What is SO Clear to You But not to Everyone else

[Brian McKenna]

For me it is:

Greg Maddux is the #1 pitcher of all-time

[ChrisLDuncan]

For me it's Mays is NOT a top three CF of all time. I know I'll hear it for this one, and I'm prepared to defend it.

[tearforamariner]

For me it's Mays is NOT a top three CF of all time. I know I'll hear it for this one, and I'm prepared to defend it.

I'm not challenging you here (not yet at least), I'm just curious. who are your Top-3 CFs?

By the way, mine is that Edgar Martinez should go into the Hall on the first ballot.

[Elvis]

The Bambino was the greatest player of all time - bar none. Considering what he did from the mound AND at the plate, I would think this is a no-brainer, but obviously many disagree.

[mwiggins]

The Bambino was the greatest player of all time - bar none. Considering what he did from the mound AND at the plate, I would think this is a no-brainer, but obviously many disagree.


A large majority agrees with your contention.

[ChrisLDuncan]

I'm not challenging you here (not yet at least), I'm just curious. who are your Top-3 CFs?

By the way, mine is that Edgar Martinez should go into the Hall on the first ballot.

Ehh my # 2 guy I can't defend at all, he is there just because of a feeling that I have in my gut...and sometimes you have to escape your logic to make the right call.

The guys I have ahead of Mays are

1.) Ty Cobb (ask Bill Burgess about this one he knows more than I do)
2.) Joe DiMaggio (every ounce of Yankee fan in me says that he was better than Mantle and I have Mantle well ahead of Mays, so by that logic...)
3.) Mickey Mantle (see my Mantle v. Mays thread)
4.) Tris Speaker (see my Speaker v. Mays thread)
5.) Say Hey Willie Mays.

[Edgartohof]

By the way, mine is that Edgar Martinez should go into the Hall on the first ballot.

My sentiment exactly

[EvanAparra]

Pedro Martinez is the best pitcher of this era and quite possibly ever.

[Brian McKenna]

Pedro Martinez is the best pitcher of this era and quite possibly ever.

When in doubt refer to Rule (Post) #1 ;)

[Williamsburg2599]

Ichiro and David Ortiz are still underated, although a lot of people think there overrated.

[plask_stirlac]

Well I don't want to get too much into MVP voting, but I see Strawberry over Gibson in nearly every way, even on the voters' criteria except for average an team support. Winningest NL team in the reg. season by 6 games, more HR and RBI with better SLG, BETTER fielding if you can believe that for Darryl, and a worse park than Dodger Stadium. I can see how Gibson did a ton for the Dodgers' feeble offense and Darryl had a better lineup with him, but I see a better hitter and fielder on a better, 100-win team that has one leading position player and that seems like the MVP to me.

[EvanAparra]

When in doubt refer to Rule (Post) #1 ;)

Oops! Never go against the post starter! ;)

[mwiggins]

Well I don't want to get too much into MVP voting, but I see Strawberry over Gibson in nearly every way, even on the voters' criteria except for average an team support. Winningest NL team in the reg. season by 6 games, more HR and RBI with better SLG, BETTER fielding if you can believe that for Darryl, and a worse park than Dodger Stadium. I can see how Gibson did a ton for the Dodgers' feeble offense and Darryl had a better lineup with him, but I see a better hitter and fielder on a better, 100-win team that has one leading position player and that seems like the MVP to me.

Gibson won more for his leadership than his stats.

[Sliding Billy]

That Don Sutton is a legitimate Hall of Famer.

[W_Marone]

I am the most amazing person around......hmmm now for baseball....:D

Hank Aaron is a top three player all time, behind Ruth and Cobb....and maybe Williams...man this is tough....I'm up for a debate on anything really, that helps me clarify stuff.:D

[plask_stirlac]

Gibson won more for his leadership than his stats.

Right, and to me it's a bit of a headscratcher. I think there should be some way in which Gibson is statistically better, one that I feel is important so not BA, SB (Strawberry trotted around 14 more times), or Ks. He's not a bad MVP candidate at all, just not the best that year.

Even if I give double credit for Gibby leading a lesser team to a division crown on "character" AND surmising that with better support or less for Strawberry the team's records are equal, and giving Strawberry zero for anything besides showing up and producing, then there's the guy with ~97 team wins who hit and fielded better in a worse hitter's park and the guy with ~97 team wins who didn't produce as well.

But in reality I can really only credit Gibson leading a rag-tag offense to a very successful season.

[mwiggins]

Right, and to me it's a bit of a headscratcher. I think there should be some way in which Gibson is statistically better, one that I feel is important so not BA, SB (Strawberry trotted around 14 more times), or Ks. He's not a bad MVP candidate at all, just not the best that year.

Even if I give double credit for Gibby leading a lesser team to a division crown on "character" AND surmising that with better support or less for Strawberry the team's records are equal, and giving Strawberry zero for anything besides showing up and producing, then there's the guy with ~97 team wins who hit and fielded better in a worse hitter's park and the guy with ~97 team wins who didn't produce as well.

But in reality I can really only credit Gibson leading a rag-tag offense to a very successful season.


Also, look at the Dodgers record in 1987, before Gibson arrived. Gibson was seen as a winner who turned that team around. Plus, you had McReynolds stealing some votes from Stawberry. Gibson was close enough to Straw stats-wise, so the fact that he was a leader on a team that had made a huge turnaround, while Straw was just another cog on a loaded team was enough to give Gibson the win.

[brett]

1) Joe Dimaggio, Jimmie Foxx and Lou Gehrig are greatly overrated because of the amount of offense during their time period, because of the value people place on some stats like BA over others like OB%, and because 2 of them played first base.

2) Morgan is at LEAST a top 20 player and very simply, anyone who can not see by analyzing the meaningful statistics available, that he is SOMEWHERE in the top 20 seriously is incapable of critical thinking, or lacks the basic skills to evaluate baseball statistics.
(Still, I would not put him in the top 10, and someone wouldn't be crazy to rank him as low as 3rd best at 2B, to put Gehringer ahead of him basically disqualifies you from any serious discussion on player greatness).

3) Just because players were judged on hits and BA and RBI in the past, does not make them valid statistics for evaluation. Just because a player was regarded as the best of his time period is not evidence that he was. Modern stats displace "common perception" and triple crown stats with a more valid system.

[Brian McKenna]

...Stats do not equal career value but are merely a numerical representation of one facet of a life in the game

[HDH]

Richie Ashburn averaged 500 PO from CF most of the 1950s. This statistic is generally ignored for one reason or another.


Consider me disqualified then: "to put Gehringer ahead of him basically disqualifies you from any serious discussion on player greatness.." Could you be a little more arrogant, please... you certainly can't be more WRONG, especially when you have formulated statistics to back up your preconceived ranking.

[NYMets523]

Derek Jeter is not in the top 10 SS of all time.

David Ortiz is the best DH of all time.

[Mariano_Rivera]

Kevin brown esily belongs in the HoF

[538280]

1) Joe Dimaggio, Jimmie Foxx and Lou Gehrig are greatly overrated because of the amount of offense during their time period, because of the value people place on some stats like BA over others like OB%, and because 2 of them played first base.

2) Morgan is at LEAST a top 20 player and very simply, anyone who can not see by analyzing the meaningful statistics available, that he is not SOMEWHERE in the top 20 seriously is incapable of critical thinking, or lacks the basic skills to evaluate baseball statistics.
(Still, I would not put him in the top 10, and someone wouldn't be crazy to rank him as low as 3rd best at 2B, to put Gehringer ahead of him basically disqualifies you from any serious discussion on player greatness).

3) Just because players were judged on hits and BA and RBI in the past, does not make them valid statistics for evaluation. Just because a player was regarded as the best of his time period is not evidence that he was. Modern stats displace "common perception" and triple crown stats with a more valid system.

These three might as well be my three. Good work, Brett. I would probably put Morgan JUST in the top 10 though. I think I've said in the past that if you have Charlie Gehringer over Joe Morgan, then you just don't get it. And you probably don't.

I might also add that league leadership and black ink are basically meaningless and horrible ways to look at hitting value.

[538280]

Richie Ashburn averaged 500 PO from CF most of the 1950s. This statistic is generally ignored for one reason or another.

He can thank the staff behind him for that.

Check out these posts:

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=742443&postcount=104

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=742630&postcount=107

Speaker is the best defensive CF of all time IMO.

[Old Sweater]

Steroids, steroid debates and SABR stats are overused.:atthepc

[ElHalo]

(Still, I would not put him in the top 10, and someone wouldn't be crazy to rank him as low as 3rd best at 2B, to put Gehringer ahead of him basically disqualifies you from any serious discussion on player greatness).

Sorry if I use critical thinking rather than mathematical analysis in my evaluations...

My answer to the question: Regardless of whatever you have to say about him as a person, Joe Jackson is one of the ten (maybe five) most talented players to ever play the game of baseball.

[CTaka]

Roger Bresnahan is a legitimate and deserving hall of famer.

Jimmy Collins is a top ten 3B.

[LGehrigFan]

A player's intangibles (leadership qualities, attitude, teamwork, etc.) contribute to where he ranks on an all-time list.

[ElHalo]

Roger Bresnahan is a legitimate and deserving hall of famer.

Jimmy Collins is a top ten 3B.

I completely agree with both of these. Roger Bresnahan is far and away my favorite catcher ever, and he always makes my top 10 list at the position.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

1. Joe Jackson's rate AND counting stats would have increased, had he been allowed to continue to play out his career (through either '29 or '30 perhaps).

2. Mantle's extra-base hit numbers are baffling.

3. DiMaggio was slaughtered by his home park.

4. The pitching today is completely watered down. There are some great top-end guys but once you get past the handful of those in each league, the drop-off is enormous; not in terms of velocity but in command and approach. The game is geared for those flame-throwers to fail.

5. We need to put a fork in the DH. Problem over long ago.

[CTaka]

I completely agree with both of these. Roger Bresnahan is far and away my favorite catcher ever, and he always makes my top 10 list at the position.

Very cool! Unfortunately, I think we are in the definite minority in sharing that opinion among Fever posters.

[ChrisLDuncan]

1. Joe Jackson's rate AND counting stats would have increased, had he been allowed to continue to play out his career (through either '29 or '30 perhaps).

2. Mantle's extra-base hit numbers are baffling.

3. DiMaggio was slaughtered by his home park.


Totally agree man, oh a side question...are you a Yankees fan?

[ChrisLDuncan]

Oh I had to add a few


Give Jeter time, don't hate the man because he's beautiful, a winner, on TV, rich, and has been with Jessica Alba...the man's simply amazing

Joe DiMaggio was killed by YS (Yet still did pretty well there)

Joe Morgan is barely a top five 2nd basemen and is terribly overrated.

[ChrisLDuncan]

Oh I had to add a few


Give Jeter time, don't hate the man because he's beautiful, a winner, on TV, rich, and has been with Jessica Alba...the man's simply amazing

Joe DiMaggio was killed by YS (Yet still did pretty well there)

Joe Morgan is barely a top five 2nd basemen and is terribly overrated.

Last but not least:

FORGIVE PETE ROSE ALLREADY!!!!

[Bench 5]

Here are a few off the top of my head:

1) The Negro Leagues should be considered a legitimate major league. While the overall talent level may have been a bit lower than the AL and NL, the difference between the NeL and the majors was close enough that in retrospect, it should be considered the 3rd major league (not counting the FL). Hell, if someone can retroactively vote Pluto out as a planet, there's no reason why the powers that be can't vote the NeL as a major league.

2) Players that seem to me are somewhat underated: Bob Feller, Stan Musial, Joe DiMaggio, Ernie Banks, Mel Ott, and Frank Robinson.

[plask_stirlac]

That Buck O'Neill should have been in the last HOF class celebrating several Negro League players, and should be enshrined in 2007, perhaps with an exhibit greeting HOF patrons as they walk in. Obvious to most people, not writers/veterans.

That Jim Rice, while he wouldn't be among the sensational HOFers and has his faults, should get in because he's good enough. Ron Santo, too. Again, not that I'm going against a fan grain.

What I will say against the grain is that the Metrodome is still not bad for baseball, certainly not awful.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Totally agree man, oh a side question...are you a Yankees fan?

Old-time Yanks, yeah but not these ones.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

That Buck O'Neill should have been in the last HOF class celebrating several Negro League players, and should be enshrined in 2007, perhaps with an exhibit greeting HOF patrons as they walk in. Obvious to most people, not writers/veterans.


Completely agree. Huge travesty. They should be ashamed of themselves. On a related note, Buck should have been a HANDS DOWN choice for SI
s Sportsman of the Year. Instead, Dwayne Wade got it. Another missed opportunity.

[ChrisLDuncan]

Old-time Yanks, yeah but not these ones.

Why's that?

[ChrisLDuncan]

Completely agree. Huge travesty. They should be ashamed of themselves. On a related note, Buck should have been a HANDS DOWN choice for SI
s Sportsman of the Year. Instead, Dwayne Wade got it. Another missed opportunity.


Wow there was a reason that I didn't read Sports Illustrated but I forgot it, now I remember it.

[Victory Faust]

It's obvious to me:


...that Tiger Stadium, when it had the green seats, was the most underrated ballpark of all time. Back when men were men and the seats were green, I'll take Tiger/Briggs Stadium over both Fenway and Wrigley as an aesthetic ballpark.

...that the "Chief Wahoo" Indians logo is incredibly insensitive. I'm no politically-correct bleeding heart, and I don't have a problem with teams calling themselves "Indians" or "Chiefs." But "Redskins" is a bit over the top. And so is that Cleveland logo, with its crimson caricature.

...that Joe DiMaggio was a vain jerk, but everyone bent over backward to pretend otherwise.

...that Larry Doby may be the most underappreciated man in baseball history. He broke into baseball a few weeks after Jackie Robinson, and Doby had to put up with every bit the hatred Robinson did. But you don't hear much about what Doby went though.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Why's that?

Just not. Don't appeal to me. No teams really do in today's game. Most are all show and no go, where being a "ballplayer" has become the exception. Well, maybe the Cards. Great town and great fans, great history, and of course Albert resides there. Used to be big into the A's with Rickey, Mac, and Canseco. Learned early on what free agency can do to your favorite team. Easier to have favorite players and follow them when they follow the money.

[tommydale1]

2) Morgan is at LEAST a top 20 player and very simply, anyone who can not see by analyzing the meaningful statistics available, that he is not SOMEWHERE in the top 20 seriously is incapable of critical thinking, or lacks the basic skills to evaluate baseball statistics.
(Still, I would not put him in the top 10, and someone wouldn't be crazy to rank him as low as 3rd best at 2B, to put Gehringer ahead of him basically disqualifies you from any serious discussion on player greatness).


Wow! Let me try....in no order:
1. Ruth
2. Aaron
3. Mays
4. Mantle
5. Foxx
6. Brett
7. Molitor
8. Cobb
9. Ted Williams
10. Kaline
11. Eddie Collins
12. Speaker
13. Gerhig
14. Musial
15. Yaz
16. Honus Wagner
17. Gwynn
18. Lajoie
19. Brock
20. Frank Robinson

Here's a list of great ball players. This is not my top 20, but it's a list of 20. This list contains NO pitchers and NO "suspected" steroid users. Who here does Morgan bump off of the list? If you name someone, I'll throw someone else up there.

[mwiggins]

Wow! Let me try....in no order:
1. Ruth
2. Aaron
3. Mays
4. Mantle
5. Foxx
6. Brett
7. Molitor
8. Cobb
9. Ted Williams
10. Kaline
11. Eddie Collins
12. Speaker
13. Gerhig
14. Musial
15. Yaz
16. Honus Wagner
17. Gwynn
18. Lajoie
19. Brock
20. Frank Robinson

Here's a list of great ball players. This is not my top 20, but it's a list of 20. This list contains NO pitchers and NO "suspected" steroid users. Who here does Morgan bump off of the list? If you name someone, I'll throw someone else up there.

He easily would knock off Brock & Molitor. Those two are lightyears behind the other 18 names you listed. I would also put Morgan a good bit ahead of Gwynn.

But I love that you put Molly in your top 10. What a sweet swing he had. :clapping

[Bill Burgess]

This is a fun thread and I'm glad you started it. But we've done this already in the Member's Official Opinions Thread.

http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=38137

At the end of all of our profiles, we posted our most committed opinions.

Here were mine, and I still stick by them.
----------------------------------

My Most Committed Opinions:
1. Ty Cobb was the greatest and best all-around player ever, and best base thief/runner ever.
2. Honus Wagner was 2nd greatest player ever, and greatest all-around fielder ever.
3. Babe Ruth was the greatest slugger and drawing card ever. Babe was also the best hitter ever, with respect to combining both power/high BA., without benefit of illegal substances.
4. Walter Johnson was the greatest pitcher ever.
5. Buck Ewing was greatest ever pre-1900 player, and greatest catcher ever.
6. The 1929 Philadelphia Athletics were the greatest team ever. The 1899 Cleveland Spiders, 20-134, might have been the worst 1 year team ever.
7. The Color Ban, The Reserve Clause, the Introduction of the Lively Ball, gambling and steroids were the worst things that ever happened to Baseball.
8. Joe Jackson played to win the 1919 WS, got railroaded, and should be in the Hall of Fame. His 1923 Milwaukee jury heard all the right people, were not fans nor biased, and got their verdict right.
9. Out of era justice, a small sampling of both Negro L./Pre-1900 Players should be represented in everyone's Top 100 Greatest Ever.

[Brian McKenna]

...Buck O'Neill is not even close to a qualified HOFer...all arguments for him in the Hall skirt around the word "qualified"

[mwiggins]

6. The 1929 Philadelphia Athletics were the greatest team ever.

I knew there was a reason I respected your opinions. :clapping

[Captain Cold Nose]

Oh I had to add a few


Give Jeter time, don't hate the man because he's beautiful, a winner, on TV, rich, and has been with Jessica Alba...the man's simply amazing

Joe DiMaggio was killed by YS (Yet still did pretty well there)

Joe Morgan is barely a top five 2nd basemen and is terribly overrated.
Don't confuse the great majority's failure to share your toolish man-crush as hating. Your blind infatuation has clouded your ability to view objectivity or even tolerate it.

[Brian McKenna]

share your toolish man-crush.

A lot of that going on here at BBF.

[Bill Burgess]

I knew there was a reason I respected your opinions. :clapping
Why thank you, Mark. Much 'priciate it.

[EvanAparra]

Derek Jeter is one of the worst defensive SS in the history of the game.

[mwiggins]

Derek Jeter is one of the worst defensive SS in the history of the game.

He WAS, but now he's become a Gold Glover. The man can do it all. :laugh

[PopTop]

Steroids, steroid debates and SABR stats are overused.:atthepc I'll second that.

The one thing that is so clear to me is that Ron Santo has received the greatest screwed-over job ever in Hall of Fame voting.

[EvanAparra]

He WAS, but now he's become a Gold Glover. The man can do it all. :laugh
:laugh Its hilarious that he's winning GG, makes them all but worthless in my eyes.

[mwiggins]

I'll second that.

The one thing that is so clear to me is that Ron Santo has received the greatest screwed-over job ever in Hall of Fame voting.

But ironically it's usually the sabr folks arguing for Santo.

[Captain Cold Nose]

But ironically it's usually the sabr folks arguing for Santo.
Santo has an army of defenders. Personally, I think Johnny Mize remains the greatest writers' snub, but Santo is way up there. His case has maybe overrated him a little bit, as I've seen some suggest he was better than Eddie Matthews and George Brett, among others. But he fits in quite nicely among third basemen in and is better than some of them.

[mwiggins]

Santo has an army of defenders. Personally, I think Johnny Mize remains the greatest writers' snub, but Santo is way up there. His case has maybe overrated him a little bit, as I've seen some suggest he was better than Eddie Matthews and George Brett, among others. But he fits in quite nicely among third basemen in and is better than some of them.


I'll agree with you on Mize. It's insane that a top 40 player all-time should have to get put in by the VC.

[dgarza]

Mize is also possiblly the best non-pitcher who never won MVP honors since they've been awarded.

[mwiggins]

Mize is also possiblly the best non-pitcher who never won MVP honors since they've been awarded.

I'd say Kaline, but Mize would be right behind him.

[tommydale1]

My vote for biggest snub goes to Bert Blyleven. Not popular, not sexy....but deserving.

[mwiggins]

My vote for biggest snub goes to Bert Blyleven. Not popular, not sexy....but deserving.

There's still a chance the writers could vote him in. They never did vote Mize in.

[Captain Cold Nose]

There's still a chance the writers could vote him in. They never did vote Mize in.
Right. Blyleven has gained considerable momentum the last couple years.

[brett]

You have it backwards. I never had a desire to rank Morgan near the top, and I never considered him to be, until he kept showing up in the top 20 in every valid system I could come up with. Whe he ranked high, I actually looked for a flaw in my system, and finding NONE, concluded that he should rank that high.

And a lot of people have preconceived rankings that put him lower, and will never get beyond the notion that he just couldn't have been that good.

I don't want to turn this into a Morgan thread, but he was never my favorite. I saw him very little (1-2 years with Oakland) and never really cared about him.



you certainly can't be more WRONG, especially when you have formulated statistics to back up your preconceived ranking.

[brett]

Sorry you think there is a difference. I think you mean "creative thinking" or emotional thinking.


Sorry if I use critical thinking rather than mathematical analysis in my evaluations...

[EvanAparra]

Sorry you think there is a difference. I think you mean "creative thinking" or emotional thinking.
No, there is a difference. Going by some mathematical evaluation as the sole factor behind a list ranking is just as crazy to me as not usuing them at all is to you. Baseball is more than that -- Not just some drone formula where a calculator can tell us who the better player was.

[538280]

No, there is a difference. Going by some mathematical evaluation as the sole factor behind a list ranking is just as crazy to me as not usuing them at all is to you. Baseball is more than that -- Not just some drone formula where a calculator can tell us who the better player was.

Baseball is more than that, but what exactly does Joe Morgan lack in that other part of baseball? Joe Morgan was an extremely smart, heads up, team leader, liked by all his teammates, considered a great person and a great man by fans, teammates, managers, everyone. You rating Joe Morgan lower than statistical analysis suggests has nothing to do with those intangibles that don't show up in the statsitics-it has to do with your preconceived notions about "greatness" in statistics, such as a player has to have a high BA or else have a ton of HRs, thing like that. You are wrong.

[mwiggins]

No, there is a difference. Going by some mathematical evaluation as the sole factor behind a list ranking is just as crazy to me as not usuing them at all is to you. Baseball is more than that -- Not just some drone formula where a calculator can tell us who the better player was.

How is ranking someone highly because a stat told you he should be ranked that hightly any different from someone NOT ranking a player that highly because a stat (in this case BA) told him they shouldn't be ranked that highly? In neither case would the person be using much 'critical thinking', they'd just be following what the numbers told them.

[EvanAparra]

You are wrong.

You have to have the most closed mind on this site.

Sorry man, I dont see it in Morgan, and I'll go by whichever standards I please. Its hilarious that someone who just throws player in a mathematica system and ranks them with that is telling me that i'm wrong. You need to use your eyes more, I promise, it's much more fun that way.

[mwiggins]

Baseball is more than that, but what exactly does Joe Morgan lack in that other part of baseball? Joe Morgan was an extremely smart, heads up, team leader, liked by all his teammates, considered a great person and a great man by fans, teammates, managers, everyone. You rating Joe Morgan lower than statistical analysis suggests has nothing to do with those intangibles that don't show up in the statsitics-it has to do with your preconceived notions about "greatness" in statistics, such as a player has to have a high BA or else have a ton of HRs, thing like that. You are wrong.

How could he have great intangibles, Chris? He must be a selfish player because he hit for a low average. :crazy

[EvanAparra]

How is ranking someone highly because a stat told you he should be ranked that hightly any different from someone NOT ranking a player that highly because a stat (in this case BA) told him they shouldn't be ranked that highly? In neither case would the person be using much 'critical thinking', they'd just be following what the numbers told them.

What case are you talking about? I made a general statement, not a specific player reference.

[mwiggins]

What case are you talking about? I made a general statement, not a specific player reference.

I just meant that there's not any difference in a person like Brett basing his ranking of Morgan on whatever his advanced stat is vs. ElHalo basing his ranking of Morgan on his batting average. It was very much a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

[EvanAparra]

I just meant that there's not any difference in a person like Brett basing his ranking of Morgan on whatever his advanced stat is vs. ElHalo basing his ranking of Morgan on his batting average. It was very much a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Oh ok, yeah I agree. (Although I once said its hard for a .270 hitter to make my top 25, which is still true because there's only 1, 2 if i were to add Morgan) I like to use a decent combo of both, as well as what I can dig up on them and read.

[538280]

You have to have the most closed mind on this site.

You're the one having the closed mind. You're the one who'd rather focus on historical cliches, such as batting average telling you how productive an offensive player was, rather than focusing on things which actually have to do with why teams score runs and win games. I'm trying to look at why teams win games and why teams score runs, and seeing who really contributed the most. You're basing your ratings on nothing but a lot of "historical" BS which has been proven to be wrong.

This is the 3rd thing that Brett said. Statistical analysis of the past has no bearing. It is obsolute and inaccurate. Not saying BA doesn't still have meaning, it does, but it not even close to as meaningful as you think it is. You continue to choose to focus on a BS, inaccurate, statistical standard.

You say I'm too caught up in the numbers. But, really, your whole justification for rating Joe Morgan so low is based on numbers, and don't say it's not because I asked you what it was and all you said was .271 BA, not enough power, and you don't like his defense so much. The defense point is the only one that isn't really based on numbers, but the numbers actually agree with you that he wasn't that great on defense. Your ranking is really based on what you claim to hate so much, and not only that it's focused on the WRONG numbers, which have little to do with why teams win games.


Sorry man, I dont see it in Morgan, and I'll go by whichever standards I please. Its hilarious that someone who just throws player in a mathematica system and ranks them with that is telling me that i'm wrong. You need to use your eyes more, I promise, it's much more fun that way.

Open my eyes to what, the .271 BA? I'm already aware of it-I'm just able to realize reality and look past it.

[538280]

I just meant that there's not any difference in a person like Brett basing his ranking of Morgan on whatever his advanced stat is vs. ElHalo basing his ranking of Morgan on his batting average. It was very much a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

There actually is a difference, the difference is that one of the people is going by somthing which actually has to do with why teams win, the other is going on a ridiculous and disproven cliche.

[EvanAparra]

You say I'm too caught up in the numbers. But, really, your whole justification for rating Joe Morgan so low is based on numbers, a .271 BA, not enough RBI, etc.

You absolutely love to put words in my mouth. I NEVER mentioned RBI, and i'm tired of you pretending like i'm always walking around talking about RBI, when that's hardly what I do.

[538280]

You absolutely love to put words in my mouth. I NEVER mentioned RBI, and i'm tired of you pretending like i'm always walking around talking about RBI, when that's hardly what I do.

I've actually edited that (even before I saw your reply). You said not enough power really. Now you can respond to the real point I was making, rather than hiding behind one isolated quote.

[mwiggins]

There actually is a difference, the difference is that one of the people is going by somthing which actually has to do with why teams win, the other is going on a ridiculous and disproven cliche.

That's your opinion though Chris. Not everyone believes that a player should be evaluated strictly on things that have been proven to correlate highy to wins. We're dealing in subjective judgements here. There's no mathematical proof that can show exactly where Morgan, or any player for that matter, should be ranked.

Say we have two players. Player A has this line .310/.370/.540 and player B has this line .270/.380/.560. I'm guessing you would find player B to be superior, all things being equal. Your attitude seems to be that as long as the OBP is good, a lower BA doesn't matter. Not everyone would agree with you, though. And there's nothing wrong with that.

[ChrisLDuncan]

Don't confuse the great majority's failure to share your toolish man-crush as hating. Your blind infatuation has clouded your ability to view objectivity or even tolerate it.

I could say the same on your grotesque under appreciation of Jeter, there's HoFers that would easily trade their careers for what Jeter's done until now.

[Captain Cold Nose]

I could say the same on your grotesque under appreciation of Jeter, there's HoFers that would easily trade their careers for what Jeter's done until now.
The fact I don't worship the ground he stands on does not mean I underappreciate him. It means I can judge him for what he actually does as opposed to giving him too much credit at the sake of comparable players. It's called objectivity. It's called fairness. Why do you want everyone to fawn over him so much?

[ChrisLDuncan]

The fact I don't worship the ground he stands on does not mean I underappreciate him. It means I can judge him for what he actually does as opposed to giving him too much credit at the sake of comparable players. It's called objectivity. It's called fairness. Why do you want everyone to fawn over him so much?

Because he's much better than what people give him credit for. Atleast from the vibe I'm getting from most people

[ChrisLDuncan]

Damn guys, back off of Evan...he wasn't insinuating anything against any certain player nor was he saying that a specific player lacks a quality that he mentioned. Chris you need to calm down about Morgan and Evan, how many pages of arguing did you have with him? Look all he's saying is that he can find 20 players that he believes to be better than he was, I can do the same. Quit beating a dead horse.

[mwiggins]

Because he's much better than what people give him credit for. Atleast from the vibe I'm getting from most people

He's better than most serious baseball fans give him credit for, but he's not as good as most of the media and the avearage baseball fan gives him credit for. I mean, look at how it was back when Nomar and A-Rod were at SS. Jeter was treated as their equal by most of the media, and I heard numerous media members proclaim that Jeter was the best of the bunch. When in reality he was a large notch below those two.

The 'vibe' you get around here is somewhat a backlash against his overratedness by the national media and the public at large. And the fact that he's the biggest star in baseball, but not one of the best players. To be fair, in 2006 he was one of the very best players. But between 2000-2005 he was not.

[punker268]

Honus Wagner is the best baseball player ever! And that Satchel Paige is the fastest pitcher ever

[ChrisLDuncan]

He's better than most serious baseball fans give him credit for, but he's not as good as most of the media and the avearage baseball fan gives him credit for. I mean, look at how it was back when Nomar and A-Rod were at SS. Jeter was treated as their equal by most of the media, and I heard numerous media members proclaim that Jeter was the best of the bunch. When in reality he was a large notch below those two.

The 'vibe' you get around here is somewhat a backlash against his overratedness by the national media and the public at large. And the fact that he's the biggest star in baseball, but not one of the best players. To be fair, in 2006 he was one of the very best players. But between 2000-2005 he was not.

Well anyway you look at it a top 3 SS, who is a clutch winner is one of the best. Judging by now it looks like Jeter's the best of the other 3, only one at SS ;). All I'm saying is that by the end of his career the only guys at SS that I see in front of him are Hans, A-Rod, and maybe Vaughn (I seriously haven't looked at him in my rankings)

[leecemark]

--What is a "toolsy man crush" anyway? That phrase gave me a bad vibe;) . Man crush I get, but the toolsy part I don't.

[ChrisLDuncan]

--What is a "toolsy man crush" anyway? That phrase gave me a bad vibe;) . Man crush I get, but the toolsy part I don't.

Cold Nose's words not mine

[Captain Cold Nose]

--What is a "toolsy man crush" anyway? That phrase gave me a bad vibe;) . Man crush I get, but the toolsy part I don't.
To me, people who fawn so much over particular players come off as tools. Chris isn't a tool, and he's by far not the ony one on the site too overly enamored with a player, but it just seems like you're missing so much putting all that devotion into one area, especially when you seemingly make someone mroe special than they are.

[mwiggins]

Well anyway you look at it a top 3 SS, who is a clutch winner is one of the best. Judging by now it looks like Jeter's the best of the other 3, only one at SS ;). All I'm saying is that by the end of his career the only guys at SS that I see in front of him are Hans, A-Rod, and maybe Vaughn (I seriously haven't looked at him in my rankings)


He's a great player, esp now that his fielding has somewhat improved. But I don't see him ever passing Yount and Ripken, certainly not Vaughan. Vaughan was a much better offensive player in his prime, and a better defensive player. Jeter needs to rack up a lot of career value to catch Vaughan, since he had a fairly short career.

Actually, Vaughan and Jeter have similar career lengths right now. 7711 PA's for Jeter, 7721 for Vaughan. Vaughan shows to clearly be better.

- OPS+ - Vaughan 136, Jeter 123
- Relative BA - Vaughan 1.15, Jeter 1.18
- Relative OBP - Vaughan 1.20, Jeter 1.15
- Relative SLG - Vaughan 1.16, Jeter 1.08
- Defense - Vaughan was pretty good, Jeter has been pretty horrible
- Career Win Shares - Vaughan 356, Jeter 278
- Both players finished in top 5 MVP 2 times.
- Vaughn was a 9-time all-star, Jeter 7-time all-star.
- Black Ink - Vaughan 29, Jeter 6
- Grey Ink - Vaughan 156, Jeter 108
- Jeter deserves some cred for his very good post season record. Vaughan had only 2 post season AB's, so he wasn't a bad post season performer, he just didn't have a chance.

[AstrosFan]

Not sure how clear this is to everyone else, but I believe Jimmy Wynn is the best CF not in the Hall, and should be in easily.

[EvanAparra]

I've actually edited that (even before I saw your reply). You said not enough power really. Now you can respond to the real point I was making, rather than hiding behind one isolated quote.

You dont really make points Chris. You just say, the way I do things is right, and whoever doesnt do it the exact same way I do it is wrong. I am the enlightened and you dont know what you speak of.

[mwiggins]

Not sure how clear this is to everyone else, but I believe Jimmy Wynn is the best CF not in the Hall, and should be in easily.


The odd thing about Wynn is that even though he played in the Astrodome and Dodger Stadium all his career, he actually hit BETTER at home than he did away. So his park adjusted stats are overrating him somewhat, but he's probably good enough that he should get in though.

[ElHalo]

Not sure how clear this is to everyone else, but I believe Jimmy Wynn is the best CF not in the Hall, and should be in easily.

Don't tell Chris that...

[Imapotato]

That Cy Young...the man the pitching AWARD is named for...is so forgotten

That no one counts his win% of team wins...greatest of all time

That he perfected the slow ball (change up)

They brush off his 511 wins, saying he didn't play against minorities (who really WERE scarce back then and wouldn't have made a difference)

Played in an inferior league---so why does Nap Lajoie get slammed for 1901? you can't slam the pitching and hitting! Besides the great players of the NL jumped for higher salaries...imagine 8 of the 15 leaders in the AL (the stronger league) jumping ship to the NL in 2 years...that was Cy Young's league

He went from underarm...to 50 feet, to back to current mounds, the high mounds, different balls, fouls not counted as strikes, umpires that were fooled by cheating, to bringing in to the game we see today. No one EVER did that...even most people's #1 WALTER JOHNSON, fell off when the HR happy 20's hit...and he was only in his late 30's....Cy Young pitched 7 more years...pffft!

He played until his mid 40's....that is almost impossible NOW...he did it, and he still pitched until his death...and they said he still smoked it. He left the game because his knees wouldn't let him ground bunts....so the Cleveland Nap and Boston Braves opponents bunted on Young almost every AB

Yet the man gets thrown in the back 5 of all time pitchers and many have him off the top 10 for my NEXT pet peeve


BLack Players from 1900-1940 were NOT like the black players that came in the league in the 50's.

Look at a census report...the black baby boom came in the 20's....before then they made up less then 1% of the American population. They put all the good players on AS squads against scrubs...so of course Oscar Charleston looked like Cobb and Gibson looked like Ruth...it's like the Mets playing my Amateur baseball club.

I can't recall the exact % but the generation of Mays/Aaron/Robinson were roughly 5x greater then the generation of teen and 20 ballplayers

A good comparison is the Latin players of the 70's and now...yet I don't seeing many saying Minor league HR king Espinoso (sp?)was the 2nd coming of Ted Williams

[Bill Burgess]

This thread began with so much promise. Why all the BS? Get back to the thread theme, and stop talking so much about yourselves.

[ChrisLDuncan]

He's a great player, esp now that his fielding has somewhat improved. But I don't see him ever passing Yount and Ripken, certainly not Vaughan. Vaughan was a much better offensive player in his prime, and a better defensive player. Jeter needs to rack up a lot of career value to catch Vaughan, since he had a fairly short career.

Actually, Vaughan and Jeter have similar career lengths right now. 7711 PA's for Jeter, 7721 for Vaughan. Vaughan shows to clearly be better.

- OPS+ - Vaughan 136, Jeter 123
- Relative BA - Vaughan 1.15, Jeter 1.18
- Relative OBP - Vaughan 1.20, Jeter 1.15
- Relative SLG - Vaughan 1.16, Jeter 1.08
- Defense - Vaughan was pretty good, Jeter has been pretty horrible
- Career Win Shares - Vaughan 356, Jeter 278
- Both players finished in top 5 MVP 2 times.
- Vaughn was a 9-time all-star, Jeter 7-time all-star.
- Black Ink - Vaughan 29, Jeter 6
- Grey Ink - Vaughan 156, Jeter 108
- Jeter deserves some cred for his very good post season record. Vaughan had only 2 post season AB's, so he wasn't a bad post season performer, he just didn't have a chance.


In my mind Jeter's allready better than Yount and Ripken. Yount I wasn't all that impressed with, I mean people say that Jeter gets the coverage because he plays in NY. Agreed, but it's harder than hell to succed there. Ask A-Rod, Steve Sax, Chuck Knoblauch, and Dave Winfield. All of those guys were all-star calibur players that did poorly in New York. Jeter THRIVES there, he has some intangibles that are off the charts. When people harp on Jeter's D it angers me, they look at his defensive stats...not his defensive play. Ask any MLB scout they'll tell you that his glove is legit gold. People say "he lacks range" but forget that he made a game saving play in the 2001 ALDS that was way out of any reasonable range for a great defensvie SS...no one else makes that play. Jeter's also a fantastic baserunner. He doesn't steal just to steal like guys like Juan Pierre do, he steals when it matters...and I watch a lot of baseball, no one steals third better than he does. He's the guy that you have to watch, I mean after 1996,1998, 1999, 2000 I'm all his ;)

I know that Yount is your favorite player and all, he was great, but him and Jeter are two different types of hitters...Yount was more in the mold of a power hitter like a Nomar Garciaparra. Yount's career high OBP was .388 whereas Jeter's career average OBP is .388. Considering that Jeter is primarily a lead off or a two hitter that sounds to me like he's getting it done there.

Like I said I don't know much about Vaughn and don't really rank him anywhere, Ripken I don't know how to rank I mean he played so damn long his stats are diluited.

[JamesWest]

BLack Players from 1900-1940 were NOT like the black players that came in the league in the 50's.

Look at a census report...the black baby boom came in the 20's....before then they made up less then 1% of the American population. They put all the good players on AS squads against scrubs...so of course Oscar Charleston looked like Cobb and Gibson looked like Ruth...it's like the Mets playing my Amateur baseball club.



What he said.

Also, player rankings and player comparisons are a waste of time.

[brett]

I use stats like that to catch cases of players who clearly are overrated or underrated. I think that Saber stats clearly caught the fact that Morgan is much better than he looks on paper with old fasion stats. I think they clearly caught the case that Foxx gets overrated by his olde stats. I clearly shows that Pie Traynor is not one of the 5 best 3Baseman ever though he was ranked #1 in 1969. I think it catches the fact that Speaker is top 10, that Cobb was nearly as great an offensive player as Ruth even though he hit few home runs. I don't think it can place players spot by spot in their place. It only catches the some overrated and underrated players and shows that they are overrated or underrated.

From there, I would pretty much abandon stats and go into a "lets discuss what he did" system of evaluation.


I just meant that there's not any difference in a person like Brett basing his ranking of Morgan on whatever his advanced stat is vs. ElHalo basing his ranking of Morgan on his batting average. It was very much a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

[ElHalo]

Sorry you think there is a difference.

And that pretty much says it all.

[brett]

OK, here are a few things that I think are true.

1) The last 33% of the discussion of who ranks where should not involve statistics.

2) Cobb, Ruth, Gehrig, Williams, Mays, Mantle, Musial, Wagner, Aaron, Foxx are amazing looking in any picture I've ever seen. I can't explain it, but they all have an aura-you want to see more and more pictures. Nobody's going to look at pictures of Bonds, or Thomas or Ripken for more than a few minutes.


This thread began with so much promise. Why all the BS? Get back to the thread theme, and stop talking so much about yourselves.

[brett]

Critical thinking is the ability to use objectivity and to eliminate bias and tradition in evaluation. Statistics are objective-unless they are formulated to achieve a certain outcome. I was willing to change my rankings when objective data dictated. Others just "can't get over a guy who hits under .300." I used to be that way. I couldn't put Mantle in the same level as Aaron or Mays because he hit .298. Now I know that that means very little.

I couldn't rank Mike Schmidt high because he hit .267. I thought that Marty Barret was great because he hit .303 one year.

Still, its cool to look at a players season stats and see them hitting .338 or something.


And that pretty much says it all.

[Murderers Row]

Derek Jeter is so ridiculousy overrated.

[ElHalo]

Critical thinking is the ability to use objectivity and to eliminate bias and tradition in evaluation.

This is more a philisophical point, but I'd disagree with two of the three definitions you threw up there. Critical thinking, at its essense, is the refusal to accept any given postulate as a given. It's taking an opinion and trying to prove it wrong in order to prove it right. Objectivity and a lack of bias are almost inherently opposed to that idea; an objective person without any bias would have no need to argue against anything, because they would always know the truth and would be utterly unconcerned with the incorrect opinions of others. In order to truly, properly analyze something with cohesive criticism, you have to adopt a position, and then adopt the biases of that position's opponents, slip into their shoes, and make the argue against yourself as to why you're wrong. Maybe you'll convince yourself, maybe you won't. But you need to have bias, and you need to be able to embrace the opposing biases, in order to engage in that kind of analysis. It's why I'm so reluctant to embrace any kind of mathematical analysis... mathematics assumes axioms, and gives an answer that must flow from those axioms. I refuse to accept even the concept of absolute truth (and, trust me, I've put myself in the shoes of those who disagree with that idea to try and figure out where they stand -- they're wrong), and if there can be no absolute truth, then there can be no true objectivity. Everything needs to have a frame of reference.

[538280]

You dont really make points Chris. You just say, the way I do things is right, and whoever doesnt do it the exact same way I do it is wrong. I am the enlightened and you dont know what you speak of.

What are you enlightened with? You're enlightened with nothing but false statistical principles. You still have not replied to the point that I made.

[538280]

Not sure how clear this is to everyone else, but I believe Jimmy Wynn is the best CF not in the Hall, and should be in easily.

I'm definitely in your camp on that one. Search Wynn under my name. You'll find a lot. :)

[Sliding Billy]

The odd thing about Wynn is that even though he played in the Astrodome and Dodger Stadium all his career, he actually hit BETTER at home than he did away. So his park adjusted stats are overrating him somewhat, but he's probably good enough that he should get in though.
That is interesting. Wynn's park-adjusted bonus does not overrate him, though. Park-adjusted stats assess the value of a batter's production within a particular run-scoring environment, not how much a park hurt or helped any particular batter. It's not a question of how well the park suits the player, but of how much a run is worth there. Everyone deserves a boost for playing in the Dome, whether it hurt them or not, because the same offensive production would lead to more wins there than elsewhere.

[538280]

That is interesting. Wynn's park-adjusted bonus does not overrate him, though. Park-adjusted stats assess the value of a batter's production within a particular run-scoring environment, not how much a park hurt or helped any particular batter. It's not a question of how well the park suits the player, but of how much a run is worth there. Everyone deserves a boost for playing in the Dome, whether it hurt them or not, because the same offensive production would lead to more wins there than elsewhere.

Exactly right, I was actually just going to make a post saying exactly that. Good work.

[EvanAparra]

What are you enlightened with? You're enlightened with nothing but false statistical principles. You still have not replied to the point that I made.
Like I said, what point?

[538280]

Like I said, what point?

The point that you claim I am too caught up in the statistics, yet when asked why you have Morgan so low, you refer to basically nothing but statistics. Read this part of my post over again:

You say I'm too caught up in the numbers. But, really, your whole justification for rating Joe Morgan so low is based on numbers, and don't say it's not because I asked you what it was and all you said was .271 BA, not enough power, and you don't like his defense so much. The defense point is the only one that isn't really based on numbers, but the numbers actually agree with you that he wasn't that great on defense. Your ranking is really based on what you claim to hate so much, and not only that it's focused on the WRONG numbers, which have little to do with why teams win games.

[EvanAparra]

The point that you claim I am too caught up in the statistics, yet when asked why you have Morgan so low, you refer to basically nothing but statistics. Read this part of my post over again:

This is what I said...
Sorry man, I dont see it in Morgan, and I'll go by whichever standards I please. Its hilarious that someone who just throws player in a mathematica system and ranks them with that is telling me that i'm wrong. You need to use your eyes more, I promise, it's much more fun that way.

I think its dumb to just throw everyone in a system, I never said you were 'too caught up in statistics.'


Your ranking is really based on what you claim to hate so much, and not only that it's focused on the WRONG numbers, which have little to do with why teams win games.

My ranking is based on Morgan not being one of the top 20 players, because he wasn't. I dont need Win Shares or some metric to tell me how to rank ballplayers, I can do it myself. You need to chill.. the "WRONG" "You are wrong," and then you tell me i'm closed minded. I dont even think you really know why teams win games, you just read what Bill James says wins games and take it as gospel, same with Craig Wright. Im done talking to you about this, its frustrating to have conversations with those with closed minds.

[538280]

You still don't even understand my system, it is not purely statistical, there is a a "intangibles" part, and the fielding and baserunning ratings are not statistically based, they can be based on how the player was regarded in his time as well.

Let's just get this straight-the reason why you rate Morgan #40 is .271 BA, not enough power, and you don't like his defense much? That's all I've gotten from you.

[EvanAparra]

they can be based on how the player was regarded in his time as well.

But that's hogwash Chris! Its historical mumbo jumbo, just his contemporaries' opinions, how much are they worth? Throw em out!


Let's just get this straight-the reason why you rate Morgan #40 is .271 BA, not enough power, and you don't like his defense much? That's all I've gotten from you.

Hm, were you up on cloud nine last time we went through this? I said he's 30-35. The reason Morgan is there is because there are 30-35 players that are better than him.

[ChrisLDuncan]

Well Chris here's the reason why I don't think he's top 20, because the guys I have ahead of him are better. That's it. I think he's a very good player, hell a great player. BUT, I feel the guys ahead of him on my list were better players. I had him higher when I was under the impression that he batted lead off (that body that lack of power, that OBP, and that speed why not?) but now that I learned that he didn't I have changed my opinion of Joe Morgan

[Murderers Row]

The reason Morgan is there is because there are 30-35 players that are better than him.[/QUOTE]


No need to state the obvious. What did those 30-35 players have that Morgan didn't.

[EvanAparra]

No need to state the obvious. What did those 30-35 players have that Morgan didn't.

More talent.

[ChrisLDuncan]

More talent.

Well put Evan well put

P.S. Did you hear that most people have the Cowboys as #1 in the NFC in the Power Rankings?? Think that they can beat the Chargers or Pats?

[EvanAparra]

P.S. Did you hear that most people have the Cowboys as #1 in the NFC in the Power Rankings?? Think that they can beat the Chargers or Pats?

Dont know, hopefully we'll get the chance to find out in February.

[Murderers Row]

More talent.

You're being to broad. Why are you staying away from details?

[538280]

But that's hogwash Chris! Its historical mumbo jumbo, just his contemporaries' opinions, how much are they worth? Throw em out!


I would agree if you were talking about hitting or total value. Not with fielding/baserunning necessarily though.

[538280]

You're being to broad. Why are you staying away from details?

My question exactly. Why do those guys have more talent/value? After all, all statistical studies ever done have shown Morgan to have ample talent/value for top 20 all time.

[EvanAparra]

You're being to broad. Why are you staying away from details?

Because i'm not going to go into 35 other players and explain what each one of them has.

And Chris has pretty much made this debate incredibly boring for me. We've gone through this more than once before, he just has a crush on Morgan that he cant get over without telling me i'm wrong every chance he gets. Im done with the Morgan debate, theres really no point.

[538280]

Because i'm not going to go into 35 other players and explain what each one of them has.

And Chris has pretty much made this debate incredibly boring for me. We've gone through this more than once before, he just has a crush on Morgan that he cant get over without telling me i'm wrong every chance he gets. Im done with the Morgan debate, theres really no point.

My "crush on Morgan" is supported by every statistical measure out there. Your hatred of Morgan is based on nothing but a .271 BA, and false statistical premises. But I'm done as well.

[EvanAparra]

My "crush on Morgan" is supported by every statistical measure out there. Your hatred of Morgan is based on nothing but a .271 BA, and false statistical premises. But I'm done as well.

Lol, why would I hate Morgan -- good player, not top 20. :)

[Murderers Row]

Because i'm not going to go into 35 other players and explain what each one of them has.

And Chris has pretty much made this debate incredibly boring for me. We've gone through this more than once before, he just has a crush on Morgan that he cant get over without telling me i'm wrong every chance he gets. Im done with the Morgan debate, theres really no point.

I don't think he has a "crush" on him. I f*ckin hate him, but I have him 19th. You don't have to go through every single player, but at least say what he's missing. (please don't say talent.)

[ChrisLDuncan]

Lol, why would I hate Morgan -- good player, not top 20. :)

Yeah no one says that Morgan is a bad player, we all think he's a great player just that there's at least 20 players better

[pfairban]

1) While Ted Williams is a top 10 hitter of all time, he is not top 5.

2) Players from different eras can be compared to each other.

3) Here comes like a quadruple negative: it is impossible to make a reasonable argument that a reasonable person cannot rank Ty Cobb as number 1. In other words, anybody who responds to me arguing "Ty Cobb is the greatest hitter of all time" with "how in the world can you say that" is wrong, even if I am not right.

4) Everything matters.

5) The view of a hitter by his contemporaries is one of the most important factors in determining how good a hitter he is.

6) George Sisler was a great hitter.

7) The Cubs will win the World Series next year. This will probably be the worst thing that has ever happened to me.

8) It is impossible to determine who the greatest hitter of all time is.

9) It is also impossible to argue that Babe Ruth is not the greatest offensive athlete of all time relative to his sport. Except that you can argue that Pele was a better soccer player than Babe Ruth was a baseball player, which is like arguing that my momma made a better bowl of menudo than your momma made of minestrone.

10) What was the question?

11) Pete Rose should not be in the hall of fame, and Pete Rose was the best player of the last 40 years inclusive.

[Bill Burgess]

9) It is also impossible to argue that Babe Ruth is not the greatest offensive athlete of all time relative to his sport.
Nonsense. I've been arguing it for many decades. Guess I've been accomplishing the impossible. Now winning the argument, . . . now there is the challenge.

[BoSox Rule]

1) While Ted Williams is a top 10 hitter of all time, he is not top 5.
Ridiculous claim.

[pfairban]

Nonsense. I've been arguing it for many decades. Guess I've been accomplishing the impossible. Now winning the argument, . . . now there is the challenge.

Bill, I am not claiming that he is better than Cobb. (or, of course, for me, Musial).

[ElHalo]

9) It is also impossible to argue that Babe Ruth is not the greatest offensive athlete of all time relative to his sport. Except that you can argue that Pele was a better soccer player than Babe Ruth was a baseball player, which is like arguing that my momma made a better bowl of menudo than your momma made of minestrone.

This is just untrue. A lot of people would mention Jordan, but he wasn't that much more dominant than Chamberlain.

However, Gretzky blows everybody out of the water.

[pfairban]

This is just untrue. A lot of people would mention Jordan, but he wasn't that much more dominant than Chamberlain.

However, Gretzky blows everybody out of the water.

People might argue for Jordan if they didn't know that Magic, Kareem, and Larry Bird made basketball a great sport.

If Gretsky held a candle to Ruth, a) he would've played with only 1 team after becoming a superstar, and b) hockey would be more popular, at least, than basketball. Babe Ruth created that modern sports industry and totally changed the way sports are played.

Have you ever seen Pele play, by the way? I am (as I think my post indicates) not a fan of soccer. But when you watch that guy play, you are.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

This is just untrue. A lot of people would mention Jordan, but he wasn't that much more dominant than Chamberlain.

However, Gretzky blows everybody out of the water.

Good point on Gretzky. He's the only guy in the conversation imo, regarding dominance over their peers. Take away ALL OF GRETZKY'S GOALS and he still leads in all time points. Amazing.

[hubkittel]

Good point on Gretzky. He's the only guy in the conversation imo, regarding dominance over their peers. Take away ALL OF GRETZKY'S GOALS and he still leads in all time points. Amazing.

and yet there are still people who would argue that gordie howe or bobby orr were better hockey players. just as there are people who will argue for cobb or mays over ruth.

[EvanAparra]

and yet there are still people who would argue that gordie howe or bobby orr were better hockey players. .
Those people should never be allowed to speak about Hockey again.

[pfairban]

and yet there are still people who would argue that gordie howe or bobby orr were better hockey players. just as there are people who will argue for cobb or mays over ruth.

It's not hard to argue Cobb over Ruth. I guess I should go read a hockey page, but is it hard to argue gordie howe and bobbie orr over Gretsky?

And how many soccer players has anybody (ok, being jingoistic, by "anybody" I mean normal American sports fans, not really a very high percentage of the "body"'s of the world) ever heard of besides Pele?

[Sultan_1895-1948]

It's not hard to argue Cobb over Ruth.

In terms of dominance over peers it is.

[Bill Burgess]

In terms of dominance over peers it is.
Depends. Ty's dominance cuts across all categories and includes various aspects. Babe's dominance is concentrated in several power stats - HRs, Slg. Ave., walks, OPS+.

Ruth's were deeper, Cobb's were better distributed. But it was harder to go deeper in deadball.

Ty's did better in peer opinion, Babe connected deeper with fans and people in general. Harder to appreciate TC's finesse/skill. Babe's talents were easier to appreciate because power is more obvious than skill.

But a little birdie tells me you might not agree 100%.

[ChrisLDuncan]

I'm starting to think that Ruth and Cobb are 1 and 1a in terms of all time rankings.

[tearforamariner]

1) While Ted Williams is a top 10 hitter of all time, he is not top 5.


Okay, you REALLY need to explain your thinking here. I'd have understood if you said he wasn't a top 5 player, but how is Williams NOT a top 5 hitter?

[AG2004]

This is just untrue. A lot of people would mention Jordan, but he wasn't that much more dominant than Chamberlain.

However, Gretzky blows everybody out of the water.

No. Gretzky does not blow everybody out of the water.

The greatest offensive player of all time, relative to his sport, was Donald Bradman.

[Los Bravos]

People might argue for Jordan if they didn't know that Magic, Kareem, and Larry Bird made basketball a great sport.Or that every single thing Jordan ever did on the court had already been done years before by Oscar Robertson, Julius Erving and Connie Hawkins, those last two men doing it all too often in front of 1300 people in a cold gym in some place like Poughkeepse, NY.

I got to talk about hoops! :dance

As for Orr...there's one guy in each sport who was transcendently great, who electrified the whole sport and who had his career cut short by injury, almost like a Greek tragedy. Orr is that guy in Hockey, Gale Sayers in Football.

[EvanAparra]

No. Gretzky does not blow everybody out of the water.

The greatest offensive player of all time, relative to his sport, was Donald Bradman.

Yes, he blows everybody out of the water, when it comes to hockey.

[AG2004]

Yes, he blows everybody out of the water, when it comes to hockey.

We weren't limiting ourselves to ice hockey. The discussion had also included, among others, basketball, baseball, and soccer players.

I believe that Donald Bradman dominated his sport more than Gretzky dominated hockey. In my opinion, Bradman was "the greatest offensive athlete of all time relative to his sport." He was more dominant than Ruth, Cobb, Pele, Maradona, Ronaldo, Jordan, Chamberlain, Gretzky, or anybody else we've mentioned.

I can't see how anyone can argue that Bradman does not merit at least some consideration in a discussion on this topic.

[EvanAparra]

I can't see how anyone can argue that Bradman does not merit at least some consideration in a discussion on this topic.

You're right, his tests batting average was just RIDICULOUS -- The Baseball equivalent of batting .500 for his career.

[ElHalo]

No. Gretzky does not blow everybody out of the water.

The greatest offensive player of all time, relative to his sport, was Donald Bradman.

No, they wouldn't, because we're talking about athletes. That little insect game is in no way a "sport."

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Depends. Ty's dominance cuts across all categories and includes various aspects. Babe's dominance is concentrated in several power stats - HRs, Slg. Ave., walks, OPS+.

Ruth's were deeper, Cobb's were better distributed. But it was harder to go deeper in deadball.


Better distributed? Between what? Average and baserunning? That's two things and Cobb's baserunning was unique but can't qualify as a dominance factor imo. Its just baserunning. When it comes to Cobb's specialty; BA against Ruth's; slugging...there is no comparison imo.

[Bill Burgess]

Better distributed? Between what? Average and baserunning? That's two things and Cobb's baserunning was unique but can't qualify as a dominance factor imo. Its just baserunning. When it comes to Cobb's specialty; BA against Ruth's; slugging...there is no comparison imo.
By better distributed, I was referring to leading in more categories.



Cobb--------BA--Hits-2B---3B---HR---R--RBI-TB---OBA--SLG--SB--BB-OPS+
led league--12---8----3----4----1---5---4---6----7----8----6---0--11
2nd-league---3---3----4----4----2---2---2---2----7----3----1---1---3
3rd----------1---3----4----2----2---2---1---2----0----3----2---0---1
4th----------2---0----0----1----0---1---0---1----0----1----3---1---1
5th----------1---0----0----1----0---2---1---0----1----0----0---1---0
6th----------2---0----2----0----0---0---0---0----0----0----0---0---0


Ruth---------BA---Hits-2B---3B---HR---R--RBI--TB---OBA--SLG--SB--BB-OPS+
led league----1----0----1----0---12---8---6----6----9---13----0--11--13
2nd league----2----0----1----0----2---1---2--- 3----2----1----0---1---1
3rd-----------2----0----1----0----1---0---0----2----1----1----0---1---2
4th-----------1----3----0----0----0---0---3----0----2----0----0---0---0
5th-----------1----0----0----0----0---1---0----0----0----0----0---0---0
6th-----------0----2----1----1----0---1---1----0----0----0----0---0---0


If we were to limit ourselves to their specialties, BA/Slg., it would be about a draw.

To lead a league in BA 12 times in 13 yrs., is about comparable to leading a league in Slg. ave. 13 times in 14 seasons, wouldn't you say? Both are ridiculous, and will never be approached again. Probably because it's so much harder today to lead a league. LQ, twice the number of players, etc.

I was simply saying that TC didn't bunch his leads in several categories.

To compare Ty/Babe fairly, it's similar to skills. Ty had more of them mastered at the highest levels, but Babe's had more impact, due to the way the game was tweaked, 1919-21.

This goes to the heart of why I put TC #1. He mastered more skills, at the highest levels. That, and that alone, are my criteria for my definition of the Best Ever.

It's a side issue for me who was the more valuable person in the dugout. The other members conveniently side-step my issues of manager/batting coach. But a GM would not be so dismissive of those kinds of values acquired.

But I will concede, that since the game was changed, the balance tipped more towards Offense, 1919-21, Ruth's skills had more value than Cobb's did, but only if we separate out TC's managerial/batting coaching skills from the discussion.

But I will not concede that if the game had not been tweaked towards offense, that Babe's skills would have been more valuable. That is a really tough judgment call, and neither of us have any real conception of how Cobb would have approached the game under that different set of conditions. Or the degree of success he might have had if he had tweaked his approach to how he played.

We end up debating hypotheticals, Randy. So, it appears you might win in what actually happened. Most members are supporting your beliefs.

Hate when that happens.

Bill

[Brian McKenna]

1. Ty Cobb was the greatest and best all-around player ever, and best base thief/runner ever.
2. Honus Wagner was 2nd greatest player ever, and greatest all-around fielder ever.
3. Babe Ruth was the greatest slugger and drawing card ever. Babe was also the best hitter ever, with respect to combining both power/high BA., without benefit of illegal substances.
4. Walter Johnson was the greatest pitcher ever.
5. Buck Ewing was greatest ever pre-1900 player, and greatest catcher ever.
6. The 1929 Philadelphia Athletics were the greatest team ever. The 1899 Cleveland Spiders, 20-134, might have been the worst 1 year team ever.


This is what I don't get about all you ranking guys. How can one fan know exactly who the best team, hitter, player, 2nd best player, fielder, slugger, pitcher and 19th century player was in the history of the game? You all must just sit so far ahead of the rest of us. I'm amazed really - I'm an idiot among a group of Mensa geniuses.

[W_Marone]

Those people should never be allowed to speak about Hockey again.

1) Hockey is a terrible sport.....;)

[Imapotato]

This thread began with so much promise. Why all the BS? Get back to the thread theme, and stop talking so much about yourselves.


Bill,

This is why you should accept my invite that is in your inbox.

This is the future of Baseball-Fever "MY stat is better then your stat...then blah, blah..me, me, me...U stink, etc. ad naseum"

Come join the old crew :)

[PopTop]

3. Babe Ruth was the greatest slugger and drawing card ever. Babe was also the best hitter ever, with respect to combining both power/high BA., without benefit of illegal substances.Actually, Ruth used plenty of 'illegal substances' considering Prohibition ran for about 14 years in this country during Babe's reign of supremacy on the diamonds. Now, whether or not alcohol was beneficial or not is another argument ;)

[Brian McKenna]

Actually, Ruth used plenty of 'illegal substances' considering Prohibition ran for about 14 years in this country during Babe's reign of supremacy on the diamonds. Now, whether or not alcohol was beneficial or not is another argument ;)

It did help him score better...that is with the ladies (loosly defined as such).

[hubkittel]

Those people should never be allowed to speak about Hockey again.

believe it or not evan, the hockey news ran a poll a couple of years ago and gretzky finished third behind orr and howe. the people voting were knowlegable hockey people (stan fischler, bob mckenzie, etc).

just as baseball fans can't decide between ruth and cobb and mays and wagner, hockey people have problems picking the greatest player in their sport.

and to answer the question of this thread:
1. stan musial was a better ballplayer than ted williams
2. mario lemiuex (at his peak) was a better hockey player than gretzky (:D )

[hubkittel]

The greatest offensive player of all time, relative to his sport, was Donald Bradman.

that's SIR donald bradman to you.

[ChrisLDuncan]

We weren't limiting ourselves to ice hockey. The discussion had also included, among others, basketball, baseball, and soccer players.

I believe that Donald Bradman dominated his sport more than Gretzky dominated hockey. In my opinion, Bradman was "the greatest offensive athlete of all time relative to his sport." He was more dominant than Ruth, Cobb, Pele, Maradona, Ronaldo, Jordan, Chamberlain, Gretzky, or anybody else we've mentioned.

I can't see how anyone can argue that Bradman does not merit at least some consideration in a discussion on this topic.


Hmmm...what abo ut a guy named JIM BROWN, he not only was the biggest guy on the field but the fastest too. He was a true man amongst boys. Retired with his grace intact and an ability to dominate for a few more years.

[hubkittel]

1) Hockey is a terrible sport.....;)

the way it's being played now (with all the rule changes), it certainly is.

[hubkittel]

I'm an idiot among a group of Mensa geniuses.

i get that feeling all the time-and sadly it's not just limited to baseball fever. :laugh

[538280]

Depends. Ty's dominance cuts across all categories and includes various aspects. Babe's dominance is concentrated in several power stats - HRs, Slg. Ave., walks, OPS+.

Ruth's were deeper, Cobb's were better distributed. But it was harder to go deeper in deadball.

Ty's did better in peer opinion, Babe connected deeper with fans and people in general. Harder to appreciate TC's finesse/skill. Babe's talents were easier to appreciate because power is more obvious than skill.

But a little birdie tells me you might not agree 100%.

Actually I think Ruth's skills were a lot harder to appreciate. I think supposed "experts" watching the game are always more inclined to be impressed by a player who does everything well, a guy who not only hits very well, but also runs fast and fields very well. Those guys are impressive, they are athletes, they are poetry in motion. Fun to watch.

The thing is though is that big and slow sluggers who get on base a lot can actually do much more for their teams than those guys, simply because they contribute so much more in the batter's box. And it's not just the incredible strength they have either, it's their willingness to wait for a pitch to drive, and if they don't get it, to not swing. Its their having no fear of possibly hitting with two strikes on them, their patience and presense at the plate. These are things that are lost in eyewitnesses quite often. Personally I think Cobb's skills were a lot easier for observers to appreciate, while Ruth's were those that can be more seen in a statistical analysis of the game.

[EvanAparra]

2. mario lemiuex (at his peak) was a better hockey player than gretzky (:D )
You are absolutely killing me!! :)

[hubkittel]

Actually I think Ruth's skills were a lot harder to appreciate. I think supposed "experts" watching the game are always more inclined to be impressed by a player who does everything well, a guy who not only hits very well, but also runs fast and fields very well. Those guys are impressive, they are athletes, they are poetry in motion. Fun to watch.

i think the opposite is actually true, chris. someone who can dominate one facate of the game or one statistical catagory is going to be more appreciated than a player who's skill set is broader but not deeper. think how much attention the home run hitters get. mcgwire, sosa, etc. howard just won an mvp for crying out loud. howard vs pujols alone shows how the opposite is true. bonds was never appreciated as the best player of his generation until he (allegedly) roided up and hit 70 odd home runs. the same holds true for the base stealers like lou brock, vince coleman, etc. think about how much attention coleman got compared to tim raines.

it's easier for people to understand and appreciate somebody who does the one thing well. i think it's too complicated for a lot of people to look at someone and say "well, he's good with the glove, a fine baserunner, takes a lot of walks, gets hit by pitches, doesn't ground into double plays, doesn't get caught stealing, gets a lot of doubles and triples therefore he's the best player in the game and seriously better than the one dimensional slugger who led the league in home runs and rbi." that's an analysis that people just don't make. it's easier for them to look at the guy who hits 58 home runs and go "oh, he's good."

[brett]

True but the rules of his time resulted in more scoring-almost 50% more than today.


Good point on Gretzky. He's the only guy in the conversation imo, regarding dominance over their peers. Take away ALL OF GRETZKY'S GOALS and he still leads in all time points. Amazing.

[Captain Cold Nose]

You are absolutely killing me!! :)
It is arguable, at least. Lemieux is the only player of the last 25 years who could make that claim.
And imagine if he had Gretzky's teammates? They weren't all Charlie Huddy he was passing to. What if Ruth had Gehrig (Messier) and Hornsby (Kurri) and Cochrane (Coffey) and Lloyd Waner (Anderson) as teammates? Coffey wasn't as good with Pittsburgh as he was with Edmonton.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

i think the opposite is actually true, chris. someone who can dominate one facate of the game or one statistical catagory is going to be more appreciated than a player who's skill set is broader but not deeper. think how much attention the home run hitters get. mcgwire, sosa, etc. howard just won an mvp for crying out loud. howard vs pujols alone shows how the opposite is true. bonds was never appreciated as the best player of his generation until he (allegedly) roided up and hit 70 odd home runs. the same holds true for the base stealers like lou brock, vince coleman, etc. think about how much attention coleman got compared to tim raines.
It is simply not true that Bonds was not appreciated as the best player before his 73 HR season. He won three MVPs in four years, 1990, 1992, 1993 (should have won a fourth). By 1993 Bonds was clearly considerd the best player in the game. Bill James wrote in his Player Ratings book that Ted Williams was never the player Bonds is. He wrote that in 1994.



it's easier for people to understand and appreciate somebody who does the one thing well. i think it's too complicated for a lot of people to look at someone and say "well, he's good with the glove, a fine baserunner, takes a lot of walks, gets hit by pitches, doesn't ground into double plays, doesn't get caught stealing, gets a lot of doubles and triples therefore he's the best player in the game and seriously better than the one dimensional slugger who led the league in home runs and rbi." that's an analysis that people just don't make. it's easier for them to look at the guy who hits 58 home runs and go "oh, he's good."
I agree with this. Specialists like HRs hitters and singles hitters with high BAs get lots of press.

[brett]

It was never illegal to use alcohol.


Actually, Ruth used plenty of 'illegal substances' considering Prohibition ran for about 14 years in this country during Babe's reign of supremacy on the diamonds. Now, whether or not alcohol was beneficial or not is another argument ;)

[EvanAparra]

It is arguable, at least. Lemieux is the only player of the last 25 years who could make that claim.
And imagine if he had Gretzky's teammates? They weren't all Charlie Huddy he was passing to. What if Ruth had Gehrig (Messier) and Hornsby (Kurri) and Cochrane (Coffey) and Lloyd Waner (Anderson) as teammates? Coffey wasn't as good with Pittsburgh as he was with Edmonton.

Having great teammates should have also stymied his scoring though... no?

Sorry, i've always been a big Gretsky fan, excuse my homerness.

[brett]

But Ruth was posting 13 Slg% marks that had never been achieved before. I think that when he finished his run, at the end of '32, he had 11 of the top 16 slg% in history. He still had 11 of the top 20 ever, as late as 2000. Cobb did not really come close to posting 12 straight "historically" high (top 20) averages.



To lead a league in BA 12 times in 13 yrs., is about comparable to leading a league in Slg. ave. 13 times in 14 seasons, wouldn't you say? Both are ridiculous, and will never be approached again. Probably because it's so much harder today to lead a league. LQ, twice the number of players, etc.

[538280]

i think the opposite is actually true, chris. someone who can dominate one facate of the game or one statistical catagory is going to be more appreciated than a player who's skill set is broader but not deeper. think how much attention the home run hitters get. mcgwire, sosa, etc. howard just won an mvp for crying out loud. howard vs pujols alone shows how the opposite is true. bonds was never appreciated as the best player of his generation until he (allegedly) roided up and hit 70 odd home runs. the same holds true for the base stealers like lou brock, vince coleman, etc. think about how much attention coleman got compared to tim raines.

it's easier for people to understand and appreciate somebody who does the one thing well. i think it's too complicated for a lot of people to look at someone and say "well, he's good with the glove, a fine baserunner, takes a lot of walks, gets hit by pitches, doesn't ground into double plays, doesn't get caught stealing, gets a lot of doubles and triples therefore he's the best player in the game and seriously better than the one dimensional slugger who led the league in home runs and rbi." that's an analysis that people just don't make. it's easier for them to look at the guy who hits 58 home runs and go "oh, he's good."

I think this can be true of casual fans looking a statistics, they're more likely to be impressed with a player with a .350 BA and not much else or 40 HRs adn not much else than a guy who has a broad skill set and is actually better, like a .280 hitting shortstop who's just decent at everything.

I think with observation by baseball "experts" though, a well rounded compostie player who fields and runs well along with being a good hitter is more likely to impress them. And those are the kinds of people which Bill is always citing as favorable of Cobb. Personally I am extremely glad that people are able to see through that-I think people here in general are far to accepting of what "experts" of the time thought or said. I think that modern analysis can correct for many of the biases and such inherent in what those people said.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Having great teammates should have also stymied his scoring though... no?

Sorry, i've always been a big Gretsky fan, excuse my homerness.
No need to apologize, the guy was a marvel. Just having that much talent on the ice was overwhelming to lesser teams, like the Canadiens of the fifties and seventies. They were geared to scoring, Gretzky was the leader. It was ridiculous.

Anyway, we're in danger of having Astro complain as soon as he sees this. That's clear to me, in sticking with this thread. :cool:

[hubkittel]

It is simply not true that Bonds was not appreciated as the best player before his 73 HR season. He won three MVPs in four years, 1990, 1992, 1993 (should have won a fourth). By 1993 Bonds was clearly considerd the best player in the game. Bill James wrote in his Player Ratings book that Ted Williams was never the player Bonds is. He wrote that in 1994.

i understand what you're saying but i'm just not sure if it's true. by 1993, i was telling people that bonds was the best player i had ever seen and they would look at me and say "what? really?" i don't think the casual fan ever excepted him as the best player of his generation until the late career home run barage. his "baggage" always stood in the way and even now you have the steriod accusations tarnishing his reputation. there was always some golden child like griffey or mcgwire or sosa or arod stealing the spotlight. i think the voting for the all century team is a perfect example and the mvp's he lost to pendleton and kent.

bonds was the guy with the broadest skill set, who could do the most things on the ballfield. and he was always being overshadowed by the guy having the big home run year or making the flashy play in the outfield or having the career year.

[hubkittel]

It was never illegal to use alcohol.

check the 18th amendment to the constitution.

[plask_stirlac]

I agree with Chris. Say Joe Mauer steps up to the plate. He's awesome.

"Look at that swing, and did you know he was given a QB scolarship by Florida State? A lot of potential and natural athleticism there. At least 6'4" at catcher, players are just getting so big and strong."

That's kind of how the articles about him went as well (plus his relationship with Miss USA 05 Chelsea Cooley, etc.). He's praised for getting hits and has a good eye, commended when he takes a walk. When he's on first he could go to theirs on a single or steal second. He calls a good game, keeps pitches in front of him, and throws runners out.

So it wouldn't be too hard for "expert" observers to rate him as a better player than a masher like Howard. But just because Howard won't take off for second or win a GG, if he's significantly better on offense even accounting for playing 1B he can be the better player. Just because Mauer COULD be speedy and win batting crowns and what not, the arsenal of Howard's hits and home runs (if they don't use too many outs) could outclass Mauer.

Or maybe a better example would be Bobby Crosby over some power prospects.

[hubkittel]

I agree with Chris. Say Joe Mauer steps up to the plate. He's awesome.

"Look at that swing, and did you know he was given a QB scolarship by Florida State? A lot of potential and natural athleticism there. At least 6'4" at catcher, players are just getting so big and strong."

That's kind of how the articles about him went as well (plus his relationship with Miss USA 05 Chelsea Cooley, etc.). He's praised for getting hits and has a good eye, commended when he takes a walk. When he's on first he could go to theirs on a single or steal second. He calls a good game, keeps pitches in front of him, and throws runners out.

So it wouldn't be too hard for "expert" observers to rate him as a better player than a masher like Howard.

and yet justin morneau wins the mvp this year?

[brett]

Yes the a) sale; b) manufacture or c) transportation of alcohol were illegal, not the consumption.


check the 18th amendment to the constitution.

[hubkittel]

Yes the a) sale; b) manufacture or c) transportation of alcohol were illegal, not the consumption.

interesting. almost a distinction without a difference. but i appreciate the education. :)

[Bill Burgess]

This is what I don't get about all you ranking guys. How can one fan know exactly who the best team, hitter, player, 2nd best player, fielder, slugger, pitcher and 19th century player was in the history of the game? You all must just sit so far ahead of the rest of us. I'm amazed really - I'm an idiot among a group of Mensa geniuses.
I don't know if these things are true.

That is why I referred to them as 'My Most Committed Opinions".

I did not refer to them as, "The 6 Commandments". All we do around here is express our opinions/beliefs. Had thought that had been obvious, regardless of how forecefully we express ourselves. Still amounts to opinion. Nothing more. :)

[Bill Burgess]

But Ruth was posting 13 Slg% marks that had never been achieved before. I think that when he finished his run, at the end of '32, he had 11 of the top 16 slg% in history. He still had 11 of the top 20 ever, as late as 2000. .
Let's go slow, Brett, OK? Babe posted 13 Slg% marks because he was a great hitter, but also because the deadball suppressed naked slg. ave.

But deadball did allow Rel. Slg. ave. and Cobb posted higher ones than most others. And if you doubt me, here some are, against another great hitter. Can you see how Cobb outslugged Honus?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some of Ty's Greatest Seasons, based on Relative Stats:



Relative BA------------Relative SLG.-------OPS
1910---1.58%-----------1917--1.72%---------1917--209
1916---1.55%-----------1910--1.65%---------1910--206
1912---1.54%-----------1911--1.64%---------1912--200
1909---1.54%-----------1912--1.64%---------1911--196
1917---1.54%-----------1909--1.58%---------1909--194
1911---1.53%-----------1918--1.57%---------1913--194
-----------------------1913--1.54%---------1914--150



Cobb did not really come close to posting 12 straight "historically" high (top 20) averages

You are seriously misinformed, brett. Mr. Cobb was posting the highest Rel. BA ever posted, before or since. Above 150% of L. average. Whenever we compare BA, we must use relative stats, or we cannot compare one year to another. Wouldn't mean anything whatsoever. And Ty's relative Batting averages were the highest in history. So, what are you talking about, brett?

1906 - 126% - 6th place
1907 - 141% - 1st place
1908 - 135% - 1st place
1909 - 154% - 1st place
1910 - 158% - 1st place
1911 - 153% - 1st place
1912 - 154% - 1st place
1913 - 151% - 1st place
1914 - 148% - 1st place
1915 - 148% - 1st place
1916 - 155% - 2nd place
1917 - 154% - 1st place
1918 - 150% - 1st place
1919 - 143% - 1st place
1920 - 117% - 10th place
1921 - 133% - 2nd place
1922 - 140% - 2nd place
1923 - 120% - 8th place
1924 - 116% - 11th place
1925 - 129% - 4th place
1926 - 120% - 11th place
1927 - 125% - 5th place
1928 - 114% - 13th place

Bill Burgess

[brett]

I'm not sure what you mean by "almost a distinction without a difference"

Many people drank from their own private stockpiles of alcoholic beverages throughout the prohibition era. Ruth could not have been arrested for drinking an alcoholic beverage. He couldn't make it. He couldn't by it or transport it, but if someone gave him a drink, he would have broken no laws in drinking it.

People even had clubs where you paid for entertainment or for a table, and they gave free drinks, but since you weren't paying for the drinks it wasn't illegal.


interesting. almost a distinction without a difference. but i appreciate the education. :)

[Bill Burgess]

Actually I think Ruth's skills were a lot harder to appreciate. I think supposed "experts" watching the game are always more inclined to be impressed by a player who does everything well, a guy who not only hits very well, but also runs fast and fields very well. Those guys are impressive, they are athletes, they are poetry in motion. Fun to watch.
Chris,
You are just so funny. You say the weirdest things. How strange. First off, we're not discussing 'types'. We're discussing Ty/Babe. So, please have the discipline to stay on point. You like to veer off into your favorite tangents. And with respect to Ty/Babe, I don't know too many others who could articulate the principle better than Miller Huggins, who managed Babe and understood the value of walking. So, please listen to Miller and try to absorb his wisdom into your bones. That would serve you well.

Miller Huggins (Babe Ruth's manager, 1920-29)
Yankees' manager, 1918-29
NL 2B, 1904-16
Cardinals' manager, 1913-17
-------------
1920 - "Miller Huggins, boss of the Yanks and a smart baseball man, was discussing Ruth with the writer (Harry Salsinger) a few days ago. "There isn't any doubt that Ruth is the greatest drawing card of all time," said Huggins. "He pulls them in. He makes the turnstiles click. Cobb, admittedly the greatest player of the game, never was a drawing card to compare with Ruth. Have you figured out why? You know the American sport-loving public likes the fellow who carries the wallop. It is so in golf, in boxing, and in various other sports. It would naturally be that way in baseball. The fellow who can pound the ball is always the fellow that will win the hearts of the bleachers. He gets their affections. Cobb, brilliant as he is, appeals to only a portion of baseball followers. Cobb is the idol of the students of baseball, but all those interested in the game are not students; most of them miss the fine points, the inner dope. Cobb cannot be fully appreciated unless you are a student of baseball. If you have made a close study of the game, Cobb is a marvel to you and there is no one near him. There is but one Cobb. But Ruth appeals to everybody. No matter how much of a novice at baseball a man may be, he will appreciate Ruth, for Ruth busts that ball and as I remarked they like the fellow who busts them. So, while Cobb appealed to only a few, comparatively, who could fully understand and appreciate his finesse, Ruth appeals to everybody. They all flock to see him." (The Sporting News, August 12, 1920, pp. 3, column 5) (Above conversation occurred between Huggins & Detroit sports editor Harry Salsinger when Yankees visited Detroit in August, 1920 for series with the Tigers.)

The thing is though is that big and slow sluggers who get on base a lot can actually do much more for their teams than those guys, simply because they contribute so much more in the batter's box. And it's not just the incredible strength they have either, it's their willingness to wait for a pitch to drive, and if they don't get it, to not swing. Its their having no fear of possibly hitting with two strikes on them, their patience and presence at the plate. These are things that are lost in eyewitnesses quite often. Personally I think Cobb's skills were a lot easier for observers to appreciate, while Ruth's were those that can be more seen in a statistical analysis of the game.
Many of Babe's fans were new to baseball. How capable were they of discerning finesse? The deepest fans, like Sisler, Collins, Huggins, were all in awe of TC because of his out thinking them, but it required a ballplayer to see the inside game. But don't worry, Chris. You will learn these things in the future. You have a lot of time to absorb these subtleties and nuances of the game. I don't judge you.

Bill

[Dalkowski110]

Sometimes I feel like I'm the only person who thinks that, under the right circumstances, Ron Necciai had the talent, confidence, and potential to be one of the greatest pitchers of all time. All he needed was to have the following...
-Play in an organization other than the Pirates (I believe the Chicago White Sox were in talks to get him when his draft notice came).
-Play on every level of pro ball versus straight from Class A to the Majors (had the ChiSox gotten him, he would likely have been developed properly).
-Make a slow, easy comeback from Korea (He rushed back into it).
-Not blow out his arm (This one's the most subjective, but Necciai only tore his rotator cuff because of rushing back into his pro career).

[brett]

I know Cobb's averages were the best relative stats ever, but you were talking about league leaderships. You shift from absolute stats to relative stats to league leaderships.

Ruth had slugging percentages almost 200% of the league average.

But I do see the point. Mine would be the following.

1) Slugging percentage is a more inclusive stat than batting average, because it includes batting average, and more. You lead the league in slugging percentage and I don't really care who leads in batting average.

Cobb did lead the league in slugging several times, but he was able to let his slugging slip in serveral years to keep up his batting average.

2) If you compare Cobbs BA's to Ruths Slg%s versus the #2 guy in the league, Ruth would be more above the #2 slugger than Cobb was above the #2 in batting average.

So OK, here's the point. YOU brought up league leaderships, but Ruth was the league LEADER in SLG% over the #2 guy by far more than Cobb was the league leader in BA.

I know that Cobb had several batting championships that he narrowly won.

Compare Ruth to #2 in slugging and Cobb to #2 in batting. Again, I was working on YOUR idea of league leaderships.

Also, the margin of a 150% relative slugging average and a 150% relative batting average give much more plus value to the 150% relative slugging%.

You bat 150% and you produce about 65 more hits than par. You Slug 150% and you produce about 100 more total bases.



You are seriously misinformed, brett. Mr. Cobb was posting the highest Rel. BA ever posted, before or since. Above 150% of L. average. Whenever we compare BA, we must use relative stats, or we cannot compare one year to another. Wouldn't mean anything whatsoever. And Ty's relative Batting averages were the highest in history. So, what are you talking about, brett?

1906 - 126% - 6th place
1907 - 141% - 1st place
1908 - 135% - 1st place
1909 - 154% - 1st place
1910 - 158% - 1st place
1911 - 153% - 1st place
1912 - 154% - 1st place
1913 - 151% - 1st place
1914 - 148% - 1st place
1915 - 148% - 1st place
1916 - 155% - 2nd place
1917 - 154% - 1st place
1918 - 150% - 1st place
1919 - 143% - 1st place
1920 - 117% - 10th place
1921 - 133% - 2nd place
1922 - 140% - 2nd place
1923 - 120% - 8th place
1924 - 116% - 11th place
1925 - 129% - 4th place
1926 - 120% - 11th place
1927 - 125% - 5th place
1928 - 114% - 13th place

Bill Burgess

[plask_stirlac]

and yet justin morneau wins the mvp this year?

I can't explain MVP voting very well, other than it's often hard to take one winner from all those opinions. Ichiro hits .350 as a RF and wins over Giambi, Mauer hits .347 as a catcher and isn't Top 5. Beats me.

[Bill Burgess]

I think this can be true of casual fans looking a statistics, they're more likely to be impressed with a player with a .350 BA and not much else or 40 HRs and not much else than a guy who has a broad skill set and is actually better, like a .280 hitting shortstop who's just decent at everything.
And why shouldn't a casual fan be properly impressed with a, say 2B or 3B who hits .350? Sounds alright to me.

A .280 SS who is just decent at everything? Sounds like a journeyman to me.


I think with observation by baseball "experts" though, a well rounded composite player who fields and runs well along with being a good hitter is more likely to impress them. And those are the kinds of people which Bill is always citing as favorable of Cobb. Personally I am extremely glad that people are able to see through that - I think people here in general are far too accepting of what "experts" of the time thought or said. I think that modern analysis can correct for many of the biases and such inherent in what those people said.You know, Chris. It seems that no matter how many rational post you make, you are still capable of coming up with smelly fish like this. You are still trying to tell anyone who listens to you, that the people of the past had nothing to say, nothing to offer, no opinions worth listening to, or having.

This is such soft pulp, such juvenile drivel. Even if you believe that with all your heart, you would sound more intelligent to not advertise your ignorance. This level of utter disrespect for members who are sick of hearing this crap is sick and twisted. Maybe you would be happier to find somewhere else than in this Forum. We're beyond sick of it.

Since you believe that people's opinions have no value, and you continually do all you can to discredit it, maybe you should find a place to post where others agree with you. This is not that place. We have been more than patient with you. Time's up, Chris.

[Bill Burgess]

I know Cobb's averages were the best relative stats ever, but you were talking about league leaderships. You shift from absolute stats to relative stats to league leaderships.

Ruth had slugging percentages almost 200% of the league average.

But I do see the point. Mine would be the following.

1) Slugging percentage is a more inclusive stat than batting average, because it includes batting average, and more. You lead the league in slugging percentage and I don't really care who leads in batting average.

Cobb did lead the league in slugging several times, but he was able to let his slugging slip in several years to keep up his batting average.

2) If you compare Cobb's BA's to Ruth's Slg%s versus the #2 guy in the league, Ruth would be more above the #2 slugger than Cobb was above the #2 in batting average.

So OK, here's the point. YOU brought up league leaderships, but Ruth was the league LEADER in SLG% over the #2 guy by far more than Cobb was the league leader in BA.

I know that Cobb had several batting championships that he narrowly won.

So far, I like what you're saying, brett. You're on track. But, we must go deep here, in fairness to both Ty/Babe. Yes, of course, rel. slg. is far more important and revealing than rel. BA. We agree.

But, in deadball, Cobb had closer pursuers because all revered the BA crown, like no other. I don't think Slg. ave. was even computed until the 60's.

Now, here's what you didn't emphasize. When Babe exceeded 200% of L. slg., he did something phenomenal. Stupendous. I happen to LOVE rel. slg. I use it often, as you saw from my chart.

But here's the point. When Ruth came along and swung huge, the L. just couldn't believe he was for real. All kept waiting for the pitcher's to start getting his number. They had been brought up to think Ruth's swing was all wrong. Only J.Jackson/Hornsby swung like Ruth, and even they kept it much more level. So, the L. refused to adjust, and by refusing, 'gifted' Ruth with his historic level of stat separation.

Now, I'm not saying we shouldn't be in awe of Babe Ruth. He did something unprecedented, and needs to receive his credit. But, the L. did not do what they could/should have done, and by such copping out, Babe ended up with a level of separation which would never have been remotely possible if he had played in an era when most everybody swung with authority. Didn't explain this well or succinctly, but I hope I got the idea out, however wretchedly.


Compare Ruth to #2 in slugging and Cobb to #2 in batting. Again, I was working on YOUR idea of league leaderships.

Also, the margin of a 150% relative slugging average and a 150% relative batting average give much more plus value to the 150% relative slugging%.

You bat 150% and you produce about 65 more hits than par. You Slug 150% and you produce about 100 more total bases.I happen to agree with all you wrote here. We agree. Slg. trumps BA. Always did, even when they hadn't heard of it. Which is why I like to use Rel. Slg. so often.

[ChrisLDuncan]

Well in all fairness to Chris, he's not the only one to completely disregard people's opinions...Bill James and others do that aswell.

[Wade8813]

But here's the point. When Ruth came along and swung huge, the L. just couldn't believe he was for real. All kept waiting for the pitcher's to start getting his number. They had been brought up to think Ruth's swing was all wrong. Only J.Jackson/Hornsby swung like Ruth, and even they kept it much more level. So, the L. refused to adjust, and by refusing, 'gifted' Ruth with his historic level of stat separation. Bill - couldn't the exact same prevailing opinion of that era that allowed Babe to dominate like no other in SLG also be a major reason why so many experts of the time favored Cobb?

[EvanAparra]

OK guys, can we get back to what this thread is all about? I mean I love the Cobb/Ruth debate as well, but that's not what this thread is about. Yes?

[Bill Burgess]

Well in all fairness to Chris, he's not the only one to completely disregard people's opinions...Bill James and others do that as well.
Untrue. Bill James gives 1000% more credibility to past opinions than Chris ever has. And has written extensively concerning that as well.

[Bill Burgess]

Bill - couldn't the exact same prevailing opinion of that era that allowed Babe to dominate like no other in SLG also be a major reason why so many experts of the time favored Cobb?
What do you think, Wade? Fear not. I will not attack.

[milladrive]

FORGIVE PETE ROSE ALLREADY!!!!

You stole my response to the thread's question.

:atthepc

[ChrisLDuncan]

Untrue. Bill James gives 1000% more credibility to past opinions than Chris ever has. And has written extensively concerning that as well.

I appologize, like I've said I have only read his book briefly at Borders (I am a cheap ******* yes I know this), but you're right Bill (and fair might I add); sometimes we as fans don't know things and can not recogonize things that men who have played in the majors and succeded can. Stats show alot yes that is true and they are important, but there are somethings that you have to see with your eyes. My favorite example is "The Flip" (I'm a homer yes I know) in the stat sheet that just shows up as an assist for Jeter, but it was so much more than that had he not done that the A's clintch the ALDS. You just had do see it. I guess the reason why I thought that James disregarded players' opinions, was because of his essay on clutch hitting. He talks about how Reggie Jackson says at these moments it takes "character, fortitute, guts" to perform, which anyone who has ever been underpressure knows that it is just much more than skill...it takes something extra, whereas James just believes either you can play or you can't. Before hand I just thought that James was a Cubs fan and has never really seen a clutch performance go his way ;)

[brett]

So some conjecture here

1) Cobb might have hit for a better average if he had been more willing to swing big. Look, he could put the ball in play with 2 strikes, so if he had decided to swing for the fences in the first pitch or two, he could have spread out the field a lot more, and gotten a few automatic hits, and saved his legs, and then at least after 1 strike, he could have gone into a defense mode. Don't you think that Hornsby's swinging for power actually brought his average up because he could go anywhere, shallow or deep? (anyway, I just don't get it. He was the smartest player ever, but he wouldn'tdo the one thing that could have made him clearly the greatest which was to strategically utilize power to spread the field).

2) Ruth was a deadball pitcher and a live ball hitter. Any truth to this? If so, he was able to get the maximum pitching advantage during the dead ball period, and then the maximum hitting advantage from the live ball.

It seems true that a power hitter would never have been able to separate themselves from the rest of the league, in the deadball era, by trying to hit home-runs. Too many would have become easy outs.

but

3) How do you think Ruth would have hit (and pitched) if there was no live ball? My guess is, he would have hit around .315 and 18-25 home runs a years, maybe getting to 30 for a record in one season. He still would have been relatively very valuable because the dead ball offense would have been around.

Lets say we stayed dead ball, and Ruth put up a yearly line like this:

BA---AB--H--2B-3B-HR-Slg-BB-OB%-RBI-R
.315 550 173 45 10 20 .542 80 .400 100 85

So just a fun game here, what would a .542 slugging% and .400 On base% mean if he had averaged that for the 15 years before the live ball?

I've got leage OPS hanging around the .650s for that period. He would have about a 1.6 relative slugging and a 1.25 relative on base, and a 185 OPS+ if he could have put up those numbers.

I think it is pretty clear that Cobb at 167 versus Ruth at 185 favors Cobb, so if Ruth had stayed in a dead ball game, I so think he could have been considered a better hitter, with power, but I don't think he would have ever been considered the greatest player. Not to mention that Cobb's would have been higher had the league stayed dead ball, and that he did it a lot longer.

Still, I prefer the live ball game because it required pitchers to throw their good stuff to everyone-which is another reason to think that Cobb's relative percentages were not really helped by the poor league quality, because I am sure that many of the less dangerous hitters got some easy singles in less critical situations.

I DO think Cobb would have been better if he had stolen a few less bases, and had a higher success rate, but on the other hand, in a lower scoring environment, you have to think that steals and CS have more strategic considerations-steal in a close game-steal with 2 outs. A guy could steal 65% in a deadball game, but due to strategic conditions have been very valuable in so doing.

A guy who steals 65% in today's game is largely killing his teams chances of scoring.

If Cobb had given a HINT that he was willing to adapt to a changing game-like Heilman did by the way, it would go a long way. People could see that he might have been able to do it all in a live ball era. On the other hand, he would have been modelling himself after Ruth. Do you think that's why he wouldn't give in?

4) Lastly, don't you think that Cobb stayed on top of the all time polls largely because he was viewed as the prototype and Ruth the antetype?




But, the L. did not do what they could/should have done, and by such copping out, Babe ended up with a level of separation which would never have been remotely possible if he had played in an era when most everybody swung with authority. Didn't explain this well or succinctly, but I hope I got the idea out, however wretchedly.

[Bill Burgess]

So some conjecture here

1) Cobb might have hit for a better average if he had been more willing to swing big.
No, no, no. I think he did the right thing up to 1919, and then should have had the mental adaptability to include a power swing much more often. If Hornsby could morph, Cobb had no excuse not to attempt his own transition.

Look, he could put the ball in play with 2 strikes, so if he had decided to swing for the fences in the first pitch or two, he could have spread out the field a lot more, and gotten a few automatic hits, and saved his legs, and then at least after 1 strike, he could have gone into a defense mode. Don't you think that Hornsby's swinging for power actually brought his average up because he could go anywhere, shallow or deep? (anyway, I just don't get it. He was the smartest player ever, but he wouldn'tdo the one thing that could have made him clearly the greatest which was to strategically utilize power to spread the field).
He was the smartest, by far, but he was also the most stubborn. Sometimes, geniuses are warped by their ego into working against their own best interests. Some geniuses are ego-driven jerks.

2) Ruth was a deadball pitcher and a live ball hitter. Any truth to this? If so, he was able to get the maximum pitching advantage during the dead ball period, and then the maximum hitting advantage from the live ball.
Babe was never a real deadball hitter. He was a modern hitter who happened to play in the deadball era for a few years. Same with Joe Jackson.

It seems true that a power hitter would never have been able to separate themselves from the rest of the league, in the deadball era, by trying to hit home-runs. Too many would have become easy outs.
From the articles on Hornsby/Cobb I showed, it was pointed out that Cobb hit a lot of long outs in Navin Field's 370 foot RF.

but

3) How do you think Ruth would have hit (and pitched) if there was no live ball? My guess is, he would have hit around .315 and 18-25 home runs a years, maybe getting to 30 for a record in one season. He still would have been relatively very valuable because the dead ball offense would have been around.

Lets say we stayed dead ball, and Ruth put up a yearly line like this:

BA---AB--H--2B-3B-HR-Slg-BB-OB%-RBI-R
.315 550 173 45 10 20 .542 80 .400 100 85

So just a fun game here, what would a .542 slugging% and .400 On base% mean if he had averaged that for the 15 years before the live ball?

I've got leage OPS hanging around the .650s for that period. He would have about a 1.6 relative slugging and a 1.25 relative on base, and a 185 OPS+ if he could have put up those numbers.

I think it is pretty clear that Cobb at 167 versus Ruth at 185 favors Cobb, so if Ruth had stayed in a dead ball game, I so think he could have been considered a better hitter, with power, but I don't think he would have ever been considered the greatest player. Not to mention that Cobb's would have been higher had the league stayed dead ball, and that he did it a lot longer.

Still, I prefer the live ball game because it required pitchers to throw their good stuff to everyone-which is another reason to think that Cobb's relative percentages were not really helped by the poor league quality, because I am sure that many of the less dangerous hitters got some easy singles in less critical situations.

I DO think Cobb would have been better if he had stolen a few less bases, and had a higher success rate, but on the other hand, in a lower scoring environment, you have to think that steals and CS have more strategic considerations-steal in a close game-steal with 2 outs. A guy could steal 65% in a deadball game, but due to strategic conditions have been very valuable in so doing.

A guy who steals 65% in today's game is largely killing his teams chances of scoring.

If Cobb had given a HINT that he was willing to adapt to a changing game-like Heilman did by the way, it would go a long way. People could see that he might have been able to do it all in a live ball era. On the other hand, he would have been modelling himself after Ruth. Do you think that's why he wouldn't give in?

4) Lastly, don't you think that Cobb stayed on top of the all time polls largely because he was viewed as the prototype and Ruth the antetype?

Here are some numbers for Babe in deadball. (courtesy Dave Kent, former member)

In 1915 Ruth had 4 HR in 103 PA, the league leader had 6 in 439 PA.
In 1916 Ruth had 3 HR in 150 PA, the league leader had 12 in 617 PA.
In 1917 Ruth had 2 HR in 142 PA, the league leader had 9 in 668 PA.
In 1918 Ruth had 11 HR in 380 PA - tied for the league lead. Tilly Walker who also had 11 HR needed 466 PA to reach the same total.
In 1919 Ruth led the league with 29 HR almost tripling the totals of George Sisler, Tilly Walker and Home Run Baker.

In every year that he was in Boston, Ruth was the league leader in HR or had a better ratio than the league leader. This in a park in which it was very difficult to hit HRs. (end of Dave Kent's work here.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------Babe Ruth's Deadball Hitting Record
--------G----PA----HRs--HR/PA----BB--BB/PA--SO--SO/PA--BA--SLG
1915---42---103----4----25.75-----9--11.44---23---4.47--.315--.576
1916---67---150----3----25.00----10--15.0----23---6.52--.272--.419
1917---52---142----2----71.00----12--11.83---18---7.88--.325--.472
1918---95---380---11----34.54----57---6.66---58---6.55--.300--.555

Babe Ruth Live Ball Hitting
1919--130---542---29----18.68---101---5.36---58---9.34--.322--.657
1920--142---616---54----11.40---148---4.16---80---7.70--.376--.847
1921--152---693---59----11.74---144---4.81---81---8.55--.378--.846
----------------------------------------


If the ball hadn't been enlivened, I think it might have been entirely possible for the Babe to hit 35 HRs per season, and been the only one doing it more than 15 times a season.

Here is what I base that on. In 1918, Babe hit 11 HRs with the old ball, but they were all at away parks. Not a single one at home in Fenway.

He hit those 11 HRs in 172 ABs. That's a HR every 15.63 ABs. Give Babe 550 ABs and we get 35 HRs! So that is why I say that Babe would have been real "out there" even with the old ball. If Fenway hadn't had that stupid monstrosity in its right-center OF perimeter, Babe would have probably hit another 11 homers at home in 1918, giving him 22 for the year.
----------------------------------------------
Furthermore, something few notice about the Babe in 1919.

We all know he hit 29 homers. What few take note of is that only 9 came at Fenway Park, due to part of it's RF fence extending all the way to 550 feet! All the other 20 came on the road.

Examined a little more, we find out that those 20 homers, on the road, in 1919 came from only 232 at-bats. So, from those few numbers, we can easily project that if The Babe had had a full season, playing at any other neutral ballpark, with that same ratio of 20 homers/232 at-bats, 1 homer every 8.62 at-bats, we come up with 47.41 homers, if he had 550 at-bats.

In simple words, if Babe had played outside Fenway Park in 1919, he would have hit 47 homers. We know this because he hit 20 homers in only 232 at-bats on the road.

Babe: 47 HRs: 1919. Enjoy.

[CTaka]

Depends. Ty's dominance cuts across all categories and includes various aspects. Babe's dominance is concentrated in several power stats - HRs, Slg. Ave., walks, OPS+.




I wouldn't say Ty's dominance cut across "all" categories. As a power hitter, he clearly didn't dominate to Ruth's level. Defenisvely, he was not dominant. Cobb was good; Speaker would have been dominant. He was dominant in different categories than Ruth. But overall, I don't see any player as dominant relative tohis peers as Ruth.

[CTaka]

Hmmm...what abo ut a guy named JIM BROWN, he not only was the biggest guy on the field but the fastest too. He was a true man amongst boys. Retired with his grace intact and an ability to dominate for a few more years.

Brown was a man among boys when it came to running backs, but he was clearly not the fastest player of his day. Bob Hayes was faster, and Homer Jones was reported to be about as fast as Hayes if they were to race in full football gear and carry the pigskin. Ollie Matson, a bronze medalist in the 1952 Olympics, may have had a step on Brown also. Brown had terrific speed, particuarly for a big man, in his day, but I wouldn't say that he was at the same speed level as Olympians like Matson or Hayes. I'd say that Brown was the greatest combination of size and speed at the time he played.

[ChrisLDuncan]

Brown was a man among boys when it came to running backs, but he was clearly not the fastest player of his day. Bob Hayes was faster, and Homer Jones was reported to be about as fast as Hayes if they were to race in full football gear and carry the pigskin. Ollie Matson, a bronze medalist in the 1952 Olympics, may have had a step on Brown also. Brown had terrific speed, particuarly for a big man, in his day, but I wouldn't say that he was at the same speed level as Olympians like Matson or Hayes. I'd say that Brown was the greatest combination of size and speed at the time he played.

Well that was the line of guys who were on the field with him, the thing is though he was bigger than most of the D-Linemen though too!

[CTaka]

Well that was the line of guys who were on the field with him, the thing is though he was bigger than most of the D-Linemen though too!

I wouldn't get too carried away here. Brown was bigger than many linebackers, but at 232 pounds you think he was bigger than D-Linemen?? Karras was 255, Bob Lilly was 260, Merlin Olson was 270, Rosey Grier pushed 300, etc. I'd say those D-linemen were bigger.

Sorry to hijack to football. Now back to your regularly scheduled programming: Babe Ruth was the most dominant relative to his peers, Jimmy Collins was the best defensive 3B of all time (yes, over Brooks in my opinion) and ...... Go Bresnahan!!

[Bill Burgess]

I wouldn't say Ty's dominance cut across "all" categories. As a power hitter, he clearly didn't dominate to Ruth's level. Defenisvely, he was not dominant. Cobb was good; Speaker would have been dominant. He was dominant in different categories than Ruth. But overall, I don't see any player as dominant relative to his peers as Ruth.
I was with you until the last sentence. But would you agree that no one could go as deep in deadball? Would Babe have dominated as deeply if his career started in 1905? Be honest. And wouldn't Cobb have had a much better shot at dominance with a better ball to swing at, instead of the stupid darkened flutterballs he was forced to swing at?

[538280]

Chris,
You are just so funny. You say the weirdest things. How strange. First off, we're not discussing 'types'. We're discussing Ty/Babe. So, please have the discipline to stay on point. You like to veer off into your favorite tangents. And with respect to Ty/Babe, I don't know too many others who could articulate the principle better than Miller Huggins, who managed Babe and understood the value of walking. So, please listen to Miller and try to absorb his wisdom into your bones. That would serve you well.

The types happen to represent Ty/Babe.


Miller Huggins (Babe Ruth's manager, 1920-29)
Yankees' manager, 1918-29
NL 2B, 1904-16
Cardinals' manager, 1913-17
-------------
1920 - "Miller Huggins, boss of the Yanks and a smart baseball man, was discussing Ruth with the writer (Harry Salsinger) a few days ago. "There isn't any doubt that Ruth is the greatest drawing card of all time," said Huggins. "He pulls them in. He makes the turnstiles click. Cobb, admittedly the greatest player of the game, never was a drawing card to compare with Ruth. Have you figured out why? You know the American sport-loving public likes the fellow who carries the wallop. It is so in golf, in boxing, and in various other sports. It would naturally be that way in baseball. The fellow who can pound the ball is always the fellow that will win the hearts of the bleachers. He gets their affections. Cobb, brilliant as he is, appeals to only a portion of baseball followers. Cobb is the idol of the students of baseball, but all those interested in the game are not students; most of them miss the fine points, the inner dope. Cobb cannot be fully appreciated unless you are a student of baseball. If you have made a close study of the game, Cobb is a marvel to you and there is no one near him. There is but one Cobb. But Ruth appeals to everybody. No matter how much of a novice at baseball a man may be, he will appreciate Ruth, for Ruth busts that ball and as I remarked they like the fellow who busts them. So, while Cobb appealed to only a few, comparatively, who could fully understand and appreciate his finesse, Ruth appeals to everybody. They all flock to see him." (The Sporting News, August 12, 1920, pp. 3, column 5) (Above conversation occurred between Huggins & Detroit sports editor Harry Salsinger when Yankees visited Detroit in August, 1920 for series with the Tigers.)

This, Bill, basically shows exactly what I said. The baseball "expert", a person such as Huggins, will tend to be more impressed by the guy who can do everything impressively, a guy like Cobb. To a guy like that he will appear the better player because he does all the "fundementals", he fields well, he runs fast. I would agree if you said casual fans, the kind that Ruth was such a drawing card towards, tend to be more impressed by dominating specialists who have one unbelieveable strength. But that is the same with managers, executives, coaches, etc. I think those types tend to very much overrate the value in being a complete ballplayer. The complete ballplayer, because he does so many more things well, will be a lot more visually appealing to them than the one dimensional slugger.


Many of Babe's fans were new to baseball. How capable were they of discerning finesse? The deepest fans, like Sisler, Collins, Huggins, were all in awe of TC because of his out thinking them, but it required a ballplayer to see the inside game. But don't worry, Chris. You will learn these things in the future. You have a lot of time to absorb these subtleties and nuances of the game. I don't judge you.

I realize, in this case, that the professionals were wrong and that real statistical analysis can easily prove them so.

[Bill Burgess]

Some of us are talking historical baseball, and others are talking football, hockey. Strangely weird.

[538280]

I was with you until the last sentence. But would you agree that no one could go as deep in deadball? Would Babe have dominated as deeply if his career started in 1905? Be honest. And wouldn't Cobb have had a much better shot at dominance with a better ball to swing at, instead of the stupid darkened flutterballs he was forced to swing at?

He would have a much worse shot at dominance with liveballs, when baserunning was a much less important part of the game and you needed more power. Not to say Cobb couldn't hit for power, he could hit for some, but I strongly believe that much of his "power" in the deadball era is from doubles and triples which are driven by speed and baserunning skill. I think the deadball game was the game in which was best suited to Cobb and that he would have dominated the most.

[538280]

And why shouldn't a casual fan be properly impressed with a, say 2B or 3B who hits .350? Sounds alright to me.

A .280 SS who is just decent at everything? Sounds like a journeyman to me.

If a 2Bman hits .350 chances are he's a great player. If a corner OF hits .350 it is not as clear. If that corner OF is bad defensively, doesn't walk, and doesn't have much power then he is a worse player than the .280 SS who is decent at everything (the perfect example of a non-specialist). Yet casual fans would never give the SS that recogniton because he has nothing with which his skills are easily recognizable. This is a bias which casual fans have, overrating of specialists. But professionals like managers and such IMO tend to have the opposite bias, against specialists, especially those of the slugging variety.


Since you believe that people's opinions have no value, and you continually do all you can to discredit it, maybe you should find a place to post where others agree with you. This is not that place. We have been more than patient with you. Time's up, Chris.

So what are you saying, that I am no longer allowed to voice my opinion here? I will continue to say what I think. If you disagree with it, okay. Please do not tell me to not post here anymore because you disagree with one of my opinions.

[Bill Burgess]

This, Bill, basically shows exactly what I said. The baseball "expert", a person such as Huggins, will tend to be more impressed by the guy who can do everything impressively, a guy like Cobb. To a guy like that he will appear the better player because he does all the "fundamentals", he fields well, he runs fast. I would agree if you said casual fans, the kind that Ruth was such a drawing card towards, tend to be more impressed by dominating specialists who have one unbelievable strength. But that is the same with managers, executives, coaches, etc. I think those types tend to very much overrate the value in being a complete ballplayer. The complete ballplayer, because he does so many more things well, will be a lot more visually appealing to them than the one dimensional slugger.
Do you realize you just undermined your argument for Joe Morgan. There you hump for the 'complete' player, in TC's case, you hump for the slugger/walker.

You suit your case for the moment. If you want to undermine Cobb's case due to his completeness (as if that were not a good thing), then why do you cast yourself as Miller Huggins and laud Joe Morgan for his D, running, intangibles? Seems you're contradicting your approach. So which is it? Is completeness, roundedness a good thing or something to be chiseled, minimized, and put down. You're the first fan I've spoken with who thinks roundedness is something to be minimized. I think you need to rethink your debate strategies.

[Bill Burgess]

He would have a much worse shot at dominance with liveballs, when baserunning was a much less important part of the game and you needed more power. Not to say Cobb couldn't hit for power, he could hit for some, but I strongly believe that much of his "power" in the deadball era is from doubles and triples which are driven by speed and baserunning skill. I think the deadball game was the game in which was best suited to Cobb and that he would have dominated the most.
No, I disagree. I think Cobb would have been similar to Hornsby, your favorite player. I think Cobb, Wagner, Hornsby were the best comination. I refer to that type as a 'composite' hitter. Not a true slugger, but enough power, in conjunction with their leg power, to be the perfect hitter. Ruth was also that type in 1923-24.

[Bill Burgess]

So what are you saying, that I am no longer allowed to voice my opinion here? I will continue to say what I think. If you disagree with it, okay. Please do not tell me to not post here anymore because you disagree with one of my opinions.
Of course not. We do not censure here. I am only telling you you might be happier talking to those whose opinions you do not despise.

I, csh1979-2001, Imapotato, Captain Cold Nose, Double X have all been fed up for a long time with you telling the other members that the best minds of history had no real opinions of value to offer.

If you think that, what are you doing here? This is our home. The only spot on the internet where we can get great historical conversations among our own, and in comes YOU, to insult our values, and spit on our long-held opinions. If you don't value our values, opinions, maybe you'd be happier on SABR, or a stat site.

I'm not authorized to censure anyone. Just wondering why you've come to our home and piss all over the carpet. I don't think you realize just how insulting you are being when you spew that crap. And you wonder why so many fight with you harshly. You really do insult us.

[W_Marone]

Joe Jackson should be in he HOF.

[ChrisLDuncan]

I wouldn't get too carried away here. Brown was bigger than many linebackers, but at 232 pounds you think he was bigger than D-Linemen?? Karras was 255, Bob Lilly was 260, Merlin Olson was 270, Rosey Grier pushed 300, etc. I'd say those D-linemen were bigger.

Sorry to hijack to football. Now back to your regularly scheduled programming: Babe Ruth was the most dominant relative to his peers, Jimmy Collins was the best defensive 3B of all time (yes, over Brooks in my opinion) and ...... Go Bresnahan!!

Well bigger as in more muscle, also PM me if you want to talk football ;) Back to baseball, some people think that Cobb would have been better suited to play RF, but I would still give the edge to Ruth with his massive OPS, and overall dominance of the game in terms of hitting and his years as a pitcher

[538280]

Do you realize you just undermined your argument for Joe Morgan. There you hump for the 'complete' player, in TC's case, you hump for the slugger/walker.

You suit your case for the moment. If you want to undermine Cobb's case due to his completeness (as if that were not a good thing), then why do you cast yourself as Miller Huggins and laud Joe Morgan for his D, running, intangibles? Seems you're contradicting your approach. So which is it? Is completeness, roundedness a good thing or something to be chiseled, minimized, and put down. You're the first fan I've spoken with who thinks roundedness is something to be minimized. I think you need to rethink your debate strategies.

I do not "hump" for the complete player with Joe Morgan. I "hump" for a statistical analysis of Joe Morgan's value to his teams. His being well rounded, being a good fielder and baserunner, helps him, but he could easily be just as high if he was a specialist. Value is value.

Roundedness is not something to be minimized, it's just that there's no inherent value in being well rounded, value is value no matter where it is coming from, whether it is coming all from a player's hitting or from a variety of places, it all means the same thing and is contributing towards the same goal-winning the game.

[AlecBoy006]

Wow- Bill is upset. I've always seen Bill as a mild mannered guy, but he really is upset.


Bill, while I can respect your choice and it is a reasonable one of Ty Cobb being the best. Ruth is more famous than Cobb is, and while Ty Cobb was the hit king for a while, Babe Ruth was the same way to homeruns. Ruth led his team to more titles, and Ruth and Gehrig were just killers. While I cannot name anyone from the Tigers during Cobb's days other than Cobb himself. But I must wonder- who had the better image? Ruth was a drinker and a womanizer, but Ty Cobb was a very cold man, too.

What I came to post here is that I feel Eddie Murray is fairly underrated. 500 homeruns and 3000 hits. I don't see many threads about him.

[538280]

Of course not. We do not censure here. I am only telling you you might be happier talking to those whose opinions you do not despise.

I, csh1979-2001, Imapotato, Captain Cold Nose, Double X have all been fed up for a long time with you telling the other members that the best minds of history had no real opinions of value to offer.

If you think that, what are you doing here? This is our home. The only spot on the internet where we can get great historical conversations among our own, and in comes YOU, to insult our values, and spit on our long-held opinions. If you don't value our values, opinions, maybe you'd be happier on SABR, or a stat site.

I'm not authorized to censure anyone. Just wondering why you've come to our home and pissed all over the carpet. I don't think you realize just how insulting you are being when you spew that crap. And you wonder why so many fight with you harshly. You really do insult us.

This not your site, it is no more your site than it is mine. This is a place for different people to share their views on baseball. You cannot say you disagree with me on the importance of peer opinion and thus I should leave here. No, I would not have more fun somewhere else where everyone agrees with me, there is nothing to have fun with if everyone agrees with me on everything. I will continue to think what I think and post that here.

I don't have to value the same things you do or anyone else does here. You also don't have to value the same things that I do. This post is insulting to me. You're basically asking me to leave because you and a number of other members disagree with me. I guess since I disagree with you you should leave as well.

Read this quote over again, Bill:


If you think that, what are you doing here? This is our home. The only spot on the internet where we can get great historical conversations among our own, and in comes YOU, to insult our values, and spit on our long-held opinions. If you don't value our values, opinions, maybe you'd be happier on SABR, or a stat site.

When you say things like that it makes me wonder how you could possibly be a mod on this forum. Here I am, having done nothing but disagree with you, and you say I am insulting your values and spitting on your long held opinions. All I'm doing is disagreeing with you-that is not grounds to throw anyone off the forum. Furthermore, this is not your site, it is not csh's site, it is not Potato's site, it is not XX's site. Here I come in? I've been here for about a year and a half. You make it sound as if I just showed up a week ago. You comments are totally uncalled for. I can say whatever I want to say, as long as it is appropriate and relates to baseball. I have done nothing wrong on this thread.


I'm not authorized to censure anyone. Just wondering why you've come to our home and pissed all over the carpet. I don't think you realize just how insulting you are being when you spew that crap. And you wonder why so many fight with you harshly. You really do insult us.

So I'm insulting because I have a different method of evaluating baseball players than you do? I'm not the one insulting here, you are. What if I called your values insulting towards me and nothing but spewed crap? It would be the exact same thing you are doing now.

[EvanAparra]

Of course not. We do not censure here. I am only telling you you might be happier talking to those whose opinions you do not despise.

I, csh1979-2001, Imapotato, Captain Cold Nose, Double X have all been fed up for a long time with you telling the other members that the best minds of history had no real opinions of value to offer.

If you think that, what are you doing here? This is our home. The only spot on the internet where we can get great historical conversations among our own, and in comes YOU, to insult our values, and spit on our long-held opinions. If you don't value our values, opinions, maybe you'd be happier on SABR, or a stat site.

I'm not authorized to censure anyone. Just wondering why you've come to our home and pissed all over the carpet. I don't think you realize just how insulting you are being when you spew that crap. And you wonder why so many fight with you harshly. You really do insult us.

I really have to disagree with you here, Bill. Chris and I have done nothing but disagree with each other since the day I got here, but I don't think he should have to leave or post elsewhere. You don't have the authority to tell him to leave or anything of the sort, especially when all he's done is disagree with you, and has not broken any site rules.

I absolutely dispise his opinions, and could do without reading them, just as i'm sure many think about me. But they aren't telling me to leave and I don't think you should be doing the same to Chris. You telling him that he spews crap is out of line, even if it's your opinion. He contributes to this site, and maybe you don't like the way he does, but that doesn't matter. Don't tell him to leave, prove him wrong.

[538280]

I really have to disagree with you here, Bill. Chris and I have done nothing but disagree with each other since the day I got here, but I don't think he should have to leave or post elsewhere. You don't have the authority to tell him to leave or anything of the sort, especially when all he's done is disagree with you, and has not broken any site rules.

I absolutely dispise his opinions, and could do without reading them, just as i'm sure many think about me. But they aren't telling me to leave and I don't think you should be doing the same to Chris. You telling him that he spews crap is out of line, even if it's your opinion. He contributes to this site, and maybe you don't like the way he does, but that doesn't matter. Don't tell him to leave, prove him wrong.

Exactly, I think this may be the first time we've agreed, Evan. No one has grounds for telling anyone to leave the site because they disagree with each other. Bill has no more right to ask me to leave than I have right to ask him.

[ChrisLDuncan]

Can we get back to baseball, put the differences asside

[538280]

Can we get back to baseball, put the differences asside

That's exactly what I want to do.

[brett]

Look, Chris explores some avenues that would not get explored otherwise, and they contribute to our collective understanding. We need people to explore the statistical nature of the game. We need people to explore the concept of league quality, and defensive value. 20 years ago, no one looked at ballpark averages to my knowledge, at least not in a statistically valid way. When I first visited this site, I posted my player ranking based on a pretty simple approach of rating offense above the average player and in terms of its projected value to win games (I actually used league ERA way back then to estimate period differences). I mentioned that players from the dead ball, early live ball and modern periods (Cobb, Lajoie, Wagner, Ruth, Williams, Mays, Mantle, Bonds) all suprising came out lumped together at the top of career offensive value when I did that, and that to my suprise, Joe Morgan did too, and that Jimmie Foxx was suprisingly low.

Chris responded by mentioning that his analysis showed similar findings. There was a degree of resonance when we tried to analyze stats, rather than just look and try to feel for what they meant, but the stats can not tell the whole story. They CAN however suggest that Morgan is generally underrated and that Foxx is generally overrated.

There is value in different points of view.


Of course not. We do not censure here. I am only telling you you might be happier talking to those whose opinions you do not despise.

I, csh1979-2001, Imapotato, Captain Cold Nose, Double X have all been fed up for a long time with you telling the other members that the best minds of history had no real opinions of value to offer.

If you think that, what are you doing here? This is our home. The only spot on the internet where we can get great historical conversations among our own, and in comes YOU, to insult our values, and spit on our long-held opinions. If you don't value our values, opinions, maybe you'd be happier on SABR, or a stat site.

I'm not authorized to censure anyone. Just wondering why you've come to our home and pissed all over the carpet. I don't think you realize just how insulting you are being when you spew that crap. And you wonder why so many fight with you harshly. You really do insult us.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Actually, Ruth used plenty of 'illegal substances' considering Prohibition ran for about 14 years in this country during Babe's reign of supremacy on the diamonds. Now, whether or not alcohol was beneficial or not is another argument ;)

Actually the amendment does not state that it is illegal to CONSUME alcohol. Only to distribute and produce it. ;)

[ChrisLDuncan]

That's exactly what I want to do.

Well I mean everyone may be out of line here, if we can just tone down the rhetoric, and not call people's opinion's or methods "useless" or "meaningless" I think we'd be better off. Also if we can watch out for Logical Fallacies, and improve our logic in general:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Causal_fallacies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Logic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Latin_logical_phrases

My favorite kind of logic: mathmaticial ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof

I think we'd be better off

[ChrisLDuncan]

Actually the amendment does not state that it is illegal to CONSUME alcohol. Only to distribute and produce it. ;)

Well that was the second worse constitutional amendment ever

[Sultan_1895-1948]

By better distributed, I was referring to leading in more categories.



Of course he will lead in more categories with the style of game he played. That makes sense. We're talking domination here. Doesn't matter how many categories you lead in, what matters is how much you led in them. Cobbs high BA were not unusual in that sense.

[AlecBoy006]

Baseball is more than that, but what exactly does Joe Morgan lack in that other part of baseball? Joe Morgan was an extremely smart, heads up, team leader, liked by all his teammates, considered a great person and a great man by fans, teammates, managers, everyone. You rating Joe Morgan lower than statistical analysis suggests has nothing to do with those intangibles that don't show up in the statsitics-it has to do with your preconceived notions about "greatness" in statistics, such as a player has to have a high BA or else have a ton of HRs, thing like that. You are wrong.


Chris, Bill is right. You have been VERY disrespectful towards others opinions. I would know as I am one of them. And while Morgan MAY have been better, Gehringer is definitely top 10 amongst second baseman. And, while you can say "I respectfully disagree with your opinion." You say "You are wrong." I speak for others when I say that while you have a high knowledge in baseball, you do NOT have a high knowledge in being polite.

[hubkittel]

I'm not sure what you mean by "almost a distinction without a difference"

what i was getting at was if, like you said, i can't make alcohol or buy it then, regardless of whether the consumption of alcohol is illegal or not, i'm not going to be consuming much because it will be difficult to come by. the temperance movement would have acheived its goals, if the volstead act was enforced efficiently, not by outlawing consumption but by choking off the supply. the end result is the same-no drinking. so it's a distinction without a difference. it's like the fact that it's not illegal for 18 year olds to drink but it is illegal for them to buy alcohol. what's the result?

[Bill Burgess]

I really have to disagree with you here, Bill. Chris and I have done nothing but disagree with each other since the day I got here, but I don't think he should have to leave or post elsewhere. You don't have the authority to tell him to leave or anything of the sort, especially when all he's done is disagree with you, and has not broken any site rules.

I absolutely despise his opinions, and could do without reading them, just as I'm sure many think about me. But they aren't telling me to leave and I don't think you should be doing the same to Chris. You telling him that he spews crap is out of line, even if it's your opinion. He contributes to this site, and maybe you don't like the way he does, but that doesn't matter. Don't tell him to leave, prove him wrong.
I don't think you brothers realize what started this fight. Please allow me to put it starkly. I don't care if others disagree with Bill Burgess. This is not about me. And absolutely nothing to do with Cobb/Ruth. Young Chris tells us, on a regular basis, that the best minds of history cannot have value worth examining, except perhaps on defense or leadership.

That is an insult on a Forum devoted to the History of the Game. He doesn't merely limit himself to exploring which persons had a qualified opinion, which didn't. He doesn't care which sports writers were better or worse. He dumps them ALL in the dumpster with his juvenile opinions.

I have studied the sports writers in depth, and can articulate which had more value in their pronouncements. Does Chris care? Nope. So much for quality control.

I didn't order anyone to leave. I don't have that authority and don't want it. I simply invited Chris to leave. It takes some gall to come to the best place on line to discuss BB history, and then to announce the best minds of history have NOTHING to offer. That takes a hell of a lot of 13 yr. old chutzpah.

This Forum has a great deal of potential to bring forth great discussions, and many of our best minds have left us due to Chris' incessant, ubiquitous haranguing.

I am not out of line. Chris is doing the exact same thing as if I went to the Stats Forum, and followed them around, harassing them at every single turn, and insisting that stats had no place in a good analysis. That is what we are coping with. And that is absolute crap.

Many of our best and brightest left long ago. They used to open up amazing insights into great past situations. Such as what would have happened to the AL if the BS Scandal hadn't happened. They could not bear what has been going on here since Chris arrived.

So, I'm not saying, "Get out!" harshly. I'm saying, "Get your ignorance out of all of our faces, or find a place where you won't insult good members."

I'm pretty easy-going. I have had to defend him for a 1.5 yrs. via PMs.

If I were posting every 5th post that stats were irrelevant, you'd all get sick of it and ask me to stop. Ask me to get lost. So, how come a puppy gets to piss on the carpet and furniture and no one suggests puppy training. Why must a room of adults be terrorized by a young teen who thinks he's the smartest person in the room?

So, if a Mod finally cracks and must take the teen to the woodshed, I will defend the other members who have begged me to muzzle his more ignorant crap. I have been literally begged for a long time to quit Fever and join another site, where this crap is handled forthrightly.

I won't leave Fever. I won't abandon the rest of the great members, simply because a child is telling everyone every chance he gets that black players are better than white ones, modern players are better than early ones, or that the best minds of history were not worth listening to.

I don't mean to be mean to you, Chris, but when you insult so many deeply knowledgeable members because your own readings are so seriously remiss and lacking, I must defend the silent majority.

You good brothers have no concept at all of how many PMs I get to render them some relief from this walking Hurricane of arrogance.

I have held my piece for 1.5 yrs., seen my great friends leave here, and held my tongue. But when an easy-going good guy gets poked in the eyes too many times, sometimes the dam breaks. And I feel very agitated, upset right now. You guys have only partial facts. And that's probably a good thing.

Bill Burgess

[Brian McKenna]

Forgive Rose for what exactly:
1) betting on baseball?
2) betting on the Reds?
3) doing so while he was a manager?
4) perhaps game-fixing?

How can a manager bet on baseball and his own team and there not be a serious and overwhelming concern that game-fixing may have taken place?

How do we know it didn't? How do we know he didn't bet against the Reds? Or how do we know what was going on on the days he didn't bet at all?

How do we know? Rose's word??

[EvanAparra]

That is an insult on a Forum devoted to the History of the Game. He doesn't merely limit himself to exploring which persons had a qualified opinion, which didn't. He doesn't care which sports writers were better or worse. He dumps them ALL in the dumpster with his juvenile opinions.

I have agreed with you on this point before, Bill. If Chris is ONLY going to throw out metrics and nothing else, then that definately does not belong in the history forum.

I didn't set out to defend him, as i'm on neither side. Maybe those members who do not wish to see what Chris has to write would serve themselves to put Chris on their 'block' list.

[Bill Burgess]

Of course he will lead in more categories with the style of game he played. That makes sense. We're talking domination here. Doesn't matter how many categories you lead in, what matters is how much you led in them. Cobbs high BA were not unusual in that sense.
I made as many concessions as I was capable of, and not lie to myself. Wasn't it enough?

[hubkittel]

Some of us are talking historical baseball, and others are talking football, hockey. Strangely weird.

baseball, football, hockey, soccer, prohibition, another round of cobb vs ruth with some joe morgan throw in, tempers getting a bit short...strangely weird is right. throw in a little religion and politics and we might end up with fisticuffs.

[brett]

Well, I though you implied that Ruth broke the law by consuming alcohol, and it is entirely possible that he consumed mass quantities without ever breaking any law.


what i was getting at was if, like you said, i can't make alcohol or buy it then, regardless of whether the consumption of alcohol is illegal or not, i'm not going to be consuming much because it will be difficult to come by. the temperance movement would have acheived its goals, if the volstead act was enforced efficiently, not by outlawing consumption but by choking off the supply. the end result is the same-no drinking. so it's a distinction without a difference. it's like the fact that it's not illegal for 18 year olds to drink but it is illegal for them to buy alcohol. what's the result?

[Brian McKenna]

This controversy is just a glimpse of the future.

Wake up - there is a new wave of individuals who only look at the game through numbers and computer generated spreadsheets. The history of the game is essentially irrelevant to many.

It's a new video game - play on the computer, move some numbers around and whala you know all that is relevant. You know it all.

The root of the problem is the big concern about who is better, who is best, who is whatever. Like it really even matters. Do you think the true historians and researchers who pump out all this great info we suck up spend much time on that b.s.?

(Yeah, I know - if I don't like it, lump it.)

[Myankee4life]

baseball, football, hockey, soccer, prohibition, another round of cobb vs ruth with some joe morgan throw in, tempers getting a bit short...strangely weird is right. throw in a little religion and politics and we might end up with fisticuffs.

This thread has a little bit of everything. But seriously, some of you guys have to chill. Grab a cup of coffee and enjoy the show :coffee .

[Bill Burgess]

I have agreed with you on this point before, Bill. If Chris is ONLY going to throw out metrics and nothing else, then that definately does not belong in the history forum.

I didn't set out to defend him, as i'm on neither side. Maybe those members who do not wish to see what Chris has to write would serve themselves to put Chris on their 'block' list.
Ideally, I would like Chris to remain with us, and simply grow up and stop insulting the cherished values of others. Learn that honesty is sometimes the worst policy and diplomacy is the best policy. Regardless, I will defend the others more than before.

[Bill Burgess]

I apologize to the good brothers who had to endure a Burgess rant. But why should Chris get the discretion, and Imapotato, Cold Nose, csh, and DoubleX have to endure his insolence, arrogance, impudence and rudeness? They are good guys and shouldn't have had to stuff it, suppress it, eat it, and go around talking to themselves.

[csh19792001]

This controversy is just a glimpse of the future.

Wake up - there is a new wave of individuals who only look at the game through numbers and computer generated spreadsheets. The history of the game is essentially irrelevant to many.

It's a new video game - play on the computer, move some numbers around and whala you know all that is relevant. You know it all.

The root of the problem is the big concern about who is better, who is best, who is whatever. Like it really even matters. Do you think the true historians and researchers who pump out all this great info we suck up spend much time on that b.s.?

(Yeah, I know - if I don't like it, lump it.)

Wow. This one is for the records. This might be the best post in the history of Baseball Fever.

You said it all. 3 plus years worth of listening to this kind of garbage, and you've pretty well summed up the crux of the problem here.

We've got a history forum full of people who at heart only care about statistics and really don't give a ***t about baseball history. Then again, Bill said it pretty darn well in his original post when addressing Chris, though. Laid it right out on the table.

[brett]

But the new wave of stats has helped change the way current players are evaluated. For example, Bill James demonstrated pretty clearly that a pitchers innings, and runs allowed translate into value for a team, and that variations in W-L records actually have little impact on how a team benefits from a pitcher.

Teams look at on base percentage now, instead of just batting average, and they look at what they are getting from a certain position, versus the rest of the league.

Teams can field better "teams" if they look deeper into the stats than just BA/HR/RBI, though I am still convinced that chemistry is as important.


Wow. This one is for the records. This might be the best post in the history of Baseball Fever.

You said it all. 3 plus years worth of listening to this kind of garbage, and you've pretty well summed up the crux of the problem here.

We've got a history forum full of people who at heart only care about statistics and really don't give a ***t about baseball history. Then again, Bill said it pretty darn well in his original post when addressing Chris, though. Laid it right out on the table.

[Bill Burgess]

Let me make this clear. I do not criticize anyone for mastering stats. What I object to is for anyone to come to History Forum and insist that the best minds of History have NO value. That was the problem. Such members shouldn't be here.

Yes, bring your stats. But don't insult the others who value real baseball history. Think what you like, but if you insult us, we're gonna start insulting you back.

[hubkittel]

Well, I though you implied that Ruth broke the law by consuming alcohol, and it is entirely possible that he consumed mass quantities without ever breaking any law.

nah, i'm german and irish so i have no problems with the consumption of mass quantities. :D i know that if i was around during prohibition, i'd be looking for a nice speakeasy. but i honestly didn't know that the 18th amendment said nothing about the consumption of alcohol. you learn something new every day.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Seems you may have bit off more than you could chew on this one Bill. Cobb was dominant in his area. Ruth was dominant is his to a far greater degree though. Check out how many times .690 has been hit IN A SINGLE SEASON in the HISTORY OF THE GAME. No matter who has come and gone, what pitchers they faced, what parks they played in, the number is small. Not including "known" steroid users (a couple others on the list have questions imo) the number is twenty six, and two of those came in Coors field. Twenty six times in the history of this great game. That is dominance.

And when looking at relative numbers...I know you love to use that. Do you think its accurate to compare these all-time greats to the league average, or would it be better to draw the relative % from the top 50 or something? Just curious.

[Bill Burgess]

But the new wave of stats has helped change the way current players are evaluated. For example, Bill James demonstrated pretty clearly that a pitchers innings, and runs allowed translate into value for a team, and that variations in W-L records actually have little impact on how a team benefits from a pitcher.

Teams look at on base percentage now, instead of just batting average, and they look at what they are getting from a certain position, versus the rest of the league.

Teams can field better "teams" if they look deeper into the stats than just BA/HR/RBI, though I am still convinced that chemistry is as important.
No one is arrogant or stupid enough to criticize stats. We historical content advocates want stats to develop even more. I think Matt Souders is a stat genius, our own Bill James. Bill is a friend of mine, occasionally.

So, while we won't knock the numbers, please don't knock the opinions. They go together, hand in hand. Our two great streams of information. Ideally, they will support each other. See? Get it?

[Brian McKenna]

But the new wave of stats has helped change the way current players are evaluated. For example, Bill James demonstrated pretty clearly that a pitchers innings, and runs allowed translate into value for a team, and that variations in W-L records actually have little impact on how a team benefits from a pitcher.

Teams look at on base percentage now, instead of just batting average, and they look at what they are getting from a certain position, versus the rest of the league.

Teams can field better "teams" if they look deeper into the stats than just BA/HR/RBI, though I am still convinced that chemistry is as important.

You're right - can't argue with any of your points.

But I'll add that James spends a great deal of his time on the narrative, not just the numbers. He has a good insight into the game's history and into people themselves.

James will also be the first one to tell you that his statistical work can only take things so far. The game is played on the field not on paper of on a computer screen.

[csh19792001]

I don't think you brothers realize what started this fight. Please allow me to put it starkly. I don't care if others disagree with Bill Burgess. This is not about me. And absolutely nothing to do with Cobb/Ruth. Young Chris tells us, on a regular basis, that the best minds of history cannot have value worth examining, except perhaps on defense or leadership.

That is an insult on a Forum devoted to the History of the Game. He doesn't merely limit himself to exploring which persons had a qualified opinion, which didn't. He doesn't care which sports writers were better or worse. He dumps them ALL in the dumpster with his juvenile opinions.

I have studied the sports writers in depth, and can articulate which had more value in their pronouncements. Does Chris care? Nope. So much for quality control.

I didn't order anyone to leave. I don't have that authority and don't want it. I simply invited Chris to leave. It takes some gall to come to the best place on line to discuss BB history, and then to announce the best minds of history have NOTHING to offer. That takes a hell of a lot of 13 yr. old chutzpah.

This Forum has a great deal of potential to bring forth great discussions, and many of our best minds have left us due to Chris' incessant, ubiquitous haranguing.

I am not out of line. Chris is doing the exact same thing as if I went to the Stats Forum, and followed them around, harassing them at every single turn, and insisting that stats had no place in a good analysis. That is what we are coping with. And that is absolute crap.

Many of our best and brightest left long ago. They used to open up amazing insights into great past situations. Such as what would have happened to the AL if the BS Scandal hadn't happened. They could not bear what has been going on here since Chris arrived.

So, I'm not saying, "Get out!" harshly. I'm saying, "Get your ignorance out of all of our faces, or find a place where you won't insult good members."

I'm pretty easy-going. I have had to defend him for a 1.5 yrs. via PMs.

If I were posting every 5th post that stats were irrelevant, you'd all get sick of it and ask me to stop. Ask me to get lost. So, how come a puppy gets to piss on the carpet and furniture and no one suggests puppy training. Why must a room of adults be terrorized by a young teen who thinks he's the smartest person in the room?

So, if a Mod finally cracks and must take the teen to the woodshed, I will defend the other members who have begged me to muzzle his more ignorant crap. I have been literally begged for a long time to quit Fever and join another site, where this crap is handled forthrightly.

I won't leave Fever. I won't abandon the rest of the great members, simply because a child is telling everyone every chance they get that black players are better than white ones, modern players are better than early ones, or that the best minds of history were not worth listening to.

I don't mean to be mean to you, Chris, but when you insult so many deeply knowledgeable members because your own readings are so seriously remiss and lacking, I must defend the silent majority.

You good brothers have no concept at all of how many PMs I get to render them some relief from this walking Hurricane of arrogance.

I have held my piece for 1.5 yrs., seen my great friends leave here, and held my tongue. But when an easy-going good guy gets poked in the eyes too many times, sometimes the dam breaks. And I feel very agitated, upset right now. You guys have only partial facts. And that's probably a good thing.

Bill Burgess

This is the most forthwright post I've read on this forum in a long time. And completely accurate in your assessment and articulation of the problem.

Thank you so much for articulating what so many of us have been censored from saying here in the public venue for so long.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

i know that if i was around during prohibition, i'd be looking for a nice speakeasy.

Or you could be like the president back then, and have your own personal stash at home ;) It was a retarded law. Caused more harm than good.

One of my favorite Ruth stories involves him asking about one of his bootleggers on the road while making his order. The normal guy, Charlie I believe wasn't around. So Babe asked where he was, and the guy replied that he had a case of amnesia. Babe responded with something like, "he's got what?...Well send me a case of that too."

[JamesWest]

No one is arrogant or stupid enough to criticize stats. We historical content advocates want stats to develop even more. I think Matt Souders is a stat genius, our own Bill James. Bill is a friend of mine, occasionally.

So, while we won't knock the numbers, please don't knock the opinions. They go together, hand in hand. Our two great streams of information. Ideally, they will support each other. See? Get it?

Bill James's narratives can be pretty entertaining and informative. When he starts talking metrics, I start dozing off. I was interested in learning about them when I first read James (approx 20 years ago) and they meant nothing to me and still don't. I gave them a shot, but they didn't help me at all.

[JamesWest]

This thread is becoming utterly shocking to me. Real history in the history forum? Who woulda thunk it? There's a place talking baseball for the evaluation of numbers, but I don't think this is it. Having the attitude that decades of baseball analysis is useless, because it doesn't conform to a current mindset is ridiculously short-sighted in my opinion. I wouldn't trust everything I read in a 1922 issue of The Sporting News, but I think it would give me a better picture of what baseball was like then, rather than just looking at 1922 statistics.

[Bill Burgess]

Seems you may have bit off more than you could chew on this one Bill. Cobb was dominant in his area. Ruth was dominant is his to a far greater degree though. Check out how many times .690 has been hit IN A SINGLE SEASON in the HISTORY OF THE GAME. No matter who has come and gone, what pitchers they faced, what parks they played in, the number is small. Not including "known" steroid users (a couple others on the list have questions imo) the number is twenty six, and two of those came in Coors field. Twenty six times in the history of this great game. That is dominance.

And when looking at relative numbers...I know you love to use that. Do you think its accurate to compare these all-time greats to the league average, or would it be better to draw the relative % from the top 50 or something? Just curious.
Moi? Oh contraire, Monsieur Debonair. Did this once, but I don't mind doing it again. Anything for you, brother. Bet all the .690's were post 1920. Tells us something. Needed the new ball for that, Randy.

Dominance was easier in post 1920. Better ball allowed for deeper dominance. Unfair advantage. I have long believed that the live ball allowed better rel. slg. also.

Not sure the problem can be solved. Rel. stats are better, but not perfected 100%. Example. Was Greenberg a better slugger than Wagner? Greenberg's Rel. slg. average is 143.9. Wagner's 132.9. See the problem. Wags needed his HRs to remain competitive, and never got them. So his slg. appears punk.

Bill

[Brian McKenna]

I wouldn't trust everything I read in a 1922 issue of The Sporting News, but I think it would give me a better picture of what baseball was like then, rather than just looking at 1922 statistics.

Right Mr. Conrad - in fact from my reading of old newspaper accounts it is strikingly obvious to me that much of the current perspective on the past is essentially off base and tainted by years of accepted-beliefs and misconceptions. To categorize things in our mind, people will over time sort things as essentially white or black - however that completely misses all the shades of gray in between.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Moi? Oh contraire, Monsieur Debonair. Did this once, but I don't mind doing it again. Anything for you, brother. Bet all the .690's were post 1920. Tells us something. Needed the new ball for that, Randy.

Dominance was easier in post 1920. Better ball allowed for deeper dominance. Unfair advantage. I have long believed that the live ball allowed better rel. slg. also.

Not sure the problem can be solved. Rel. stats are better, but not perfected 100%. Example. Was Greenberg a better slugger than Wagner? Greenberg's Rel. slg. average is 143.9. Wagner's 132.9. See the problem. Wags needed his HRs to remain competitive, and never got them. So his slg. appears punk.

Bill

That's the point Bill. Taking him out of his time and giving all others in the history of the game a shot at it, and that's how many times it was accomplished. And that's his CAREER AVG. How can you not see that as dominance? How bout this one. How many times has someone posted a SINGLE SEASON OPS+ higher than Babe's CAREER 207+? Eighteen times by non-cheaters in the history of the game. Impressed yet?

Btw: Have you re-thought your "sun field" position? You should.

[JamesWest]

Right Mr. Conrad - in fact from my reading of old newspaper accounts it is strikingly obvious to me that much of the current perspective on the past is essentially off base and tainted by years of accepted-beliefs and misconceptions. To categorize things in our mind, people will over time sort things as essentially white or black - however that completely misses all the shades of gray in between.

Based on some research projects that I am working on, I totally agree with you. In the real world, how many things are black and white? Very, very few that I can think of. Reading political coverage from the 20s and 30s can be really eye opening.

[RuthMayBond]

No one is arrogant or stupid enough to criticize stats. Where have you been?

[Bill Burgess]

That's the point Bill. Taking him out of his time and giving all others in the history of the game a shot at it, and that's how many times it was accomplished. And that's his CAREER AVG. How can you not see that as dominance? How bout this one. How many times has someone posted a SINGLE SEASON OPS+ higher than Babe's CAREER 207+? Eighteen times by non-cheaters in the history of the game. Impressed yet?

Btw: Have you re-thought your "sun field" position? You should.
When did you get the impression that Babe Ruth didn't impress me, brother? Sheesh. Trust me. I AM impressed. Anyone who is not impressed by his play or his stats needs to be shot. Put against a wall and offered his last cigarette.

Sun Field? No yet. But you could do a service here. If you want to send that to the Rubbish Bin of History as a Babe Myth, please show me a list of which ballparks he played in the larger field, and you will have convinced me. See? I'm easy. Maybe too easy. But the research must be authoritative. Not a rush job. So please don't slop through it just to get it done. Take your time. Take a week and do it right.

Bill

[Bill Burgess]

Where have you been?
Normally, usually sitting in front of my computer, with the TV to the side, always on, in front of my window, with fan on, phone nearby, etc.

[ChrisLDuncan]

Forgive Rose for what exactly:
1) betting on baseball?
2) betting on the Reds?
3) doing so while he was a manager?
4) perhaps game-fixing?

How can a manager bet on baseball and his own team and there not be a serious and overwhelming concern that game-fixing may have taken place?

How do we know it didn't? How do we know he didn't bet against the Reds? Or how do we know what was going on on the days he didn't bet at all?

How do we know? Rose's word??

Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Any one but Rose maybe
Because he's Charlie Hussle, plays so very very hard
I am an accepting person so yes

[Brian McKenna]

Yeah - I grew up in the '70s - loved Rose and O.J. Simpson - then I grew up and the innocence was lost.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

When did you get the impression that Babe Ruth didn't impress me, brother? Sheesh. Trust me. I AM impressed. Anyone who is not impressed by his play or his stats needs to be shot. Put against a wall and offered his last cigarette.

Sun Field? No yet. But you could do a service here. If you want to send that to the Rubbish Bin of History as a Babe Myth, please show me a list of which ballparks he played in the larger field, and you will have convinced me. See? I'm easy. Maybe too easy. But the research must be authoritative. Not a rush job. So please don't slop through it just to get it done. Take your time. Take a week and do it right.

Bill

So when a reporter asks Ben Chapman, fellow outfielder about Babe, and he mentions on his own about disagreeing about playing the sun field....what do you think of that? When he plays left in Sportsmans what do you think of that? Its a myth Bill. And anti-Ruth people searching for something to swallow do just that. Plain and simple. A myth like the called shot (as Hollywood portrays), holding Huggins off a train, hitting a homer through the pitchers legs, hitting inside the park homers on pop-ups to the infield, it goes on and on. The project you are requestion cannot be done. You'd need the starting times of games and the weather on each particular day. If it was overcast Babe might choose to play in the other field. It was up to him. Like it or not, he called the shots. Didn't want to get banged up against the Polo Grounds walls on opening day of '20 so with the centerfielder out, he requested to play center and did. He wouldn't read for fear of his eyes going bad. He knew how important they were to his hitting. Not hard to understand why he didn't want to stare up at the sun if he didn't have to. Do I like that aspect of his career. No. But it is what it is.