Albert Pujols vs Ralph Kiner [Archive]

AlecBoy006

11-30-2006, 03:10 PM

Make no mistake, unless Pujols just stops now, he will be better than Kiner, but who is better NOW? They both had/have quite the peaks, so let's compare.

Pujols
1159 hits
250 Hr's
.332 Avg
758 RBI
.419 OBP
Times struck out 100 times in a season- 0
All Stars- 5
2001 NL ROY
2003 HanK Aaron Winner
2003 MLB Player of Year
2004 NLCS MVP
2005 NL MVP
Gold Gloves- 1
3 time OPS Champ
3 time Slugging % champ

Silver Slugger- 3
World Series- 2
World Series wins- 1

Ralph Kiner
369 Hr's
1015 RBI
.279 AVG
1451 hits
OBP .398
Times struck out 100 times- once
Times an All Star- 6
7 Straight homerun crowns
7 straight AB per HR crowns
World Series Champs- 0

I just hope I get no burns from this comparison. My vote goes to Pujols, but it's quite close.

AlecBoy006

11-30-2006, 05:01 PM

bump bump bump

JamesWest

11-30-2006, 06:29 PM

Another poll that screams 'who cares'.

EvanAparra

11-30-2006, 07:03 PM

Another poll that screams 'who cares'.
Just another poll that you don't have to participate if you dont like it. If you want to say the comparison is silly between those two particular players than fine -- but there are a lot of these polls here, so if you dont like it -- dont participate -- others do like them.

JamesWest

11-30-2006, 07:26 PM

If you want to say the comparison is silly between those to particular players than fine -- .

That is exactly what I want to say.

AlecBoy006

11-30-2006, 08:41 PM

If you ask me, both are comparable.

leecemark

11-30-2006, 08:49 PM

--Pujols is slightly less dominant in the power department, but much better at hitting for average for a better all around offensive package. He is also a better defender. My question is why this comparison? Unless you predicting Albert's career coming to an abrupt end in a few years I don't see what makes them an interesting pair.

KCGHOST

11-30-2006, 09:48 PM

Looking at their first six full seasons I would go with Kiner. I am giving him quite a bit of credit for having to hit in Forbes Field for half his games. That place was absolutely huge.

Sultan_1895-1948

11-30-2006, 09:59 PM

This wasn't your father's Forbes he was hitting in. Kiner enjoyed "Kiner's Corner" from '48 to '53 which pretty much covers all of his extremely productive years.

Anyone have splits for Kiner?

leecemark

11-30-2006, 10:21 PM

--The fence was brought in some (actually for Hank Greenberg when he was acquired for 47, although it quickly changed from Greenberg Gardens for Kiner's Korner). It still wasn't exactly a bandbox though. The adjustment made Forbes into something like a nuetral park for RH hitters, instead of the homer killing park it was in most of its existence.

Sultan_1895-1948

11-30-2006, 10:29 PM

Do we have his splits for those year?

AlecBoy006

12-01-2006, 07:02 AM

What makes them a pair? Because at this point in time, their numbers are similar.

Rookie1914

12-01-2006, 07:40 AM

Another poll that screams 'who cares'.

That is rude.

Rookie1914

12-01-2006, 08:36 AM

If Pujols wants to complain about getting screwed out of an MVP award, look at Kiner in 1947. He got beat out by Bob Elliott. Kiner's numbers were better than DiMaggio who won the AL MVP that year [Ted Williams should have won the AL]!

Bob Elliott
176 Hits
22 HR
113 RBI
.317 BA
.927 OPS

Ralph Kiner
177 Hits
51 HR
127 RBI
.313 BA
1.056 OPS

It's a toss up with me between Kiner and Pujols.

538280

12-01-2006, 12:28 PM

Actually, Rookie1914, Elliot was not a bad selection at all. Elliot was known as a tremendous team leader in his own time (though he is forgotten today), and was an excellent defensive player and a very heads up baserunner. Kiner was a great power hitter and put up some nice HRs and RBIs, but he was not a complete player. I probably woudl agree that Kiner was better than Elliot that year, but Kiner did not get totally screwed over-Elliot was certainly a defensible choice.

If you want to look at just a ridiculously horrible MVP selection, look at Andrew Dawson over Jack Clark or Ozzie Smith in 1987.

AlecBoy006

12-01-2006, 12:37 PM

538280

12-01-2006, 12:47 PM

You and I have been down this path before. I respect all you have to offer. I thought I knew alot for a 15 year old, you know more than me, and are 1 year younger than me, however, I will argue for Dawson. Gold Glove, Silver Slugger, All Star. Led the league in Homeruns, RBI's and Total bases. Dont forget 22 hits away from 200 hits, and did all this for a last place team. Opposed to Clark and Smith for a pennant winning team.

No offense, but suggesting that Andre Dawson was anywhere near the offensive player Jack Clark was in 1987 is just statistical misinterpretation on your part. Yes, it is true Dawson had a lot of HRs and RBI. But focus on the player's own contributions to winning, and things that correlate with run scoring. HItting home runs is nice, but how many total bases you get per AB (SLG) is a much better measure of real power given opportunity. RBI are totally situational and not reliable.

Getting on base is another VERY key element of scoring runs, and Jack Clark led the league in 1987 with a .459 OBP. That is a staggering 131 points higher than Dawson's .328. A .328 OBP in Dawson's setting was just an awful figure-and it is what makes him anything but a true offensive force that season. You can't create that many runs for your team when you are failing to get on base that often (and thus making so many outs). Dawson didn't even really hit for more power than Clark in 1987 either, despite the HRs. Clark had a league leading .597 SLG, Dawson's was .568. Power was the area in 1987 that made Dawson have a pretty good (but not great or even close to MVP) season. In all other areas of offense he was only okay or in some cases like OBP he was well below average.

We've just been over OBP and SLG, which are the two statistics which best correlate to how many runs a team will score. Clark beats him well in both. Clark's OPS+ (OBP and SLG compared to league average) is 174 compared to Dawson's 129. That is an absolute blowout. This also shows that Dawson played in a big hitter's park (Wrigley Field) that season.

Basically all Andre Dawson could do as an offensive player in 1987 was hit home runs out of that bandbox park in Chicago. His contact hitting skills were only okay, and he made a TON of outs. Clark made very few outs, was constantly on base, hit for better power and contact than Dawson, and was a MUCH better offensive player than Dawson in 1987. The BBWAA...well, they're just ridiculously and incorrectly infatuated by the RBI statistic. This year's MVP choices were more proof of that.

AlecBoy006

12-01-2006, 12:54 PM

I take no offense to it.

But, with all Dawson did to the Cubs could've made them even worse. Even if it was 1 point, The Hawk still had a higher average than The Ripper.

Bases Stolen

Clark 1
Dawson 11

Times struck out
Clark 139
Dawson 103

Doubles
Clark 23
Dawson 24

Triples
Clark 1
Dawson 2

After looking at my baseball bible, baseball-reference.com, I will agree that Clark and Dawson had similar numbers, but nonetheless, Dawson won. And I can't say I have a problem with it.

Rookie1914

12-01-2006, 02:33 PM

Rookie1914

12-01-2006, 02:36 PM

No offense, but suggesting that Andre Dawson was anywhere near the offensive player Jack Clark was in 1987 is just statistical misinterpretation on your part. Yes, it is true Dawson had a lot of HRs and RBI. But focus on the player's own contributions to winning, and things that correlate with run scoring. HItting home runs is nice, but how many total bases you get per AB (SLG) is a much better measure of real power given opportunity. RBI are totally situational and not reliable.

Getting on base is another VERY key element of scoring runs, and Jack Clark led the league in 1987 with a .459 OBP. That is a staggering 131 points higher than Dawson's .328. A .328 OBP in Dawson's setting was just an awful figure-and it is what makes him anything but a true offensive force that season. You can't create that many runs for your team when you are failing to get on base that often (and thus making so many outs). Dawson didn't even really hit for more power than Clark in 1987 either, despite the HRs. Clark had a league leading .597 SLG, Dawson's was .568. Power was the area in 1987 that made Dawson have a pretty good (but not great or even close to MVP) season. In all other areas of offense he was only okay or in some cases like OBP he was well below average.

We've just been over OBP and SLG, which are the two statistics which best correlate to how many runs a team will score. Clark beats him well in both. Clark's OPS+ (OBP and SLG compared to league average) is 174 compared to Dawson's 129. That is an absolute blowout. This also shows that Dawson played in a big hitter's park (Wrigley Field) that season.

Basically all Andre Dawson could do as an offensive player in 1987 was hit home runs out of that bandbox park in Chicago. His contact hitting skills were only okay, and he made a TON of outs. Clark made very few outs, was constantly on base, hit for better power and contact than Dawson, and was a MUCH better offensive player than Dawson in 1987. The BBWAA...well, they're just ridiculously and incorrectly infatuated by the RBI statistic. This year's MVP choices were more proof of that.

He could twist those stats and say the same thing for Dawson.

Myankee4life

12-01-2006, 03:40 PM

Talking about screwed look at the 1934 MVP.

StanTheMan

12-01-2006, 04:25 PM

csh19792001

12-01-2006, 09:58 PM

Do we have his splits for those years?

Old Post:

In 1947, the Pirates obtained Hank Greenberg, the '46 AL home run champ, and tailored Forbes Field to the two righthanded power hitters. A double bullpen, 30 feet wide by 200 feet long, significantly cut the distances in left field. "Greenberg Gardens" (later "Kiner's Korner") reduced the left-field line from 365 to 335 feet and the left-center power alley from 406 to 355 feet. The two sluggers became roommates and Kiner credited Greenberg with his continued success. Greenberg managed only 25 homers in his final season, but Kiner blasted 51 to tie Johnny Mize for the NL lead.

Kiner went from hitting 23 and leading the league to 51 after the change in dimensions. Undoubtedly most of that is attributable to the massive change in LF.

I fact, I doubt Kiner would have had a prayer at the HOF had it not been for Greenberg's decision to play his swan song in Pittsburgh. He would have probably ended up a good power hitter and a lousy fielder with a short career.

Kiner hit 8 at home and 15 on the road his rookie year. Afterwards, at Forbes:

Year (Home/Road)
47' (28/23)
48' (31/9)
49' (29/25)
50' (27/20)
51' (26/16)
52' (22/15)

163/108, and probably with at least a hundred more at bats on the road.

Perhaps not coincidentally, when he was traded, they pretty drastically reconfigured the park again, and it became horrible for homeruns once again.

Another old post:

B.T.W., how many HR's did that park cost Stargell? If I remember right, Ruth's ball was the only one hit over that roof for a long time, then someone I never heard of (but I'll bet Sultan knows) did it, then Mantle did it in the 1960 Series, then Stargell did it several times. Ya gotta wonder how many HR's that park cost him, while he was in his 20's. He did out-HR everyone in the 70's, right? What could he have done in the 60's?

BHN
How many HR's did Forbes cost Stargell? Probably a TON. If fact, I think I may have stumbled upon something- I seriously doubt any of the alltime homerun hitters (guys with, say, more than 400 career dingers) was more routed by their home park than Willie Stargell.

Consider that through 1970 (last year at Forbes) Stargell had 196 career homeruns- and according to retrosheet, he'd only hit 74 of those at home.

And most guys- irrespective of the fact that everyone bats more on the road in the long run- hit more AT HOME. Had Stargell played in a fair park, he would have hit 250 homeruns during that timeframe. Had he played in a great homerun park, he would have hit more.

1962-1970
HOMERUNS HR
1 Harmon Killebrew 357
2 Hank Aaron 339
3 Willie Mays 309
4 Willie McCovey 308
5 Frank Howard 294
6 Frank Robinson 273
7 Billy Williams 264
8 Ron Santo 247
9 Boog Powell 237
10 Norm Cash 234

csh19792001

12-01-2006, 09:59 PM

He could twist those stats and say the same thing for Dawson.

Neither Dawson nor Clark. Ozzie Smith got robbed.

There is only one member of the 6 year .300, 30, 100 and 100 club, and it's not Ralph Kiner.

It's late and I can't think. Who is it?

AlecBoy006

12-02-2006, 07:10 AM

Smith robbed? He only had 4 more hits than Dawson, and 75 RBI, plus ZERO homeruns!

Rookie1914

12-02-2006, 07:56 AM

Talking about screwed look at the 1934 MVP.

Yeah, they don't always get them right.

538280

12-02-2006, 08:27 AM

After looking at my baseball bible, baseball-reference.com, I will agree that Clark and Dawson had similar numbers, but nonetheless, Dawson won. And I can't say I have a problem with it.

You should have a problem with it. If you understood what actually creates runs for the team, you would. But I agree with Chris (csh) anyway, it should have been Ozzie Smith rather than Clark. But Jack Clark versus Andre Dawson in 1987 is a perfect example of real offensive production (Clark) versus shiny triple crown stats and little real production (Dawson).

538280

12-02-2006, 08:29 AM

He could twist those stats and say the same thing for Dawson.

No, I couldn't and I wouldn't. Andre Dawson in 1987 just flat out sucked at getting on base and he made way too many outs to be a great offensive player. He had very good power, but it wasn't even that great in the context of his opportunity and the park in which he played. Outside of power Dawson had no offensive skill which was that good in 1987. HIs offensive value that season was not that of one of the top TWENTY players in the league, never mind the top 1.

csh19792001

12-02-2006, 10:42 AM

You should have a problem with it. If you understood what actually creates runs for the team, you would. But I agree with Chris (csh) anyway, it should have been Ozzie Smith rather than Clark. But Jack Clark versus Andre Dawson in 1987 is a perfect example of real offensive production (Clark) versus shiny triple crown stats and little real production (Dawson).

I agree with you. Dawson simply didn't walk enough and struck out way too much to be a truly great ballplayer. If he'd been a .330 hitter, it would have been a different story, but he wasn't a great hitter. He always seemed like a rich man's Shawon Dunston- had a ton of raw ability, but no discipline and not on a Major League level in terms of applied knowledge of how to approach hitting.

Regardless, as they did this year, the writers botched it, because they're still hung up on HR and RBI without looking at contextual factors. I don't think the most erudite baseball people- or the best managers in the game- would have chosen Dawson that year if only THEY were polled.

Thomas Boswell of The Washington Post wrote in early October of that year:

"Ozzie Smith and Alan Trammell for most valuable players in the National and American leagues. Not Andre Dawson and George Bell, even if they hit 50 homers each."

"The NL MVP, who should be clearcut, isn't. The man who deserves it appears to be running fourth in straw polls of sportswriters who vote. If Smith doesn't win it, then melt down the award. It's simple, Smith finished second only to Montreal's Tim Wallach in actual runs produced for his team (181 to 179) and he may be the greatest fielding shortstop in baseball history.

Don't have time to re-create the rest, hopefully you guys are SABR members as well and can read this- and yes, there are MANY other contemporary articles/authors that supported Smith, as well.

A Year End Vote for Shortstops, Relievers (http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=168&did=120884932&SrchMode=1&sid=4&Fmt=12&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=HNP&TS=1165081535&clientId=65882)

Rookie1914

12-02-2006, 01:22 PM

No, I couldn't and I wouldn't. Andre Dawson in 1987 just flat out sucked at getting on base and he made way too many outs to be a great offensive player. He had very good power, but it wasn't even that great in the context of his opportunity and the park in which he played. Outside of power Dawson had no offensive skill which was that good in 1987. HIs offensive value that season was not that of one of the top TWENTY players in the league, never mind the top 1.

You act like 1987 was yesterday and you saw every game Dawson played in. Are you reviewing tapes :D ? If so, I want to see too :D .

EvanAparra

12-02-2006, 01:22 PM

You act like 1987 was yesterday and you saw every game Dawson played in. Are you reviewing tapes :D ? If so, I want to see too :D .
He wasn't alive in 1987.

Edgartohof

12-02-2006, 01:31 PM

. Dont forget 22 hits away from 200 hits, and did all this for a last place team.

I'm sorry, this just caught my attention. I've never heard this in an argument before.

Well, his BA was just 20 points below .300

His HR total was only 20 below 30

20 away is actually quite a ways away. The difference between 178 and 200 is a big difference.

Edgartohof

12-02-2006, 01:36 PM

.300 Average
30 Homers
100 RBI's
100 Runs scored.

What no player had EVER done for more than his first two seasons, Pujols has done for all SIX of his seasons. That's Three times longer than anyone else has ever managed in the more than 125 history of this game.

Just a minor quibble, but the first 30 HR season didn't occur until 1920, so your stats weren't really plausibly possible until then, so it is in the last 86 years actually - though your argument can still stand on that shortened time frame just as well.

Rookie1914

12-02-2006, 01:45 PM

He wasn't alive in 1987.

I was in Jr. High and watched Andre play and let me tell ya, he wasn't too shabby. The "Hawk" was a force to be reckoned with :D

plask_stirlac

12-02-2006, 03:52 PM

And there's also a reason he scored 41 runs not on home runs, even though he had some speed. He really, really didn't get on base. He was reckoned with 67.2% of the time, making an out. .328 OBP to .344 league on BBRef. I'm not sure whether pitchers were afraid of him, you'd think he could walk more while hitting that many. Hitting all those homers helped him from being Juan Encarnacion, it's not like he's bad, but he had trouble with offense.

Isn't this Kiner v. Pujols, though?

AlecBoy006

12-02-2006, 03:54 PM

Andre Dawson still dominated with bad knees.

538280

12-02-2006, 04:44 PM

You act like 1987 was yesterday and you saw every game Dawson played in. Are you reviewing tapes :D ? If so, I want to see too :D .

I did not watch Dawson play, I wasn't alive in 1987, but I can say that statistically he probably was not even one of the top 20 players in the NL in 1987.

If you want to say Dawson posessed unbelieveable leadership abilities that cannot be seen in the numbers and that is why the voters picked him, then I can say that would have been an unbelieveably stupid reason to name him MVP. How much leadership could he have if he led his team to a last place finish?

But actually his team finishing in last place has nothing to do with my objection to him winning the award. If a guy is the best in the league I have no problem with him winning it, regardless of whether or not his team sucks. I have a huge problem with Dawson winning the MVP that year because he just wasn't even close to the best player in the league.

AlecBoy006

12-02-2006, 04:48 PM

I wasn't alive in 87 either. Not born until 91.

But Chris, who knows how much worse the Cubs would have been without him... and WHY did he win anyway?

538280

12-02-2006, 05:02 PM

I wasn't alive in 87 either. Not born until 91.

But Chris, who knows how much worse the Cubs would have been without him... and WHY did he win anyway?

The Cubs would have been worse without him, but not that much worse. His offense that year was just NOT anything special, and if you make any sort of offensive evaluation model which has to do with why teams really score runs you will come up with that answer.

Why did he win? He won because the sportswriters have a complete and total infatuation with HR and RBI totals, and apparently would rather focus on that than what actually wins teams games.

AlecBoy006

12-02-2006, 05:10 PM

What does MVP stand for?

Who did more for their team? The Hawk did more than the Ripper OR the Wizard.

Btw- I just asked my family about this, and they agree with me. No I don't need them talking for me, but it's good to ask them. I shared my dad with Dawson's stats, and he says it sounded like MVP numbers to him.

EvanAparra

12-02-2006, 05:13 PM

Do you or your dad not care about OBP? a .328 obp for a MVP is absolutely atrocious.

AlecBoy006

12-02-2006, 05:16 PM

Do you not care about heart? Dawson played with his heart!

EvanAparra

12-02-2006, 05:18 PM

Do you not care about heart? Dawson played with his heart!

So does Trot Nixon, doesn't make him any better than Vladimir Guerrero. (go bruins! ;) )

538280

12-02-2006, 05:27 PM

What does MVP stand for?

Who did more for their team? The Hawk did more than the Ripper OR the Wizard.

I've already explained why that is totally false. Dawson did NOT do more for his team than Clark or Ozzie. The ONLY way you can claim that he did is if you go by the same prism as the writers-everything but BA/HR/RBI be damned.

Btw- I just asked my family about this, and they agree with me. No I don't need them talking for me, but it's good to ask them. I shared my dad with Dawson's stats, and he says it sounded like MVP numbers to him.

Then you and him have no advanced understanding of how statistics correlate to winning games.

AlecBoy006

12-02-2006, 05:34 PM

Woah! Now you are getting a little personal. Dawson saved his team from being EVEN worse. I will ask you this: Did the Cardinals NOT represent the NL in the 87 World Series?

Where do we live? Chicago! Who's the Cubs rivalry? The Cardinals! Checkmate

We are homies, dog.

And, UCLA just beat USC not statistically, but because of their heart.

My mom is a Cubs fan, so am I. My dad is now a Sox Fan, but was a Cubs fan until 91. So, both saw Dawson play and how incredible he played for the Cubs that year.

It doesn't matter, last place is still the bottom. You can't get any worse, you ain't going anywhere.

And my dad's opinion is now a days though I don't like it: Cubs suck! He's a Sox fan, but a Chicago fan. Chicago > St. Louis ANY DAY OF THE WEEK, Pal!

538280

12-02-2006, 05:39 PM

I am not from St. Louis, and I have no subjective feelings towards Jack Clark, Ozzie Smith, or the Cards. I simply am just pointing out to you that Andre Dawson in 1987 was an awful MVP choice, and I'm explaining to you why this is true-because based on how teams actually score runs and what actually correlates to run scoring, Jack Clark is FAR better. You apparently would STILL rather just shut your ears and scream "HOME RUNS AND RBI!" as loud as you can, so it's probably pointless to continue.

AlecBoy006

12-02-2006, 05:44 PM

We are Cubs fans. That's why we wear our hearts on our sleeves. We're not gonna root for the Ripper.

Anyway

M V P M V P M V P

You have to measure the heart, not talent. If you care to go by stats, son, that's cool. But the Hawk won enough said. You can NOT change the record. It's his. Bar none.

plask_stirlac

12-02-2006, 08:23 PM

This is becoming a distinctly separate thread.

But it's not like Dawson had "heart" and Ozzie didn't. The Cards finished in first. Will Clark for the West-winning Giants, as well, better OBP and SLG than Dawson in a major pitcher's park.

Rookie1914

12-02-2006, 08:31 PM

538280

12-02-2006, 08:55 PM

It's his. Bar none.

It should not have been his, and you have provided no reason why it should be his other than that he had "heart" and his HR and RBI totals. I'm not saying heart doesn't matter, you can't be a great player if you don't have desire to be so, but it is not a reason a guy should be MVP and it's not like Ozzie or Smith didn't have "heart".

AlecBoy006

12-02-2006, 09:01 PM

Oh, he had heart, but obviously didn't give enough in to win the MVP.

538280

12-03-2006, 06:23 PM

Just bringing these threads up-posts made earlier today are at the beginning of the thread.

AlecBoy006

12-03-2006, 09:39 PM

Ok. Very well then

Appling

12-04-2006, 09:59 AM

On an admittedly basic level, Pujols is, by far, off to the greatest start any hitter has ever had... even one Ralph Kiner would envy.

Before Pujols, no player had ever surpassed the following numbers for more than TWO seasons to start his career.

.300 Average
30 Homers
100 RBI's
100 Runs scored.

What no player had EVER done for more than his first two seasons, Pujols has done for all SIX of his seasons. That's Three times longer than anyone else has ever managed in the more than 125 history of this game.

Ted Williams comes a close second to Pujols, in meeting the standards you defined. In his first six MLB seasons (1939-1942, 1946-1947) Wiillliams hit over .300 six times, drove in 100 runs and scored over 100 runs six times, and hit 30 or more homeruns five times (23 HR in 1940 --Ted's only "failure" to meet those standards).

More important IMO is how the hitter compares with others in his league in those same six seasons. Albert has led the NL in BA once and runs scored 3 times -- a total of 4 "Black Ink" seasons in these four hitting departments.

Williams in his first six seasons (excluding the war years of 1943-45-45) led the American League in BA three times, in homeruns 3 times, in RBI three times and in runs scored five times! A total of 14 black ink seasons in six years,in those four hitting departments! (Ted also led the AL in slugging in 4 of his first six seasons, and in OBP five of those six seasons.)

Oh yes, and those first six seasons for the Splinter included two Triple Crown seasons! Top that if you can!

Pujols is a great hitter, but my vote still goes to Ted for those first six seasons.

csh19792001

12-04-2006, 03:43 PM

Pujols is a great hitter, but my vote still goes to Ted for those first six seasons.

Pujols has been a better baseball player- not just an alltime great hitter, but an alltime great PLAYER over his first six years. And he's been doing it against all races, with MLB dredging talent from not only an America exponentally larger, but from nations across the globe, as well. Williams was a below average, mainly indifferent fielder. Not as bad as some make him out to be (he played the wall pretty well), but did not have a good arm, loped in LF, and was certainly not deft. He was moved from the spacious RF after 1939 because they realized that, more or less, he couldn't handle it. Pujols has made himself into an excellent first baseman out of sheer effort and determination- Williams, who only cared about hitting, never cared nearly enough to do the same.

Speaking of which.....it has been noted that Ted Williams really could not hit left handed pitching very well AT ALL. Does anyone have his LH/RH career splits? Looking at his LH/RH HR totals does nothing to dissuade one from this inclination. In fact, for the four years we have splits (57'-60') at Retrosheet, Ted's line against right handed pitching was .344/.476/.658. and right handers .251/.390/.387.

Pujols career line thruogh 2005 was .334/.422/.623 and .331/.411/.619, respectively.

Williams would be platooned to DEATH today, if this is true. Pujols gets specialists brought in almost every game to face him in late innings, and he's put up a run that is more impressive than anyone in 50 years, save Barry Bonds- and the truth has outed him. And Pujols being right handed only makes it all that much more impressive.

I'm not saying Williams doesn't have a case as the greatest hitter ever- he certainly does.... but then.... if he couldn't really hit left handed pitching very well...well, that really destroys his cadidacy, doesn't it?

Myankee4life

12-04-2006, 03:59 PM

So CSH, you know longer see Ted Williams as the greatest hitter of all time?

csh19792001

12-04-2006, 04:33 PM

So CSH, you know longer see Ted Williams as the greatest hitter of all time?

I never really did. :waving

Still, I'd love to see those splits.....

Myankee4life

12-04-2006, 04:36 PM

I never really did. :waving

Still, I'd love to see those splits.....

Ooops sorry :o

I know he hit better at home :lookitup

1000th post.....took me a while

Appling

12-05-2006, 02:28 PM

... In fact, for the four years we have splits (57'-60') at Retrosheet, Ted's line against right handed pitching was .344/.476/.658. and right (LEFT) handers .251/.390/.387.

Williams would be platooned to DEATH today, if this is true.
As I recall, Williams was a much better hitter before he broke his elbow in the 1950 All-Star game. He himself said his bat lost the "crack" he had before that injury. After that injury he still hit for high average, but the powerful crush when his bat hit the ball was gone.

The splits data available so far cover only the years 1957 and later -- when Ted was 38 or older. It's not fair to assume the same splits before age 38. If he hit so badly against left-handers, why did he draw so many walks?

I admit Ted never worked hard on his fielding but he was a decent fielder with a good throwing arm prior to his injury. In fact, he even did some pitching.

Edgartohof

12-05-2006, 02:34 PM

I admit Ted never worked hard on his fielding but he was a decent fielder with a good throwing arm prior to his injury. In fact, he even did some pitching.

What? You mean the 2 innings he pitched in 1940?

csh19792001

12-05-2006, 11:09 PM

I admit Ted never worked hard on his fielding but he was a decent fielder with a good throwing arm prior to his injury. In fact, he even did some pitching.

Still, go back to my previous posts about Williams against left handed pitching. Honestly, the guy by all accounts struggled extensively against lefties, which in my mind (as of now) takes him out of the running as the greatest hitter ever. Only Ruth and Cobb have a case.

Anybody have the splits??????

538280

12-07-2006, 08:08 PM

Still, go back to my previous posts about Williams against left handed pitching. Honestly, the guy by all accounts struggled extensively against lefties, which in my mind (as of now) takes him out of the running as the greatest hitter ever. Only Ruth and Cobb have a case.

Anybody have the splits??????

What do you mean "by all accounts"? You have four years of splits in the last four years of his career, when he was aging anyway and not in his prime. Have you ever heard anyone suggest that Williams could not hit LH pitching early or through his entire career? I certainly haven't. You also say "he'd be platooned to death today", but platooning was defnitely in the vogue back then, ever heard from Casey Stengel? Williams would have been platooned very often back then as well, and his overall numbers would certainly not be as good as they are if he was nearly as bad against LHs as you suggest through his whole career. I find the evidence presented so far very unconvincing, four years (especially at the very end) do not make a career.

csh19792001

12-07-2006, 09:34 PM

What do you mean "by all accounts"? You have four years of splits in the last four years of his career, when he was aging anyway and not in his prime. Have you ever heard anyone suggest that Williams could not hit LH pitching early or through his entire career? I certainly haven't. You also say "he'd be platooned to death today", but platooning was defnitely in the vogue back then, ever heard from Casey Stengel?

Have I heard of Casey Stengel? :laugh

Forging Genius: The Making of Casey Stengel (http://www.amazon.com/Forging-Genius-Making-Casey-Stengel/dp/1574888730)

This is on my shelf, bro. Maybe you'd enjoy it.

Peter Gammons, who knew Williams inside and out- on a personal and professional level- and talked in depth with him on baseball (and hitting) over the course of several decades, said Ted HIMSELF spoke of his weakness against left handed pitching. And Ted's hubris on his hitting prowess was LEGENDARY.

Check out the percentage of at bats Williams had against left handed pitching in his last four seasons. Now juxtapose that with, say, Bonds' numbers- about 50% of his AB's have come against lefties, vs. 25% for Williams, where we have data. Who faced left handed pitching more? How in vogue does it look like platooning was in relative terms, looking at the facts?

And that was the END of Ted's career, when platooning was coming much more into vogue. And the disparity in his production was TRULY vast. His aging is inconsequential- we're comparing him to himself- and if anything, he should have accrued knowledge over his career and learned how to be MORE effective against left handed pitching. And not just lefties, but lefty specialists and closers are also a part of the picture here- and they were a very rare breed, especially early in his career. We don't even know how much more he faced these types of pitchers, but all evidence points to players today facing these pitchers more.

We're looking at 477 games worth of information. It's not a career, but it's a decent sized sample.

And note- in my last post, I was asking people for his career splits to get more information.

iPod

12-07-2006, 09:51 PM

Have I heard of Casey Stengel? :laugh

Forging Genius: The Making of Casey Stengel (http://www.amazon.com/Forging-Genius-Making-Casey-Stengel/dp/1574888730)

This is on my shelf, bro. Maybe you'd enjoy it.

Peter Gammons, who knew Williams inside and out- on a personal and professional level- and talked in depth with him on baseball (and hitting) over the course of several decades, said Ted HIMSELF spoke of his weakness against left handed pitching. And Ted's hubris on his hitting prowess was LEGENDARY.

Check out the percentage of at bats Williams had against left handed pitching in his last four seasons. Now juxtapose that with, say, Bonds' numbers- about 50% of his AB's have come against lefties, vs. 25% for Williams, where we have data. Who faced left handed pitching more? How in vogue does it look like platooning was in relative terms, looking at the facts?

And that was the END of Ted's career, when platooning was coming much more into vogue. And the disparity in his production was TRULY vast. His aging is inconsequential- we're comparing him to himself- and if anything, he should have accrued knowledge over his career and learned how to be MORE effective against left handed pitching. And not just lefties, but lefty specialists and closers are also a part of the picture here- and they were a very rare breed, especially early in his career. We don't even know how much more he faced these types of pitchers, but all evidence points to players today facing these pitchers more.

We're looking at 477 games worth of information. It's not a career, but it's a decent sized sample.

And note- in my last post, I was asking people for his career splits to get more information.

You know, there's always been this idea in the back of mind that wouldn't go away, that Ted Williams just somehow wasn't as good a hitter as his numbers said. I guess what really bugged me mostly was that it was hard for me to reconcile in my mind that, on the one hand, Williams was a better hitter than Joe D, and on the other, that Joe D's road numbers were superior to Williams' road numbers. Also, I never really liked the idea that he wouldn't adjust to the shifts teams would put on him. Yeah I know he was superb even against the shift, but it's just seems odd to suggest that the greatest hitter ever was a guy whose whole strategy seemed to boil down to taking pitches he didn't think he could yank into the right field seats. It's interesting to see that maybe he also he was only average against southpaws.