be correct and acknowledges that more involved statistical methods would be needed to compare players across eras in a fair way.

I would add another assumption: that changes that affect the average hitter or pitcher affect all pitchers and hitters equally. When we adjust for the mean - and Schell's fully adjusted numbers adjust for the mean, amongst other things - we assume that broad changes in the balance between pitching and hitting - say, lowering the mound to 10" or switching to a livelier ball - will yeild equal effects on all players. That may very well be an erroneous assumption. Babe Ruth may have derived more benefit from a livelier ball than other hitters at the time, due to ingrained ways of thinking about hitting strategy; Tom Seaver may have been more harmed by the lower mound than other pitchers. Sandy Koufax might have been helped by a five man rotation more than other pitchers; etc.

BTW, he also has more traditional numbers such as on base percentage, slugging percentage and batting averages, adjusted and standarized to 1977-1992 levels. If anyone wants to see them.

[Bill Burgess]

Stones/Beatles:

Some of the Stones' Buried Treasures:

Song Title------------CD Title, it appears on.

Waiting For a Friend - Tattoo You

Tumbling Dice, Sweet Virginia - Exile On Main Street

Sweetheart's Together, New Faces - Vodoo Lounge

Little Queenie, Carol - Get Yer Ya Ya's Out

Dead Flowers, Moonlight Mile - Sticky Fingers

The Last Time, Time Is On My Side, Heart of Stone, But It's All Over Now, Good Times,
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beatles' Buried Treasurs:

Song Title-----------------CD it appears on.

Girl, In My Life, It's Only Love, NOrwegian Wood, All My Life, Wait! - Rubber Soul

Here There & Everywhere, For No One - Revolver

She's Leaving Home, A Day In the Life - St. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band

She Came In Through The Bathroom Window, Golden Slumbers/Carry That Weight, Oh Darling, Here Comes the Sun - Abbey Road

On Our Way Home, Across the Universe - Let It Be

Fool On the Hill, Flying - Magical Mystery Tour

Mr. Moonlight, And Your Bird Can Sing, Tell Me What You See, Words Of Love, What You Doing, I Need You - Beatles VI

Obla-Di-Obla-Da, I Will - Double White Album

Tell Me Why - A Hard Day's Night

You're Gonna Lose That Girl - Help!

This Boy - Meet The Beatles

If I Fell, PS I Love You, What Goes On, Thank You Girl, Ballad of John & Yoko, Don't Let Me Down, Revolution.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill Burgess

[torez77]

Thanks for the list, Ed! Feed us more!

[therealnod]

Bill, A Day in the Life is on Sgt. Pepper's.

[Bill Burgess]

RealNod,

Good Grief. Thanks. Knew that so well. Embarrassed.

Bill

[therealnod]

Double post. Oops.

[therealnod]

I may have just dated myself by pointing that out, but I'm not really that old. :D

Others off the very underrated White Album:
Dear Prudence--Glass Onion--The Continuing Story of Bungalow Bill--Happiness is a Warm Gun (great tune)--Martha My Dear--Piggies--Don't Pass Me By ("Sorry that I doubted you, I was so unfair. You were in a car crash, and you lost your hair")

Randy Johnson vs Lefty Grove (Battle Royale).

[leecemark]

--Metal Ed, you mentioned that Schell numbers are based on 550 PA per year over 15 years. How did he deal with players who lacked that much playing time? Several players in that category made the top 25 so I assume there was little or no penalty for short careers.

[Metal Ed]

Uh, I don't have the book in front of me at the moment, but I believe the criteria was 8000 NFP for the entire career. I don't think there was any criteria for number of years played. He may have also made an exception for some players who didn't make it to 8000 NFP, like Shoeless Joe Jackson and perhaps for some players whose careers were shortened by the war.

[leecemark]

--I understand he isn't concerned with actual seasons. If I understand correctly his numbers are based on a projected 15 seasons of 550 PA each, which would require a 8250 PA career for him to not have to give some nominal credit. I probably would have used a higher PA figure myself to give more realistic counting stats.
-- Most of these guys would be playing 150+ games a year and hitting 3rd or 4th, which would give them 100 or more PA's above Schell's figure. Even assuming they wouldn't be healthy every year or would play a little less toward the end of the period I would assume at least 600 PA per season. Of course, that gets you to a 9,000 PA cut off and would limit the number of players he could use it for (at least without giving whatever break he did to the shorter career guys).

[RuthMayBond]

while Bill's at it,

Beatles/Rolling StonesThe Rolling Stones are the most OVERRATED band ever. Mediocre playing/singing/songwriting. At least the Beatles were breaking new ground for their time.

[torez77]

Hmmm...Who was the first hard rock band? NOT the Beatles! The only reasons the Beatles were more popular than the Stones was because pop music was still mainstream and, I guess, cuz they were better-looking than the Stones.
No sir, the STONES broke new ground with their hard-rock style. And if you ask rock'n'roll historians they will tell you the Stones are the most influential rock band in history!
Mediocre playing/singing/songwriting - Sshyeah! "Satisfaction", "Brown Sugar", "Start Me Up", etc. - now THAT'S ROCK'N'ROLL! "Hey Jude", "All You Need Is Love", and "Strawberry Fields Forever" are among the worst songs I've ever heard!

Sorry to get off topic again. But when you make comments that the Stones are the most overrated band ever and that the Beatles had more influence, I feel obligated to show you how wrong you are.

[Metal Ed]

Allow me to settle this debate. Both sides are partially right, because both of those bands suck. Cryptopsy, Immolation, Nile, Morbid Angel are the best bands ever.

:) :)

[RuthMayBond]

Allow me to settle this debate. Both sides are partially right, because both of those bands suck. Cryptopsy, Immolation, Nile, Morbid Angel are the best bands ever.

:) :)And judging from your choice of four bands, you REALLY know "suck" :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh

[therealnod]

Hmmm...Who was the first hard rock band? NOT the Beatles! The only reasons the Beatles were more popular than the Stones was because pop music was still mainstream and, I guess, cuz they were better-looking than the Stones.
The first hard rock band? Depends on how that term is defined, but I'd say Black Sabbath or Led Zeppelin before the Stones.

No sir, the STONES broke new ground with their hard-rock style. And if you ask rock'n'roll historians they will tell you the Stones are the most influential rock band in history!
Yeeeeeaaaa...no. And it's not even close. Led Zeppelin is probably more influential than the Stones. Rock Historian speaking. Nobody broke more new ground than the Beatles. George Martin gets a lot of credit, here.

Mediocre playing/singing/songwriting - Sshyeah! "Satisfaction", "Brown Sugar", "Start Me Up", etc. - now THAT'S ROCK'N'ROLL! "Hey Jude", "All You Need Is Love", and "Strawberry Fields Forever" are among the worst songs I've ever heard!
" Satisfaction" may be the single most overrated song ever. :D You should take back what you said about Hey Jude.

The Stones are a great band, to be sure, but they're out by a mile if the Beatles are making the throw to first.

[torez77]

Sigh....*shake head* Lord, you gave them eyes but they cannot see!

Here's a website that gives the Stones the credit they deserve:

http://www.scaruffi.com/vol1/stones.html


Back to baseball!

Here's two clashes that may have been done before, but I'd like to see some opinions:

Willie Mays vs. Hank Aaron
Christy Mathewson vs. Grover Alexander

[RuthMayBond]

Sigh....*shake head* Lord, you gave them eyes but they cannot see!

Here's a website that gives the Stones the credit they deserve:

http://www.scaruffi.com/vol1/stones.html


Back to baseball!

Here's two clashes that may have been done before, but I'd like to see some opinions:

Willie Mays vs. Hank Aaron
Christy Mathewson vs. Grover AlexanderThe "best band" can only get better than a 7.5/10 on ONE album :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh

Mays over Aaron, Alexander over Mathewson

[torez77]

The "best band" can only get better than a 7.5/10 on ONE album :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh

Mays over Aaron, Alexander over Mathewson

Continue reading on down the site! You'll see the Stones were in fact the inventors of hard rock and Led Zeppelin and future hard-rock bands were their children.

Can you give me a little more in-depth analysis of the player comparisons?

[Metal Ed]

Torrez, they are both great players, and complete players who had zero deficiencies in their all-around skills. They are also both admirable gentlemen, and wonderful credits to their sport. But I think Mays has an edge over Aaron in power, fielding and baserunning. Their hitting stats look comparable until home parks are taken into account. Aaron's power numbers were boosted by his parks. Fielding: while no one disputes that Aaron was a fine fielder, I don't think anyone will dispute that Mays had the dual advantage of both being better at his position and playing a more important position. Both were excellent baserunners, both could steal bases and had good success ratios, but I've never heard anyone say that Aaron made things happen on the basepaths the same way that Willie did, taking extra bases and unsettling opposing teams.

Aaron's main advantage over Willie are his greater cumulative stats, especially in the home run department. Part of this is due to the stadium Aaron played in, as I said, and another part of it is due to Willie missing nearly 2 prime years in Korea.

BUT! BUT! BUT! I would hate for anyone to think that I don't absolutely adore Hank Aaron, just because I think Mays was better. Oh wow, what an insult, Willie Mays was better. That only describes virtually everybody who ever played the game of baseball.

Aaron is clearly a top 15 all-time player and probably a top 10 all-time player. Anyone who doesn't give him at least that much is clearly of the "league quality doesn't matter/hasn't changed much" persuasion and thus, has a battery of dominant pre-1950 names to block Aaron's ascent up their all-time lists.

He's Hank freakin' Aaron. He's freaking royalty, as far as I'm concerned.

[Bill Burgess]

Rock fans. Get not too crazy here. I lived it & well remember what went on.

The Beatles started to climb in '63, "conquered" Britain, went on Ed Sullivan in Feb., '64, and exploded into supernova, called Beatlemania. Stones came shortly after. Neither were "hard rock". Their early product is now labled "easy listening".

Beatles (I Wann to Hold Your Hand). Stones(Heart of Stone, The Last Time, As Tears Go By, Lady Jane). Satisfaction - Strong candidate for most overplayed, hack-neyed, worst rock tune ever. Keith Richards was always the backbone of that band. His interplay with Mick Taylor in Tumbling Dice, etc. were vintage classics, never surpasses.

Many of Stones best never made it to radio. Hot rockers were not their best. Mid tempo stuff, like Waiting for a Friend. I already posted a brief summary of their less know, best stuff for you guys.

Stones were NOT an early exponent of hard rock. That phase came later. Early examples were Traffic, James Gang, Cream (Sunshine of Your Love), Steppenwolf (Born to Be Wild), Iron Butterfly (Ina-Godda-Da-vida), Black Sabbath (Iron Man), Deep Purple (Smoke On the Water), Jimmy Hendricks (Purple Haze), Led Zeppelin (Whole Lotta Love).

If one wants to hear an excrusiatingly amazing song of the 60's era, one that barely ever made it to the AM radio, go out & get yourself the CD, "The Soft Parade", by the Doors. Wait until it's dark, put on the last song, The Soft Parade, and put on the headphones. Crank it up pretty good, and prepare yourself for a trip to rock heaven. Not too hard, not too soft. Just an amazing example of the genius of the rock scene known as the 60's. It will not disappoint. That much I assure you.

I take off my hat to no man in my passion for the genius of the Stones. But I must admit, they were not the first to innovate. Here's what happened.

By 1966, the Beatles were fading into the badlands of rock. Lennon ran into Bob Dylan, his hero, and Dylan told John, "It doesn't sound as if you have anything to say." Took John aback. He then started to write better stuff.

Started their evolution towards their greatness. Rubber Soul began their drive towards their destiny. They were a huge vehicle for my generation, and they took us with them to the top. Whatever John/Paul did, Mick/Keith were sure to follow. Beatles - St. Pepper, Stones - Satanic.

When Beatles self-destructed, Stones came into their own. Felt hugely liberated from long shadows of Fab 4. Stones felt so empowered, they flex their musical muscles in Exile - a bottomless pit of majesty. Peaked with Sticky Fingers/Exile. Richards' licks laid foundation of glory under all they did. True unsung hero of his era. Stones had been Lou Gehrig to Beatles Babe.

Bill Burgess

PS. Mays over Aaron, Matty over Alex. First not close, 2nd breaks my heart.

[torez77]

Can't say I disagree with anything you said, Ed. Except perhaps for Aaron being royalty. ;)

Anyway, looking at Schell's stats and the advantage Mays has over Aaron in ESBR, it's easy to see why Mays is the better hitter, given that Schell adjusts for park effects. Mays also has a slight edge over Aaron in EqA, .325-.323. Defensively, there was never a question that Mays was better.

It's an interesting comparison cuz looking at the raw numbers, they are practically deadlocked, with maybe Aaron holding a slight edge offensively. Relatively, Mays is better.

[Metal Ed]

Stones were NOT an early exponent of hard rock. That phase came later. Early examples were Traffic, James Gang, Cream (Sunshine of Your Love), Steppenwolf (Born to Be Wild), Iron Butterfly (Ina-Godda-Dava), Black Sabbath (Smoke On the Water), Jimmy Hendricks (Purple Haze), Led Zeppelin.




Bill, no matter what you have said to me before, you just blew all of your credibility with me. Black Sabbath, Smoke on the Water? Shame on you. Album after album of classic material to choose from, and you pick a song by a different band entirely. For shame.

[Bill Burgess]

You 're right. I stand mortified & forever black-balled from rock stuff. I was typing too fast, and didn't go back and proof it, to be sure, as I often, but not always do. And whenever I don't, I mess up. Sorry. I corrected my screw-up. I never did like hard rock in the 60's. Strickly an AMer, and Motowner.

My heroes were always Smokey, David/Eddie(Tempts), Aretha, Jackie Wilson, Brian Wilson, John/Paul, Frankie Valli, Dylan, Van Morrison, The Band, Norman Whitfield, Phil Spector, Mick/Keith, Ray Davies, etc.

Bill Burgess

[torez77]

Bill - this wouldn't be the first time I differ with you - but I have to say that the roots of hard rock were imbedded in the Stones, and most rock historians would agree. I know you lived during that time and I didn't, but I've read books and Internet websites that give primary credit to the Stones. The website I posted above gave Stones credit for inventing hard rock in 1963, and grunge in 1967.

The Beatles were influential, but in my view, all they did was lead the British Invasion into America, and all of the British groups followed them, except for the Stones. They invented their own style. As I've said before, it was not as popular as the Beatles' style at the time, cuz the general public had a hard time accepting the Stones' new, rugged sexual style, hence they did not chart as well as the Beatles on the pop charts, but still charted BIG.

And I also have to strongly differ with you that "Satisfaction" is an overrated song (GET REAL!) and that their lighter songs are their best work. We both like the Stones, but obviously for different reasons.

[Bill Burgess]

Geoff,

OK. I can accept that. The thing is, we don't have to choose in music. We can enjoy everything we like. The Stones have always stressed their love of the blues in their interviews.

[Bill Burgess]

Mark,

"Bill you always mention Ruth as a competitor of Cobb's. I suppose that is partially true,"

Babe WAS a competitor of Ty's. Big Time. When you use the argument that Willie Mays, and others had a rougher time in terms of competition, you seem to overlook the fact that Babe Ruth represented a HUGE obstacle to AL stars collecting their league leads in many stats. Not just TC but all the others too.

If Willie had had to face someone as statisticly dominant as Babe Ruth, he too might have been as preempted as Ty was.

Here are 8 occasions, where Ty would have led his league, if not for the presence of Babe.

1918 SLG., OPS, Adj. OPS+,
1919 OPS, Adj. OPS+
1921 Onbase
1924 Times on Base
1924 Runs

So Babe was most definitely a competitor of Ty's and blocked the way very often. And the above are only those times where Ty came in 2nd to Babe.

Bill Burgess

[therealnod]

Bill - this wouldn't be the first time I differ with you - but I have to say that the roots of hard rock were imbedded in the Stones, and most rock historians would agree. I know you lived during that time and I didn't, but I've read books and Internet websites that give primary credit to the Stones. The website I posted above gave Stones credit for inventing hard rock in 1963, and grunge in 1967.

The Beatles were influential, but in my view, all they did was lead the British Invasion into America, and all of the British groups followed them, except for the Stones. They invented their own style. As I've said before, it was not as popular as the Beatles' style at the time, cuz the general public had a hard time accepting the Stones' new, rugged sexual style, hence they did not chart as well as the Beatles on the pop charts, but still charted BIG.

And I also have to strongly differ with you that "Satisfaction" is an overrated song (GET REAL!) and that their lighter songs are their best work. We both like the Stones, but obviously for different reasons.

Giving the Stones credit for Grunge? That's ludicrous; Neil Young deserves more credit for grunge than the Stones. Classifiying "hard rock" is dicey stuff, but the Stones certainly don't fit in with the likes of early practitioner's like the Who, Mountain, Cream, JHE, CCR, Deep Purple...
What we consider "hard" has come a long way recently.
If the Stones invented hard rock, then Willie Dixon invented the Stones, so Willie Dixon invented hard rock.
"Satisfaction" is a way overrated song in my opinion, and it always makes the top 5 of best songs lists, which annoys me endlessly. Just to give you a good laugh, my current favorite for Best Song of All Time is 46-n-2.

[ElHalo]

"Satisfaction" is a way overrated song in my opinion, and it always makes the top 5 of best songs lists, which annoys me endlessly. Just to give you a good laugh, my current favorite for Best Song of All Time is 46-n-2.

Agree on Satisfaction, but if you mean the Tool song... that's not even the best song on that album. I think it's impossible to come up with a Best Song of All Time, because the criteria are so ill defined. Nirvana's offering to that contest would always be Smells Like Teen Spirit, but that's far from their best song (I'd probably go with either Heart Shaped Box, but there are a dozen others that could as easily step in). Which particular Beatles song would you want to take? If you really want to talk influential, wouldn't you have to pick a Robert Johnson song to put in there? See, it's far too tenuous of a definition to really make a list up of the best ones.

[torez77]

46-n-2? Tool? Never heard of them? Are they new?

See, I don't keep up with today's music. I think it sucks! My favorite music ever came out of the '80s! I also like the '70s, '60s and '50s. Rock and roll died in the '90s when rap, hip-hop and alternative took over (early rap was good). I don't like country either, except for a few songs.

My all-time favorite artist is Elvis Presley, cuz I was raised on him by my mother. Yeah, he sang some country, but he sang it good!

Don't laugh, but my all-time favorite song is..........(drum roll)..........

BEAT IT! - back when Michael Jackson was cool!

[ElHalo]

Tool's been around about fifteen years, and the song he's speaking of came out in 1996 or 97.

See, I'm a Nirvana guy myself. Everyone their own taste.

[therealnod]

Agree on Satisfaction, but if you mean the Tool song... that's not even the best song on that album.
Ooooh...them's fightin' words! Lyrically, the hard choice is to award a tie to H and Jimmy There are plenty of things going on musically in both those songs, but 46-n-2 is just incredible. It's basically all one riff rearranged, with a section that is the main riff with one beat taken off to make it in 7/8 time. It's just ingenious. Give it a few more listens. It opens with the familiar intro, which is the building block of the main riff, which is comprised of the same notes rearranged. I could go on all day about that song. Pay attention to the one-note ending. It's the intro riff reduced to that single note, the bottom note. In other words, it's the low note of the riff with all the other notes missing, so the space between that note could be mentally filled in with the missing notes (definitlely not "too many notes"). Brilliant.
I agree with the general point you make about picking the best song/best album of all time, but that's what we do here with players, only we have "evidence." Aenima's on my short list for best ever.

See my shadow changing
Stretching up and over me
Soften this old armor
Hoping I can clear the way
By stepping through my shadow
Crawling out the other side
Stepping through my shadow
46-n-2 are just ahead of me

torez, Tool's been around since '92, but they release albums at a glacial pace. The aforementioned album was released in '96, I believe...maybe '98. They're a quasi-metal band, very innovative.

[Bill Burgess]

No such thing as Best Song, but there is Favorite Song. My all time favorite song is by Dorothy Morrison. "All God's Children Got Soul". Came out in 1969, never heard it on the radio, written by Booker T. I try to find something in each category to like but failed with rap.

In country, I like the original Hank Williams, guitar pickins of Roy Clark, and a few assorted hits, but not many.

Gospel, I like when Sam Cook sang with the Soul Stirrers, but that's about it.

Hard rock, not too much. Revolution by the Beatles, Soft Parade by the Doors, or Hot Legs by Rod Stewart probably wouldn't qualify as hard enough.

Love light Rock, Beatles, Stones, 4 Seasons, The Band, Bob Dylan, Eagles, Credence Clearwater, Van Morrison, Poco, Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young, Paul Simon, Bob Marley, Chubby Checker, 5th Dimension, Bruce Springsteen, Buffalo Springfield.


Sweet Sound of Soul - Miracles, Temptations, 4 Tops, Supremes, Spinners, Stylystics, Manhattans, Boyz 2 Men, Staple Singers, Sam Cooke, Chuck Jackson

Women - Carole King, Joanie Mitchell, Linda Ronstadt, Joan Baez, Judy Collins, Carly Simon

Miscellaneous - Mills Brothers, Judy Garland, Al Jolson, Andrews Sisters, Fred Astaire, Cole Porter, Gershwin Brothers, Sinatra, Bennet, Streisand, Bobby Vinton, assorted Big Band/Broadway stuff.

All told. Pretty middle of the road, easy listening stuff. Nothing too savage.

Bill Burgess

PS.
5 Top LPs of all time? Abby Road, Pet Sounds, Sticky Fingers, Exile on Main Street, There Goes Rhymin Simon, Bridge Over Troubled Waters. Honorable Mentions: Hair, Tapestry
Not counting Greatest Hits of anybody.