DiMaggio or Williams? [Archive]

qual101

04-26-2002, 11:43 PM

I just finished skimming thru "The New Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract", and so I now I have a vague understanding of his Win Shares system for rating player value (= contribution to WINNING GAMES thru hitting, fielding and/or pitching). Offensive contribution is judged mainly by "runs created", and each player's contribution to runs created is measured mainly by (OBA)*(TB). Win Share totals also include contributions as a fielder.

A truly GREAT player will have some seasons with 30 or more Win Shares. Some Hall of Famers will have a season with 40 or more WS, but most fall short even in their best seasons.

TED WILLIAMS was the youngest left fielder ever to earn 30 Win Shares (32 in 1939, when he had 145 RBI at age 20); and Ted was the OLDEST left fielder to score 30 WS when he hit .388 at age 38. In between, he missed 30 WS only in those seasons when he was injured, or when he was in military service. Ted had 30 or more Win Shares in TEN different seasons -- 40 or more in five of those seasons -- and he finished his career with 555 WS (39.2 per 162 games played). Only Babe Ruth (RF) has a higher Win Share average per 162 games. Bill James ranks Williams as the #1 left fielder of all time.

JOE DIMAGGIO played from 1936 thru 1951 (essentially a contempory of Ted Williams). In his career DiMaggio had SIX seasons with 30 Win Shares or more, but only ONCE did he reach 40. (Actually, 41 WS in his MVP year of 1941 -- when Williams had 42.) Joe ended his career with 387 Win Shares, or 36.1 per 162 games played. James ranks Joe as the #5 Center Fielder of all time (behind Willie Mays, Ty Cobb, Mickey Mantle and Tris Speaker).

So how did it happen that from his retirement until his death, JOE DiMAGGIO was widely proclaimed as our "GREATEST LIVING BALLPLAYER"? Is the Bill James Win Shares method that far off the mark?

bucsparrothead

04-27-2002, 01:12 AM

Joe DiMaggio was a golden boy from California who played for the NUMEROUS championship winning Yankees. He was a snappy dresser, had upper class mannerisms, married Marilyn Monroe, and just played without much controversy. I have no respect for him because of his stand on the integration of baseball, but as a ball player, you are right, he cannot compare to....

Ted Williams. The system is right, and the media would be wrong. Ted's problem is that he has that arrogant air, and he played for the ever-losing Red Sox. These two things kept him from getting the credit he deserved as 'Greatest Living Ballplayer'. I firmly believe that like politics, you have to play to the public and the Splendid Splinter didn't play.

From Wagner, Vaughan and Traynor to Clemente, Stargell, and Tekulve...a proud tradition of excellence and hard work known as the Pittsburgh Pirates.

BASEBALL_TRIVIA_NUT

04-27-2002, 10:13 AM

Joe ended his career the #5
>Center Fielder of all time (behind Willie Mays, Ty Cobb,
>Mickey Mantle and Tris Speaker).
>
>So how did it happen that from his retirement until his
>death, JOE DiMAGGIO was widely proclaimed as our "GREATEST
>LIVING BALLPLAYER"? Is the Bill James Win Shares method
>that far off the mark?

BASEBALL_TRIVIA_NUT

Bill's results are objective, while Joe's are subjective,
that's the reason for the disparity.

As you know, objective analyses, are impartial,
impersonal, and based upon facts and statistics,
while subjective analyses are based on the same
facts and statistics liberally doused with the "milk
of human kindness" syndrome!

So, in a conservative think tank poll, Reagan
will always be selected over Clinton as the greater
president, while, in a liberal think tank poll, Clinton
will slaughter Reagan every time - the objective
results of each presidency is doused with the feelings
of the voters and the subjective analyses produces
one winner in one venue and a different one in another!

The poll declaring Dimaggio the winner was a
subjective response from a select group of the media,
so, from that perspective, you can understand the
result - it was a subjective analysis, not an objective
one - if the poll had been conducted by Ken Keltner's
family in Ken Keltner's hometown, Ken might have won!

Remember elementary school and the hated
teacher's pet - you had the highest cumulative point
average, but you weren't the cutest kid in the class,
so, you know the rest of the story - in the eyes of the
subjective voters, Joe was the cutest and that's that!

Bottom line, if your family voted you ther greatest
baseball fan who ever lived, who's going to argue
with them?

Have a good one!

shlevine42

04-27-2002, 12:45 PM

>So how did it happen that from his retirement until his
>death, JOE DiMAGGIO was widely proclaimed as our "GREATEST
>LIVING BALLPLAYER"? Is the Bill James Win Shares method
>that far off the mark?

The story I heard is that it was DIMAGGIO HIMSELF who insisted that he would appear at Old Timers Games ONLY if he could take the field last and be introduced as the "GREATEST LIVING BALLPLAYER."

It was Joe's description of himself, and given what we now know about his obsession with his reputation,, it's a perfectly plausible story.

cubbieinexile

04-27-2002, 12:52 PM

» July 21, 1969: A gala All-Star Game banquet in Washington is one of baseball's great events. An all-time team and all-time living team is announced. Babe Ruth is selected Greatest All-Time Player, and Joe DiMaggio, Greatest Living Player.

This is according to BAseballlibrary.

LouGehrig

04-27-2002, 10:10 PM

Yes.

LouGehrig

04-27-2002, 10:15 PM

Please elaborate on DiMaggio’s stand on the integration of baseball. Thank you.

bluezebra

04-27-2002, 10:36 PM

Cobb played very little CF. Crawford was the CF when with Detroit. Cobb outhit DiMaggio, but was nowhere near the fielder DiMag was.

Between DiMaggio and Williams, I'd take Williams on his hitting, and durability. I'm 70 years old, and have seen thousands of games, and even more players. The "Thumper" is the greatest hitter I have ever seen, bar none. He hit under .300 only once, and that was in a shortened season. He hit .345, his first full season back from the Korean War. He hit .388 when he was 38-years-old. His last season he was 41, and he hit .316, with 29 homers, in 310 at bats. He was walked 2019 times, and struck out only 709. Incredible for a power hitter.

Bob

bucsparrothead

04-28-2002, 01:31 AM

I read somewhere that DiMaggio was on the phone with the commissioner when Jackie Robinson entered MLB, and he protested Robinson's entry into the league. I can't find the source right now, but if I can't then I have no proof...if I don't find it then I retract that last statement because I guess I was suckered into thinking he did. BUT I do know that people have two lives, public and private. Let me look around..

From Wagner, Vaughan and Traynor to Clemente, Stargell, and Tekulve...a proud tradition of excellence and hard work known as the Pittsburgh Pirates.

qual101

04-28-2002, 04:30 PM

[updated:LAST EDITED ON Apr-28-02 AT 03:53 PM (EDT)]As for strikeout ratios, both Williams and DiMaggio were outstanding -- especially when compared to today's power hitters. Ted Williams had 709 strikeouts in his career, which averages 2.85 walks per SO, and 9.2 strikeouts per 100 AB. Overall, Ted averaged 1.36 strikeouts per career homerun.

DiMaggio had 369 career strikeouts in his 6821 career AB, and had 790 walks. His averages then are 2.14 walks per strikeout, and 5.4 strikeouts per 100 AB. Thru his career Joe averaged 1.02 strikeouts for each of his career 361 homeruns. In fact, DiMaggio went five consecutive seasons with fewer strikeouts than homeruns: 1937-1941!

BASEBALL_TRIVIA_NUT

04-28-2002, 05:19 PM

>
>Between DiMaggio and Williams, I'd take Williams on his
>hitting, and durability. I'm 70 years old, and have seen
>thousands of games, and even more players.
>
>Bob

BASEBALL_TRIVIA_NUT

Guys and gals, let's find out from an expert eyewitness
who ranks as the 10 greatest hitters (notice I didn't say
players, I want hitters) and the the 10 greatest pitchers
he ever saw with his own two eyes - the eyewitness account
always speaks volumes and here we have an expert who has seen
the great ones play!

Hopefully I am not imposing, since baseball trivia analysis
is almost always a labor of love for the baseball trivia buff, so
would you be able to share your thoughts on the above when you
can.

I would think that all of us rarely get to hear from the
expert who has seen it all and has no political axe to grind
and will just tell us like it is!

So, again, if you would be so kind, let us know which hitters
you actually saw who were the ten best, and which pitchers?
And, to complete the pitcure, if you didn't get a chance to see
some star hitters or pitchers, let us know, so we'll know why they
did not make your list.

Thanks in advance!

ed reulbach

04-30-2002, 03:22 PM

I don't have the source, but I remember reading (possibly in 1970 Sporting News Baseball Guide?) that at the time of Mickey Mantle's retirement in March of 1969, DiMaggio reportedly said something like: "They ought to hang his number higher than mine because he was the greatest player I ever saw." Had his anointment as "Greatest Living Player" come four months before Mantle's retirement rather than after, I wonder if he would have been willing to sound so humble.

qual101

05-03-2002, 07:19 PM

[updated:LAST EDITED ON May-03-02 AT 06:25 PM (EDT)]> So, again, if you would be so kind, let us know which
>hitters
> you actually saw who were the ten best, and which
>pitchers?
> And, to complete the pitcure, if you didn't get a chance
>to see
> some star hitters or pitchers, let us know, so we'll know
>why they
> did not make your list.
>

My "best hitters" list:
1. Ted Williams
2. Mickey Mantle
3 Harmon Killebrew
4. Rod Carew
5. Joe DiMaggio
6. Dave Parker
7. Tony Oliva
8. Mike Schmidt
9. Larry Doby
10. Vern Stephens

For pitchers:
1. Bob Feller
2. Billy Pierce
3. Steve Carlton
4. Jack Morris
5. Bob Lemon
6. Vic Raschi
7. Vida Blue
8. Jack Morris
9. Frank Viola
10. Jim Kaat

Except for a few years in Pittsburgh (1975-78) my live game witnessing was limited to the American League. So I really did not see in person the great NL hitters like Musial, Mays, Foster or Aaron in person; or NL pitchers like Bob Gibson, Tom Seaver and Nolan Ryan.
Most of the games I remember from the 50's were White Sox against Yankees, Red Sox or Indians; in later years it was Pirates against the Phillies, and then Twins against Detroit.

The main point for this post is I did see a number of White Sox games from 1947-1956 against Yankees or Red Sox. In those games Williams did far more damage than DiMaggio. Each Williams AB was exciting!

DoubleX

08-23-2004, 04:57 PM

I think this has long been one of the great questions of baseball, who was better, Ted Williams or Joe DiMaggio?

Looking at statistics, it's plain to see that Williams had a much longer career and was a phenomenal hitter right through his very last at-bat. As a hitter, he also had a much higher peak than DiMaggio. I think it's fair to say that while DiMaggio was a great hitter, Williams was a historic hitter.

But, as with all things baseball, there is more than meets the eye. First, while Williams' offensive statistics benefited from the dimensions of Fenway, DiMaggio's were hindered by the huge and cavernous dimensions of old Yankee Stadium (can you imagine how high DiMaggio's average could have been as a right-handed hitter able to pepper balls off Fenway every day?). Given park adjustments, they're probably much closer as hitters than statistics say, though Williams was still likely the superior batsmen.

But, of course, there is still more. DiMaggio was clearly the superior all around player. He approached all aspects of the game as Williams approached hitting - with a drive for perfection. DiMaggio's teams won, Williams' teams (like many Red Sox teams) were often bridesmaids but never the bride. DiMaggio did often have a better supporting cast (though Williams was on some pretty good Sox teams), but my perception of DiMaggio is he played more to win while Williams played more to be the best - and that's why I believe DiMaggio excelled more in all aspects of the game, while Williams had the higher offensive statistics.

Additionally, DiMaggio appears to have been regarded more highly by the generation that remembers them both in their prime. The fact that in 1969 DiMaggio was voted greatest living ballplayer by a consensus of people who could very easily remember both players in their primes speaks volumes about who was perceived to be the better player and tells us a great deal more than simple stats on paper could ever tell.

Now I can see easily picking Williams if we consider whole careers. But if we just consider the period at which these guys were at their best, then I don't think the answer is so clear.

improbus

08-23-2004, 05:04 PM

baclightning

08-23-2004, 07:53 PM

Probably no other great hitter was hurt by his home park as much as Joe DiMaggio was. He hit .315 with 148 home runs in Yankee Stadium, but .333 with 213 home runs on the road. The split of home runs is quite amazing - no other player with 300 or more career homers hit as high a percentage on the road.

Ted Williams also hit more homers on the road than at home - 273 on the road, 248 at home - but his average was much higher at Fenway, .361 to .328. And yes, if you're being observant, that mean DiMaggio actually outhit Williams on the road, .333 to .328.

Having said that, and acknowledging that DiMaggio was the better fielder and baserunner, I'd still take Williams, because his hitting was so exceptional, park effects or not. Williams' career OBP of .482 is one of the most mind-boggling stats in baseball (and dwarfs DiMaggio's .398) and Williams' career SLP is also far better, .634 to .579.

Williams was also probably a better presence in the clubhouse. Yes, he had spats with the press, but was friendly with teammates at the park (although he didn't socialise with many away from the park), and would always talk hitting with any player who wanted to. DiMaggio, on the other hand, was aloof and disliked by many teammates.

csh19792001

08-23-2004, 10:34 PM

If I had to have one of the two on my team, give me DiMaggio any day. The only part of the game where Williams was superior was putting the head of the bat on the ball, yet Joe D. was no slouch there either. It's like making an argument between Manny and Ichiro, sure, Manny's numbers generally look sexier, but Ichiro does everything you could ever ask of a ballplayer.

Yeah, Manny is a truly great hitter, but he's a lazy, selfish waste who slips and/or misplays half the balls hit to him in LF. You can put on number on how much he helps his team hitting, but you can't put a number on how much he hurts the Sox with his generally awful fielidng. Herein lies on of the problems of stats. There are team players and guys who play for themselves and their own stats. Dimaggio and Ichiro are great examples of the former, Manny and Rickey Henderson are two great examples of the latter.

I'll also take Dimaggio in a heartbeat. His statistics weren't better, but he was a better baseball player- and everyone knew it when they actually played.

DaleC76

08-24-2004, 02:42 AM

csh19792001

08-26-2004, 04:14 PM

Appling,
What year were you born?

To answer your question, Yankee stadium is typically poor for batting average, but good for power numbers (mainly for lefties that are pull hitters). When death valley was 467, it was bad for EVERYTHING offensively for righties. As leecemark (I believe) justly pointed out, OPS+ is very decieving, especially in the old days, when parks had bizarre dimensions and were typically quite different for righties vs. lefties. The park adjustment does NOT take this into account, and hence guys like Dimaggio get somewhat routed.

We can intuit from this data (splits) that Gehrig and Ruth were not really pull hitters, and certainly not dead pull hitters, like Mel Ott. And it's nice that contemporary observations agree with the statistical evidence, for a change.

People always rumored the Dimag/Williams trade, and supposed what their numbers would have been. In fact, I believe there is a book out that largely concerns the trade issue and what would have happened. To be sure, both would have looked much better offensively when all was said and done.
http://www.baseballlibrary.com/baseballlibrary/features/matchups/dimaggio-mantle.stm

Captain Cold Nose

08-26-2004, 04:29 PM

BTW: I know the Joe DiMaggio is the only Yankee RH hitter ever to hit 40 homerun in a season. But: has any Red Sox LH hitter (other than Williams) ever hit 40 homeruns in a season?

I have to check for other players, but I know Carl Yastrzemski had at least three.

Appling

08-26-2004, 04:35 PM

http://www.baseballlibrary.com/baseballlibrary/features/matchups/dimaggio-mantle.stm
I tried to respond to your earlier post, but then that disappeared.
I was born in 1935, and saw my early MLB games at old Comiskey Park.

Some of you in BF say that Yankee Stadium was a pitcher's park, especially tough on RH hitters. It should be nothing compared with Old Comiskey -- the "World's Most Perfect" ballpark. That park was perfectly symmetrical -- 352 down the foul lines and something like 440 in center field.

Gus Zernial had the White Sox record when he hit 29 in 1950. NOt exactly a dream park for homerun hitters. Tougher park IMO than Yankee Stadium.

ElHalo

08-26-2004, 05:10 PM

I tried to respond to you earlier post, but then that disappeared.
I was born in 1935, and saw my early MLB games at old Comiskey Park.

Some of you here say that Yankee Stadium was a pitcher's park, especially tough on RH hitters. It should be nothing compared with Old Comiskey -- the "World's Most Perfect" ballpark. That park was perfectly symmetrical -- 352 down the foul lines and something like 440 in center field.

Gus Zernial had the White Sox record when he hit 29 in 1950. NOt exactly a dream park for homerun hitters. Tougher park IMO than Yankee Stadium.

Yankee Stadium's always had really short foul lines... and really long everything else. For most of its history, these were the dimensions:

LF foul pole: 301
Left side of left field bullpen gate (about 30 feet, laterally, from the foul line: 402
Right side of bullpen gate: 415
Left center: 490 (dropped to 457 in 1937)
Center Field: 487 (dropped to 461 in 1937)
Right center: 429 (dropped to 407 in 1937)
Left side of right field bullpen gate: 367
Right side of right field bullpen gate: 344
RF foul pole: 295

So yeah, Yankee stadium had short foul poles... but it swung away from there VERY quickly. The fences today are a whole lot closer in than this in left field... the place where, today, monument park is and the walkway that leads there from the left field spiralling ramp up to the upper deck all used to be in play.

ElHalo

08-26-2004, 05:20 PM

BTW: I know the Joe DiMaggio is the only Yankee RH hitter ever to hit 40 homerun in a season. But: has any Red Sox LH hitter (other than Williams) ever hit 40 homeruns in a season?

Yaz, Mo Vaughn, soon to be David Ortiz...

Appling

08-26-2004, 05:21 PM

ElHalo

08-26-2004, 05:29 PM

What's amazing about Yankee Stadium is that DiMaggio is the only RH hitter ever to reach 40 HR in a season -- while so many LH hitters have done the deed.

Does anyone here have stats by ballpark (just AL is fine with me) -- to compare best HR season for RH and best for LH hitter, by team?

Well, not too many LH hitters... as I recall, it's the Babe, Lou Gehrig, Roger Maris, Reggie Jackson, Jason Giambi, Tino Martinez... and, I think that's it.

csh19792001

08-26-2004, 06:07 PM

Yankee Stadium's always had really short foul lines... and really long everything else. For most of its history, these were the dimensions:

LF foul pole: 301
Left side of left field bullpen gate (about 30 feet, laterally, from the foul line: 402
Right side of bullpen gate: 415
Left center: 490 (dropped to 457 in 1937)
Center Field: 487 (dropped to 461 in 1937)
Right center: 429 (dropped to 407 in 1937)
Left side of right field bullpen gate: 367
Right side of right field bullpen gate: 344
RF foul pole: 295

So yeah, Yankee stadium had short foul poles... but it swung away from there VERY quickly. The fences today are a whole lot closer in than this in left field... the place where, today, monument park is and the walkway that leads there from the left field spiralling ramp up to the upper deck all used to be in play.

Halo- excellent points on the dimensions. That black wall that the Florida player hit the HR over in the series last year was the old CF wall. Why, in an era when guys are so much bigger and stronger, and the ball so much more lively, are people moving the fences IN, and making the parks MUCH SMALLER!! CMON!!! They're expanding all the great golf courses by hundreds of yards (so the record books aren't made a mockery of), but then they build SMALLER baseball stadiums?

The old dimensions of Yankee Stadium above seem perfect for the average player now (which, btw, is 6'1", 200 lbs, with an uppercut swing). Triples and inside the park homeruns are VASTLY more exciting than seeing guy after guy hit it over short fences (like LF in Houston), and then trot around the bases uncontested. That's boring, and that's baseball right now. CF in Houston and deep right center in FLA (and parts of Comerica) are gotten closer to where things should be.

Appling- I think, despite the dimensions of the old Yankee Stadium, Comiskey was probably worse for hrs/avg overall. Someone could figure this out; I'm just running on heuristics right now. Were your elders interested in baseball? Did they get to see all the greatest old timers play by any chance???

Appling

08-26-2004, 07:46 PM

Well, not too many LH hitters... as I recall, it's the Babe, Lou Gehrig, Roger Maris, Reggie Jackson, Jason Giambi, Tino Martinez... and, I think that's it.
That would be six players (and 20+ seasons?) for just the Yankees alone. Not counting Mantle, of course. Other than the Yankees, does any AL team have more than two hitters with 40+ HR from the left side in a season?

How unusual is Joe D's feat -- to be the only player in his franchise history to hit 40+ HR from the right side?
Is Ted W the only Red Sox player to hit 40+ homeruns from the left side?

west coast orange and black

08-26-2004, 10:35 PM

after thinkin' about this for two-and-a-half days i gotta go with ted williams on the strength of the longer career... and a a flipped coin.

(one of my prized possessions is a beautifully-framed, sepia-toned photo signed by both the yankee clipper and teddy ballgame received as a gift. it's truly phenomenal... and authenticated by one of the foremost experts.)

ElHalo

08-26-2004, 11:57 PM

That would be six players (and 20+ seasons?) for just the Yankees alone. Not counting Mantle, of course. Other than the Yankees, does any AL team have more than two hitters with 40+ HR from the left side in a season?

How unusual is Joe D's feat -- to be the only player in his franchise history to hit 40+ HR from the right side?
Is Ted W the only Red Sox player to hit 40+ homeruns from the left side?

For leties, the Red Sox have had Ted Williams, Mo Vaughn, Carl Yastremski, and soon to be David Ortiz.

Appling

08-29-2004, 09:35 PM

If you look at the top ten hitters in batting average modern times, post 1900 with a minimum of 8000 PA you will see that 7 out of that 10 are LF hitters... There is a much larger pool of RH hitters but a smaller number make the top 10 simply because they face more RH pitchers, disadvantage for RH hitters.

I agree that LHH have advantage since most pitchers are RH. However, this is not their only advantage. A LH hitter should also get more infield hits because he is already headed towards first when he finishes his swing. I remember something about Mickey Mantle, that he got to first in 3.1 seconds batting LH but more like 3.5 seconds batting RH. (I wonder how time to reach 1B compared for Williams LH versus DiMaggio RH?)

SHOELESSJOE3

08-30-2004, 07:20 PM

. Why, in an era when guys are so much bigger and stronger, and the ball so much more lively, are people moving the fences IN, and making the parks MUCH SMALLER!! CMON!!! They're expanding all the great golf courses by hundreds of yards (so the record books aren't made a mockery of), but then they build SMALLER baseball stadiums?

Not sure how to take your post, the words above. I'm a bit confused are those words and the meaning of them a bit sarcastic. Do you doubt that parks of today are smaller, in particular the power alleys and 40+ feet shorter on average in CF.
We can debate many parts of the game but when it comes to math, there is no debate. Example, we know the mound is 5 inches lower than it once was. We know parks are smaller because it's simple math, fixed numbers.
We can look that up, compare the old to the new,
If I am reading your post incorrectly, my apology, let me know. It appears by your words and your point on the size increase in some golf courses that you doubt they would be making the parks smaller today.

csh19792001

08-31-2004, 12:29 AM

Not sure how to take your post, the words above. I'm a bit confused are those words and the meaning of them a bit sarcastic. Do you doubt that parks of today are smaller, in particular the power alleys and 40+ feet shorter on average in CF.
We can debate many parts of the game but when it comes to math, there is no debate. Example, we know the mound is 5 inches lower than it once was. We know parks are smaller because it's simple math, fixed numbers.
We can look that up, compare the old to the new,
If I am reading your post incorrectly, my apology, let me know. It appears by your words and your point on the size increase in some golf courses that you doubt they would be making the parks smaller today.

I think you did misread it, but intonation doesn't come across through text, so it isn't anyone's fault. I might have been unclear, but I don't see how sarcasm came into the picture. My point is that parks should be constructed much LARGER these days, given that players are much bigger and stronger. The old Yankee Stadium dimensions sound GREAT for today's players, especially considering how cheap homeruns are these days. Similar to how golf course architects are continuing to make courses longer so as to increase the challenge/merit of the courses, and so as to not make a mockery of the record book (to ensure it still has at least some validity).

Instead, they are making BANDBOX parks, compared to the old days, when guys were much smaller and the equipment not nearly as conduscive to hitting homers. So I see the whole thing as being silly, as if MLB is doing EVERYTHING in their power to ensure that this era of homerun baseball not only continues, but escalates!! Even Bill James expresses something close to disgust, in his latest historical abstract, about this era of excessive homeruns.

Just like in golf, the equipment, training, nutrition, and a host of other factors are vastly superior in quality, conspiring to create power, yet MLB is going the other direction. It would be as if Pete Dye and Jack Nicklaus built a dozen new popular courses during the 90's all about 6000 yards in length. (How many parks were built since 1990, and how do they compare to the parks built from 1900-50?) Seems silly to me.

I believe it was either fourtool, julesnc, or some other true historian who actually went back and looked at all the park dimensions from the old days, and then contrasted it to the 30 parks in play now. Does anyone here remember this? I think it was the old "short porch" thread. Overall, I remember, the parks were much larger- slightely shorter lines, but much, much farther power alleys and much deeper to center.

SHOELESSJOE3

08-31-2004, 05:21 AM

I think you did misread it, but intonation doesn't come across through text, so it isn't anyone's fault. I might have been unclear, but I don't see how sarcasm came into the picture.

I did not think there was any sarcasm in the points you were making. I did think you were being sarcastic with the poster you were replying to by your words. I do understand there was no sarcasm and we both seem to be on the same page, todays parks smaller than those of old.

SHOELESSJOE3

08-31-2004, 05:47 AM

So I see the whole thing as being silly, as if MLB is doing EVERYTHING in their power to ensure that this era of homerun baseball not only continues, but escalates!!

I believe it was either fourtool, julesnc, or some other true historian who actually went back and looked at all the park dimensions from the old days, and then contrasted it to the 30 parks in play now. Does anyone here remember this? I think it was the old "short porch" thread. Overall, I remember, the parks were much larger- slightely shorter lines, but much, much farther power alleys and much deeper to center.

On the issue of MLB and the home run derby that came about in the early 1990s. I agree the last thing Bud Selig and his gang want is for there to be any balance in the game. Home runs sell tickets and lets remember Bud Selig is not only the commissioner but he is also an owner. The commissioner does not want to hurt the owner or the other owners in the pocket book, keep those balls flying out of parks, like never before. A commissioner that is also an owner, talk about a conflict of interest. In the world of corporate business he would have to drop one of these positions.

Selig does nothing about the strike zone, lower than ever, hitters delight. He looks the other way on the issue of the ball. Lab tests on balls from the 1960s-70s-80s and 90s showed that only the 1990s ball was out of specs, contained an over the limit amount of synthetic material. The test wss conducted by Dennis Hilliard at the University of Rhode Island in 2001. Editors from Popular Science made repeated phone calls to Selig's office in 2001 to discuss the out of specs 1990s ball. To this day Selig has not returned any phone calls.

On that "short porch" issue and thread. I have posted on this board more than once the comparison of the older parks and todays parks. Parks in the early years, the teens, 1920s and 1930s were about the same with todays parks down the lines. The power alleys on average were about 15 feet deeper back then. Center field, big difference, older parks on average 40+ feet deeper. Some of those "tape measure" home runs we view to center field on ESPN nightly might have been extra base hits and maybe even long outs in older parks.
There is no doubt, hitters have never been more comfortable in the batters box, body armor for one thing, and that comic strike zone. The ball, tighter wind, lower seams and internal changes. Also the practice of issuing a warning to both teams too often when a batter is hit. This takes away the inside pitch for the rest of the game. Then we have the parks, smaller than ever, it's a hitters game when we speak of the longball, conditions have never been better.

DoubleX

07-31-2005, 12:52 PM

Joe DiMaggio actually won the 1941 AL MVP, but was Ted Williams more deserving? Here is some info about their respective seasons in 1941:

Highlight
DiMaggio: 56 game hit streak.
Williams: .406 batting average; last player to top .400 in a season.

Triple Crown Numbers (League Ranking in Parentheses)
DiMaggio: .357 (3rd), 30 (4th), 125 (1st)
Williams: .406 (1st), 37 (1st), 120 (4th)

OPS+
DiMaggio: +185
Williams: +235 (Simply Amazing!)

Runs Created
DiMaggio: 152 (2nd in league)
Williams: 184 (1st in league)

Other Factors
DiMaggio: Best player on the best team in baseball. DiMaggio's Yankees finished 17 games ahead of Williams' 2nd place Red Sox on their way to World Series victory.
DiMaggio (again): Power numbers depressed by Yankee Stadium.
DiMaggio (again): Better and more dazzling all-around player.
Williams: Incomparable hitting.
Williams (again): Power numbers slightly aided by Fenway.

Normally, I would say that Williams' offense was way too imrpessive to overlook, despite DiMaggio being the better all-around player. The great equalizer in this for DiMaggio (if there is one) is that DiMaggio's team did finish 17 games ahead of Williams' 2nd place Red Sox. So to me it's really tough to call. It's a question of performance vs. success. Williams performed better, DiMaggio's team had much more success.

Brock20

07-31-2005, 01:01 PM

I'm a huge fan of Teddy Ballgame, but I have to do w/ the Clipper on this one. Dimaggio was the second most productive offensive player in the league, his team coasted to the pennant, he was a much better defensive player at a more difficult position, AND he had the 56-game hit streak.

538280

07-31-2005, 01:09 PM

Ted Williams if you focus on 154 games, DiMaggio if you focus on 56 games. I prefer to focus on 154.

BoSox Rule

07-31-2005, 01:47 PM

Ted Williams: 13.6 WARP2, .419 EqA
Joe DiMaggio: 13.1 WARP, .365 EqA

JACKIE42

07-31-2005, 04:38 PM

Ted Williams if you focus on 162 games, DiMaggio if you focus on 56 games. I prefer to focus on 162.

Do your home work, my young friend in 1941, they played only 154 games.

flash143817

07-31-2005, 05:00 PM

Definitely Ted Williams. He was screwed out of MVPs numerous times.

How many guys can say they hit .400 and won the Triple Crown twice in 3 different seasons and didn't win the MVP in ANY of those seasons?

Simply ridiculous how vindictive sports writers were at the time. DiMaggio was just as much of an aloof a-hole at the time but because he was a Yankee, people ignored it. Trade teams for DiMaggio and Williams and Williams goes down in lore as being only 2nd to the Babe in discussions of best players ever. He is still the 2nd best hitter and arguably best to ever play.

The fact that the Yankees kept winning World Series' after DiMaggio retired would appear to show that it was the TEAM that was valuable and not necessarily DiMaggio.

538280

07-31-2005, 05:22 PM

Do your home work, my young friend in 1941, they played only 154 games.

All right, all right, 154. I'll edit the post. I'm sure everyone still gets my meaning, though.

Another reason why DiMaggio won the award is because sportswriter tend to be infatuated by RBIs. DiMaggio had more RBIs, but was behind in all important stats. RBI is probably the worst and most misleading stat around, and I have no idea why sportwriters put so much stock in it. I think the DiMaggio-Williams debate is a prime example of RBIs being overrated. If the sportswriters focused on SLG%, OBP, or RC (I know they didcn't have those except for SLG% in 1941, but they should have), it would have been a unanimous selection of Williams as better than DiMaggio, which is how it should have been.

JACKIE42

07-31-2005, 06:33 PM

All right, all right, 154. I'll edit the post. I'm sure everyone still gets my meaning, though.

Another reason why DiMaggio won the award is because sportswriter tend to be infatuated by RBIs. DiMaggio had more RBIs, but was behind in all important stats. RBI is probably the worst and most misleading stat around, and I have no idea why sport writers put so much stock in it. I think the DiMaggio-Williams debate is a prime example of RBIs being overrated. If the sportswriters focused on SLG%, OBP, or RC (I know they didn't have those except for SLG% in 1941, but they should have), it would have been a unanimous selection of Williams as better than DiMaggio, which is how it should have been.

The reason's Joe was MVP, in 1941 was because hitting .400, was not as big a deal as it would be now, it was only 11 years earlier that Bill Terry hit .400. The writers felt that 56 games was a bigger accomplishment, and the last reason was that the sports writers disliked Williams.

Blackout

07-31-2005, 07:01 PM

DoubleX

07-31-2005, 07:11 PM

The reason's Joe was MVP, in 1941 was because hitting .400, was not as big a deal as it would be now, it was only 11 years earlier that Bill Terry hit .400. The writers felt that 56 games was a bigger accomplishment, and the last reason was that the sports writers disliked Williams.

Excellent point Jackie. Fans of the day were probably more desensitized to .400 than we are. To them it probably just seemed like a drought, while to us it's a question of if it can ever be done again.

Anywho, no one thinks that the fact that DiMaggio's team finished 17 games ahead of Williams' team factors heavily into this?

64Cards

07-31-2005, 07:16 PM

It's a toss-up in my book.

How in the world can RBI's be the MOST misleading stat? I thought the purpose of hitters, especially those in the 3-6 slots, was to drive in the runners on base. Runs win games.

flash143817

07-31-2005, 07:22 PM

I don't think Ted's defense was poor enough to cost him 3 MVPs when he had Triple Crowns and hit .400.

The concept of the best player on the best team winning the MVP is well ingrained, but is it really fair? In many cases, those were just really good teams and the player wasn't necessarily the most valuable.

plask_stirlac

08-01-2005, 12:11 PM

56-game Hitting streak vs. .553 OBP
Both: great, stood until at least 2002 as records
Advantage OBP: Larger sample size, more scoring opportunities, no way to "luck" into it

Although for any occasional questionable hits given to Dimaggio, he had another good hitting streak from the 58th on.

Those msot misleading stat is Coors ERA, BTW. hehe

Blackout

08-01-2005, 01:35 PM

I don't think Ted's defense was poor enough to cost him 3 MVPs when he had Triple Crowns and hit .400.

but as an all-around player Dimaggio still blew Ted away

therealnod

08-01-2005, 01:58 PM

Here's Clay Davenport's take on this issue:

DiMaggio vs. Williams
It was statistically more difficult, but Williams was probably a more valuable hitter even over the same 56 games. It just wasn't spread as evenly as DiMaggio's.

Anyway, Ted Williams's 1941 season is very close to the best offensive season ever. He had a .420 equivalent average that year. Babe Ruth beat that in 1920, by hitting .423, and that's it (unless you want to pretend that the Union Association was a major league in 1884, and say Fred Dunlap hit .431). He had 157 equivalent runs, which is "only" 26th all-time; its only the second-best of his own career, since he'd come back in 1942 with 165. His batting was 10.9 wins to the Red Sox above what an average player would have generated in Fenway park, and that stands as the seventh best ever, behind four Babe Ruths, a Mickey Mantle, and a Lou Gehrig.

And yet...

I'm not sure DiMaggio didn't have the better year. He certainly did not hit as well as the Splinter, but with a .363 EQA, 139 EQR, and 8.0 WAA, he definitely outhit everyone else in the league (Joe's teammate, Charlie Keller, was a distant third in all three categories at .338, 120, 6.0). The issue is fielding.

The best measure I have on fielding right now, which looks at the overall team fielding statistics as well as individual totals, show that, prior to leaving for WWII, Joe was every bit as good a center fielder as the legends portray him, worth about 25 runs more than an average outfielder. The Yankees had terriffic overall defense, and that hurts DiMaggio and Phil Rizzuto in the Total baseball fielding runs. Ted's numbers, by contrast, are somewhere around -5, making for a 30 run difference between the two in the field.

30 runs is about three wins--compared to a 2.9 win advantage for Williams at the plate. That's why I have to say that the choice of DiMaggio for MVP in 1941 is in no way outrageous, as other analysts have written before. With the caveat that I have far more confidence in the batting numbers than in the fielding numbers, I rate it as essentially even; the freak numbers (56-game hitting streak vs .400 batting average) are essentially even from today's perspective, but the hitting streak was clearly seen as a bigger accomplishment then (no one knew that it would be the _last_ .400 batting average for 58 years and counting; and DiMaggio's team won the pennant.)

--Clay

JACKIE42

08-01-2005, 03:22 PM

but as an all-around player Dimaggio still blew Ted away

I was lucky enough to see both of them in their prime, and no body blew Ted Williams away, I'll take Ted over Joe every day of the week, and twice on Sunday.

Myankee4life

08-01-2005, 06:39 PM

I was lucky enough to see both of them in their prime, and no body blew Ted Williams away, I'll take Ted over Joe every day of the week, and twice on Sunday.

I respect your opinions but from what I hear was that Joe was a MUCH better fielder, faster runner and smarter baserunner.

Ted beats him in hitting but c'mon

Dimaggio blows Ted as an overall player

JACKIE42

08-01-2005, 07:42 PM

I respect your opinions but from what I hear was that Joe was a MUCH better fielder, faster runner and smarter baserunner.

Ted beats him in hitting but c'mon

Dimaggio blows Ted as an overall player

Over rated, over rated, and over rated..Saw them both and Ted was no bum on the bases, and a better fielder the given credit for. Di Maggio is one of the most over rated players in history, great player yes, but I can think of 10 guys I would rate over him.

rockin500

08-01-2005, 07:47 PM

sorry, but poor-decent fielding doesnt take away from one of the top two or three offensive players of all time.

and i will also go along with the fact that Joe was overrated.

SHOELESSJOE3

08-01-2005, 08:34 PM

Over rated, over rated, and over rated..Saw them both and Ted was no bum on the bases, and a better fielder the given credit for. Di Maggio is one of the most over rated players in history, great player yes, but I can think of 10 guys I would rate over him.

Your opinion Jackie. Playing in N.Y. and for the Yanks has two sides. You get more press and that leads many to believe you are overrated. How do we measure, draw the line where true merit ends and overrating begins, who will decide.

Again, your opinion. The only drawback to Joe was a short career.
Ted the better hitter, all around Joe was better. Great in the field, good arm, far better than average base runner, taking the extra base, thats base runner not base stealer and a great hitter, very difficult to strike out.

Thats not the N.Y. press, that the same view by those that played with him and opponents, including Ted Williams who said Joe was the best all around in his time.

SHOELESSJOE3

08-01-2005, 08:36 PM

I was lucky enough to see both of them in their prime, and no body blew Ted Williams away, I'll take Ted over Joe every day of the week, and twice on Sunday.
Jackie, the key word is "all around", not hitter all around.

westsidegrounds

08-01-2005, 09:15 PM

<...>
Simply ridiculous how vindictive sports writers were at the time. DiMaggio was just as much of an aloof a-hole at the time but because he was a Yankee, people ignored it. <...>

Well, aloof is one thing; and the press certainly earned it ... ever look at the Life magazine profile of Joe from 1939? "...Joe, now 24, speaks English without an accent, and is otherwise well adapted to most US mores. Instead of olive oil or smelly bear grease he keeps his hair slick with water. He never reeks of garlic ...." etc etc, in an article that includes every Italian stereotype and then some.

Ted's problem was that he tried to take on the press; instead of just shutting up like Dimag, he let them know what he thought of them. Totally understandable, but a no-win for him, cause they're the guys with the printing presses.

SHOELESSJOE3

08-01-2005, 09:33 PM

Let face the facts.

Joe played for the Yankees and that alone turns some posters stomachs.

Joe was distant, aloof and some mistook that for arrogance. Is it a crime to be aloof.

Some believe that Ted got screwed out of some MVP's and they went to Joe.
Well guess what, good case that Ted did get screwed I agree, but why dislike Joe for that, go to the writers.

In plain English some people have difficulty with sticking to the issue, the heart of the matter. They can't separate Joe the man from Joe the ballplayer and they resent the fact that he won some MVPs' that should have gone to Ted.

Leave out personalities and events that Joe had no control over, those MVP's and judge Joe only between the foul lines.

The bottom line when Joe put on the uniform and stepped out on the playing field, in those years he was as good an all around player in the game as there was.

Naliamegod

08-01-2005, 09:40 PM

How in the world can RBI's be the MOST misleading stat? I thought the purpose of hitters, especially those in the 3-6 slots, was to drive in the runners on base. Runs win games.

It's hard to score runs when noone is hitting infront of you..

Ted Williams

Blackout

08-01-2005, 09:42 PM

It's hard to score runs when noone is hitting infront of you..

Ted Williams

jimmy foxx and dom dimaggio are "noone"?

even johnny pesky is more than a noone

Naliamegod

08-01-2005, 09:47 PM

jimmy foxx and dom dimaggio are "noone"?

even johnny pesky is more than a noone

I didn't mean the Red Sox had noone, I'm just pointing out why RBIs can be misleading.

JACKIE42

08-02-2005, 06:37 AM

Jackie, the key word is "all around", not hitter all around.

No body blows Ted away, all around or any other way.

JACKIE42

08-02-2005, 06:42 AM

Your opinion Jackie. Playing in N.Y. and for the Yanks has two sides. You get more press and that leads many to believe you are overrated. How do we measure, draw the line where true merit ends and overrating begins, who will decide.

Again, your opinion. The only drawback to Joe was a short career.
Ted the better hitter, all around Joe was better. Great in the field, good arm, far better than average base runner, taking the extra base, thats base runner not base stealer and a great hitter, very difficult to strike out.

Thats not the N.Y. press, that the same view by those that played with him and opponents, including Ted Williams who said Joe was the best all around in his time.

When Ted said that about Joe, he was a mellow old man, 40 years earlier he would have said Ted Williams, and I agree.

DoubleX

08-02-2005, 07:49 AM

Ted actually had more Hall of Fame teammates in the batting order with him in 1941. And all put up good years. Here's a look at Williams' best teammates in 1941 and their triple crown statistics and OPS+ for that year:

Red Sox
Jimmie Foxx (Hall of Fame): .300, 19, 105, +139 (Firstbase)
Joe Cronin (Hall of Fame): .311, 16, 95, +138 (Shortstop)
Bobby Doerr (Hall of Fame): .282, 16, 93, +105 (Secondbase)
Dom DiMaggio (7-time All-Star): .283, 8, 58, (Centerfield)

I think it's plausible to say that when it came to the lineup, Williams was surrounded by a better supporting cast than DiMaggio in 1941. So the fact that DiMaggio's team finished 17 games ahead of Williams', says a great deal about DiMaggio's value to the Yankees, IMO (well that, and that the Yankees had better pitching :)).

sschirmer

08-02-2005, 10:08 AM

How many guys can say they hit .400 and won the Triple Crown twice in 3 different seasons and didn't win the MVP in ANY of those seasons?
.

Fantastic point, and one that I couldn't possibly agree with more. I have often made this point with my father when arguing Joe D. vs. Teddy Ballgame. The press hated him, thus he was screwed.

SHOELESSJOE3

08-02-2005, 02:12 PM

When Ted said that about Joe, he was a mellow old man, 40 years earlier he would have said Ted Williams, and I agree.

Thats something we will never know, why he said, what was in his mind when he said it.

I only tried to get one point across, Joe was a better all around player than Ted.

Ted was a better hitter than Joe, possibly the best ever, although I still go with Ruth, a close call.

Both statements are true, one a better hitter the other a better all around player.

If one were to say they would still pick Ted because his hitting makes up for Joe's edge in all around play, I have no problem with that.

Appling

08-02-2005, 02:40 PM

Anywho, no one thinks that the fact that DiMaggio's team finished 17 games ahead of Williams' team factors heavily into this?
If the vote was for "Player of the Year" it should be Williams, hands down.
But to many people, MVP really means "best player on the best team". I don't agree with that thinking but I understand it.

Yes, Joe was a great base-runner. One of the best ever, going from first to third. But he sure was not a great Base-STEALER! Only 4 SB for Joe in that 1941 season -- and only 30 in his entire career! (Ted had 24 career SB.)

Yes the 1941 Yankees finished with 101 wins, 17 games ahead of Boston. Boston scored more runs (865 vs 830 for New York) but they also surrendered more runs (750 Opponents Runs versus only 631 for the Yankees). Yanks had a team ERA of 3.53 vs. 4.19 for the Red Sox. I never understood why poor pitching was Teddy's fault!

But the 1941 MVP battle was close. Far more unfair to Williams was the 1942 MVP race, when Ted had a Triple Crown season and brought the Red Sox within 9 games of the pennant, but lost the MVP race to Joe Gordon.
IMO, Ted lost the 1942 MVP because his stats were not up the his own personal standard (set the year before).

SHOELESSJOE3

08-02-2005, 03:52 PM

Yes, Joe was a great base-runner. One of the best ever, going from first to third. But he sure was not a great Base-STEALER! Only 4 SB for Joe in that 1941 season -- and only 30 in his entire career! (Ted had 24 career SB.)

I don't recall anyone saying that Joe was a great base stealer. In fact in my post I pointed out that he was great base runner, different than a great base stealer.

For that matter even with that low total 30 stolen bases he was caught stealing 9 times. Ted had 24 stolen bases and was caught 17 times.

Honus Wagner Rules

08-02-2005, 04:26 PM

I was lucky enough to see both of them in their prime, and no body blew Ted Williams away, I'll take Ted over Joe every day of the week, and twice on Sunday.

Jackie42,

How old are you? :)

JACKIE42

08-03-2005, 07:07 AM

Jackie42,

How old are you? :)

73 years young.

JACKIE42

08-03-2005, 07:19 AM

Thats something we will never know, why he said, what was in his mind when he said it.

I only tried to get one point across, Joe was a better all around player than Ted.

Ted was a better hitter than Joe, possibly the best ever, although I still go with Ruth, a close call.

Both statements are true, one a better hitter the other a better all around player.

If one were to say they would still pick Ted because his hitting makes up for Joe's edge in all around play, I have no problem with that.

The thing that gets me annoyed, is when people imply that, Ted could hardly catch a ball, and needed help running the bases, but Joe on the other hand never missed a ball, and was the greatest base runner since Ty Cobb. Now I not talking about you, just some of the members. IMHO, Joe was way over rated, as a fielder, and base runner, and Ted, was under rated.If you listen to Joe's former team mates, you would think he was God, with a base ball glove, a great players, yes, but there are many others who were far greater.

zman

08-03-2005, 08:04 AM

73 years young.

And thanks to your grandson, 5 dollars richer. :rolleyes: But here's what I'd like to ask you. So much is made of the grace with which DiMaggio played the game. You were there. Did you think you were watching an especially graceful athlete or have sports writers made too much of this over the years.

Honus Wagner Rules

08-03-2005, 08:16 AM

wrong forum

zman

08-03-2005, 08:44 AM

wrong forum

I'll be happy to move my question to another forum but how is it inappropriate to a thread about Williams and DiMaggio?

JACKIE42

08-03-2005, 08:45 AM

And thanks to your grandson, 5 dollars richer. :rolleyes: But here's what I'd like to ask you. So much is made of the grace with which DiMaggio played the game. You were there. Did you think you were watching an especially graceful athlete or have sports writers made too much of this over the years.

This image, of Joe that has been created, by some sport writers and team mates, is selective memory, which happens with old people, and writers who want to make believe that no one playing the game in the last 50 years can compare to the old timers, and of cause thats nonsense. For what ever reason, and I don't have a clue why, when some people talk about DiMaggio as a player, you would think they were describing a religious experience, if God were a MLB player he would have been JoeD. I saw him play, not many times, but enough to form an opinion, he was an out standing ball player, but no body was as great as he thought he was or, Yogi, Phil, or some others say.Its the same with some Brooklyn Dodger fans, when they talk about, Jackie, Pee Wee, and the rest, they go way over board in their praise of them , Im sure Im as guilty as they're, but its normal, and there's nothing wrong with doing it.

zman

08-03-2005, 08:51 AM

This image, of Joe that has been created, by some sport writers and team mates, is selective memory, which happens with old people, and writers who want to make believe that no one playing the game in the last 50 years can compare to the old timers, and of cause thats nonsense. For what ever reason, and I don't have a clue why, when some people talk about DiMaggio as a player, you would think they were describing a religious experience, if God were a MLB player he would have been JoeD. I saw him play, not many times, but enough to form an opinion, he was an out standing ball player, but no body was as great as he thought he was or, Yogi, Phil, or some others say.Its the same with some Brooklyn Dodger fans, when they talk about, Jackie, Pee Wee, and the rest, they go way over board in their praise of them , Im sure Im as guilty as they're, but its normal, and there's nothing wrong with doing it.

Thanks for the reply. Yes, it sounds like a product of human nature the way we embellish the memories of our favorite of players. It might even serve some useful psychological/emotional purpose. As for DiMaggio's "grace" I've been meaning to ask you about that for a long time. It's not everyday I get to ask somebody who was actually there.

Appling

08-03-2005, 11:08 AM

JACKIE42

08-03-2005, 02:16 PM

I saw Joe DiMaggio in person maybe 8 or 10 times, all after WWII.

My memory of Joe in the field is that he was always smooth and graceful, never seemed to misjudge a ball, and had a great arm. But I don't remember Joe ever making a dive to catch a ball.

Joe made it all look easy -- unlike Willie Mays who made spectacular plays but sometimes those were necessary only because he didn't judge the flight perfectly off the bat. I suspect Mays made have had better range than DiMaggio but I don't know for sure. From what I heard about Tris Speaker, he was the best of all -- but I never saw Speaker play.

He also made 105 errors, and had a fielding pct. of .978, I guess he missed a couple of balls in his day. Mays did have better range then JoeD. But Im not saying DiMaggio wasn't a great ball player just that he was not the superman some would try to make us believe. Im also not old enough to have seen Tris Speaker, but my father thought he was great, for what thats worth.

zman

08-03-2005, 03:14 PM

I saw Joe DiMaggio in person maybe 8 or 10 times, all after WWII.

My memory of Joe in the field is that he was always smooth and graceful, never seemed to misjudge a ball, and had a great arm. But I don't remember Joe ever making a dive to catch a ball.

Joe made it all look easy -- unlike Willie Mays who made spectacular plays but sometimes those were necessary only because he didn't judge the flight perfectly off the bat. I suspect Mays made have had better range than DiMaggio but I don't know for sure. From what I heard about Tris Speaker, he was the best of all -- but I never saw Speaker play.

Thanks for the post Mr. Appling. That's an interesting contrast in styles between DiMaggio and Mays. DiMaggio and Williams played in an era that was before my time so it's always a treat for me to read the accounts of people like yourself, JACKIE 42 and others who actually saw these men play. Maybe that's how you felt when people shared their recollections of Tris Speaker with you. It's like a treasure being passed on by one generation to the next.

shlevine42

08-03-2005, 03:47 PM

Like Appling, I also saw DiMaggio, but only from ’47 till the end of his career, when he was obviously past his prime. I saw Willie for all the time he played in New York.

If Joe “made it look easy,” (and he did), I think it’s partly because he was always aware of looking good, and of not doing anything that wasn't consistent with his image and his reputation for being so graceful.

Willie, of course, didn’t care how he looked; he just wanted to catch everything hit his way. He played with an enthusiasm that could be felt in the stands, and he had extraordinary baseball instincts and the greatest natural ability of any player I ever saw.

Mays made plays that I doubt DiMaggio could have made, even when Joe was younger.

Some of the sharpest, most enduring images I have are of plays that Mays made that caused me to say, “I don’t believe what I just saw.”

Joe never caused me to say that.

Joe was good. Willie was one of a kind.

zman

08-04-2005, 05:33 AM

If Joe “made it look easy,” (and he did), I think it’s partly because he was always aware of looking good, and of not doing anything that wasn't consistent with his image and his reputation for being so graceful.

This seems to be a recurring theme in regards to DiMaggio and one that Mickey Mantle himself concurred with when recalling his injury in the 1951 World Series.

"In later years among friends, the Mick was neither so stoic nor impressed by the Clipper. The way Mantle figured, Dimaggio wouldn't call that ball until he was damn sure he could make it look easy. Joe had to look good,...but Mickey would never play another game without pain."

(Richard Ben Cramer)

It seems to follow that there may have been balls DiMaggio could have caught but didn't persue aggressively out of his fear of looking bad. If that's true it takes some of the shine off his reputation as a great fielder which is one of the reasons frequently cited by people who choose him over Ted Williams.

SHOELESSJOE3

08-04-2005, 07:48 PM

This seems to be a recurring theme in regards to DiMaggio and one that Mickey Mantle himself concurred with when recalling his injury in the 1951 World Series.

"In later years among friends, the Mick was neither so stoic nor impressed by the Clipper. The way Mantle figured, Dimaggio wouldn't call that ball until he was damn sure he could make it look easy. Joe had to look good,...but Mickey would never play another game without pain."

(Richard Ben Cramer)
.
I hope we're not going down that road again. That Joe although unintentional "may have" been partly at fault. Because he waited too long causing Mantle to put on the brakes and caught his spike on that drain cover, or sprinkler top.

Now I'm not saying those are your words, it's Ben Cramer and it appears that his last line about Joe making it look easy and then throwing Mantle and his pain, his whole career that he tries to connect Joe's call and Mick's injury

Pure bull. I hope I can find and post the book (source) that I saw the following words in. Will look, saw it at the library a while back. Not his exact words but very close, his description. That he ( Mantle) could not believe that Joe could get to that ball , get under it. He was surprised to see Joe camped under the ball.

I think I would have to take the words, the description by one of the two players involved. Some put a bad rap on Joe for this one, some of the opinion that his late call was deliberate and the cause of what took place or even partly Joe's fault.

Blame it on the ground crew at the stadium, that sprinkler head should have not been as high as it was. Suppose Mantle or any opponents outfielders stepped on that head while in full stride

zman

08-04-2005, 08:28 PM

Pure bull. I hope I can find and post the book (source) that I saw the following words in. Will look, saw it at the library a while back. Not his exact words but very close, his description. That he ( Mantle) could not believe that Joe could get to that ball , get under it. He was surprised to see Joe camped under the ball.

I hope you can find it too because this is an interesting subject to me. What little I've read suggests that DiMaggio called for it late and that Mantle thought it was a ball he was expected to catch given the limited range of DiMaggio in his final year. Do you think it might be fair to say that DiMaggio's edge over Williams as a fielder may have been exaggerated by writers over the years. I don't think there's any dispute that DiMaggio was the better fielder but is it possible that DiMaggio's fielding has been overrated and that the fielding of Williams has been underrated?
I ask because comparisons between DiMaggio and Williams seem to boil down to the gap between their offensive skills (edge to Williams) and the gap between their defensive skills (edge to DiMaggio.) Which gap do you think was greater? In particular which gap do you think was greater in 1941?

SHOELESSJOE3

08-04-2005, 08:52 PM

[QUOTE=zman]I hope you can find it too because this is an interesting subject to me. What little I've read suggests that Mantle thought it was a ball he was expected to catch given the limited range of DiMaggio in his final year.

[ I will certainly look for that book. I believe I saw it at the public library or possibly Barnes and Noble. I'll make a note of it and it may take some time to find it, there a good number of books on Mantle out there and I will have to find that one paragraph. If you take Mantle's words as they are expressed, he did not believe that Dimaggio, past his prime could get into position to catch that ball. I guess . I'm sure most on this board may already know this but for those who don't.... three great center fielders figure in on that play, Joe catching the ball, Mantle unfortunate, injured on that same play and the batter that hit that ball, Willie Mays.]

JACKIE42

08-05-2005, 12:31 PM

JACKIE42

08-05-2005, 12:36 PM

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/story/75666p-69882c.html

It seems that Casey Stengel, had told Mickey in 1951 " Take everything you can get"
because he felt that DiMaggio was slowing up. This could account for some of the mix-up on Mantles part, that he should have gone for the ball.

dgarza

08-05-2005, 02:31 PM

My 7 player 1941 AL MVP order goes:

Joe DiMaggio
Ted Williams
Bob Feller
Cecil Travis
Jeff Heath
Thornton Lee
Charlie Keller

BaseballBum12

08-05-2005, 08:44 PM

Ted Williams was too good a hitter. he didn't get it because the media hated him.

DiMag4Life

08-01-2007, 10:58 PM

DiMag4Life

08-01-2007, 11:02 PM

btw, I'm ver excited about joining this forum. I've read the forum for the past week, and though it would be exciting to talk baseball with people who know what they're talking about.:)

TRfromBR

08-01-2007, 11:04 PM

Break out the debate caps.....Joltin' Joe or the Splendid Splinter?

The general consensus that Williams was the better hitter, and that DiMaggio was the better all-round player.

Who would you rather have on your team?

The gritty and powerful Williams, or the graceful DiMaggio?

DiMaggio, the greatest player of his generation, one of the top all-round ballplayers ever, and a guy you could count on to take you all the way.

Plus, if he's on your team, you might get to meet some really hot chicks at Toots Shors.

DiMag4Life

08-01-2007, 11:09 PM

DiMaggio, the greatest player of his generation, one of the top all-round ballplayers ever, and a guy you could count on to take you all the way. Plus, if he's on your team, you might get to meet some really hot chicks at Toots Shors.

Yup, and on that subject, he and Shor actually had a falling out in '62.

Matt1901

08-01-2007, 11:22 PM

The only player I would take over Ted Williams is Babe Ruth.

ChrisLDuncan

08-01-2007, 11:34 PM

The only player I would take over Ted Williams is Babe Ruth.

Honus Wagner, Ty Cobb...nothing for ya?

DiMag4Life

08-02-2007, 03:02 AM

Honus Wagner, Ty Cobb...nothing for ya?

I would also add Gehrig or Mays.

baseballPAP

08-02-2007, 05:49 AM

Has to be Williams....while both were subject to missed time due to the war (or warS in TW's case), Williams came back strong, and Joe...well Joe just came back.
Williams season before WWII OPS+-217, after-215, before Korea 164, after 201!
DiMaggio season before WWII OPS+-147, after 142

Williams has an incredible 16 seasons with over 300 AB and an OPS+ of 160 or better! DiMaggio, 5(Plus one more in a 272 AB season).

Williams' career OPS+ is 190, DiMaggio's is 155, a HUGE difference.

Now then, that is about where Ted's advantage ends. He is an adequate defender at best, no demon on the basepaths, and his teammates didn't always like him that much (though those who look back see what a dedicated, driven man he was, all about being the best hitter he could be). Joe doesn't get a ton of respect from me for his defense, but he is unquestionably at least a step ahead of Williams, plus probably another step for playing the harder position. He was also most likely considerably faster, but in their era, baserunning skills were not a high priority...another small edge to the Clipper. As a teammate, if you refuse to believe all the hype as I do, and dig around for quotes from teammates, you can find several who didn't exactly think that he was a good teammate, sometimes more concerned with his image than he should have been. A wash there IMO, or maybe another slight edge to Joe.

Where this battle must be fought is in leadership/post season success vs. hitting, and lets face it, Joe was on a bunch odf WS teams. Problem is, those Yankee teams always had top talent, and would have won a considerable amount of games had Joe never left the SF Seals. Williams played on some good teams, and some stinkers...maybe a little above average. He never had the team around him that DiMaggio did, and certainly never the pitching. Williams had Doerr and an aging Jimmie Foxx...DiMaggio had Dickey and Gomez and a succesion of talented players that left the Yankees always on top the talent mountain. So, I don't give DiMaggio credit for ALL of that, only a little.

In other words, Williams with the bat is MORE than enough to overcome all of Joe's advantages in the other (and lesser) aspects.

DiMag4Life

08-02-2007, 05:56 AM

PVNICK

08-02-2007, 06:00 AM

Steffo

08-02-2007, 07:27 AM

It kills me to say this but DiMaggio. Having watched Sean Green, Bobby Abreu and a succession of mediocre centerfielders for the Mets pre-Beltran and Cameron there are just so many outs a bad OF will play into doubles and some doubles that a good CF will turn into outs that Ted's advantage at the plate will be largely negated.

What will dimaggio save in doubles a year? 30 maybe, at max? 30 doubles is hardly worth 30 runs, probably not even 15.

I think Teddy's advantage at the plate is far more than 15 runs.

PVNICK

08-02-2007, 08:04 AM

I have no idea 30 doubles is probably more than one a week which may be high. Then again Abreu did his little jump for the ball and miss it when he's within five feet of the track rather than continuing to run three times in the last week or so. It's all speculation and opinion. It's also hearsay as to how great DiMaggio was on defense and how indifferent Ted Williams was.

I'd think a double is worth closer to a run if not more. I'd agree on a bases empty double being maybe half a run. From my recollection that formalas (that I otherwise bitch about) put a double at around a run or more in value.

Bill Burgess

08-02-2007, 08:20 AM

I'll take Joe. Don't think I'd ever regret it. Joe even out-hit Ted for BA on the road. Marilyn Monroe was the best and sweetest home run Joe ever hit. Too bad he couldn't keep her. Their marriage lasted about 10 months. But Joe never got over her. Loved her until the sad ending. They're probably together now.

Steffo

08-02-2007, 08:31 AM

A double rarely turns into a run scored, just as most base hits tend to be left unaccounted for. A double is not really half a run when the bases are empty, because, a majority of the time, the next 3 batters are just going to be outs anyway.

The potential for a double to score another runner is much higher, but it's still not that great.

Even if a double does score 2/3 of a run, then those 30 doubles turned outs equal just 20 runs a 154 game year. Using our best case scenario of Dimaggio saving 20 runs and Williams saving 0, Dimaggio gets 225 runs saved over his career (career games/154*20).

Dimaggio created 1568 runs in those 1736 games (James's method may not be perfect, but it's surely the best method of calculating runs made). Williams created 2359 in 2292 games. Adjusting it to Dimaggio's career games, you get 1786 runs.

Total runs for each player equal 1793 for Dimaggio, and 1786 for Williams. Even with giving Williams absolutely no credit for defense, and Dimaggio all we could, Dimaggio barely squeaks ahead. Dimaggio also didn't have a decline period; he quit playing the moment he slipped. His runs created per game totals would drop and give Williams the advantage (runs saved probably as well, but I wouldn't have discredited him).

I set out to make an argument for Williams, but it seems that, in best case scenarios, Williams's offense is negated by Dimaggio's defense. I don't believe this to be true, but I can definitely see an argument now.

KCGHOST

08-02-2007, 08:32 AM

I'll take the Splinter. You get more production for longer. Both guys did lose three prime years to WWII.

brett

08-02-2007, 09:18 AM

What will dimaggio save in doubles a year? 30 maybe, at max? 30 doubles is hardly worth 30 runs, probably not even 15.

I think Teddy's advantage at the plate is far more than 15 runs.

I think from what I've seen in the stats forum, the absolute top defensive centerfielder could save 20 runs above an average one in a fantastic season. Given Yankee Stadium's huge dimensions, he was probably saving triples and home runs as well-and I think that factors into whay "statistically" he comes out as a very good but not amazing defensive centerfielder-because no system I have seen accounts for cutting off gap hits to hold players to singles and in YS he probably even sacrificed a little of his potential to make catches (stats) so that he could cut off even more potential gappers.

Dimaggio only had a short stretch where he was truly brilliant with the bat-really only about 3 1/2 years: '37, '39-'41 (four years, plus he missed about 30 games in his best one '39). '39, '42, '46, '47 and '50 were just not tremendous hitting seasons.

The big problem with ranking Dimaggio is that he didn't have a great year in '42 (due in part to a heel injury I believe) but he looked like he had lost his utter edge. If he had had a great '42 and then gone to war, we can invision a best case scenario for what he might have done.

William's big edge is that he had a unique "skill" in that he was able to basically hit at a top level for over 20 years with no real decline. He would have played probably 3000 games without the loss of war time. (Dimaggio probably would have played about 2100).

And William's hitting was still there at the end. He would have played 22 seasons and his offensive rates at age 41 were better than Dimaggio's BEST offensive rates, and with almost as many games.

In 1960 Williams played 113 games and had a .451 on base percentage and .645 slugging percentage.

In Dimaggio's best "rate" season (1939) he played 120 games and had a .448 on base percentage and .671 slugging percentage, and Williams' rates were actually a little better than Dimaggio's relative to the league.

Some "finer" points in my evaluations:

1) Williams did get platooned somewhat in his last 8 seasons and he hit righties a lot better at least in the last 4 which we have stats on, so the platooning kept his rates up in that period-he was not "quite" the hitter he had been through 1951.

2) Williams didn't just lose "good" seasons. His THREE years lost to WWII could have been among the greatest in history.
Consider that in the 2 years prior and 3 years after the war, he did the following:

-won 2 triple crowns.
-missed a triple crown by less than a point in batting average.
-missed a triple crown by 5 RBI
-finished second in all three triple crown categories.

In those 6 years, he lead the league in on-base percentage, and slugging percentage in ALL 6.

He won 4 of 6 batting titles and finished second twice.
3 RBI titles
4 Home run titles
And the home runs and RBI came despite the fact that he was walked more than anyone else in baseball in those years.

So he won 11 of 18 possible triple crown titles.

So I have to figure that he lost at least another triple crown, probably 2 batting titles, 2 home run and 2 RBI titles in those 3 years. He also would likely have lead the league in both on-base and slugging percentage in 9 straight years.

3) Williams was not helped by his ballpark-he is one of a few stars who actually had lower relative rates at home than on the road.

4) Williams was probably pretty fast through at least '47. He was not a base-stealer but he had seasons of 14, 11, 9 and 8 triples.

5) Williams was also at least statistically a solid fielder through '51.

In other words, if Dimaggio gets rated largely on his 3 1/2 great years, well, Williams probably through '47 (6 seasons plus 3 lost to the war) was an average base runner and at least a little above average left fielder. Baseball prospectus has him as a solidly above average fielding left fielder through '51, but really bad in '58-'60.

Dimaggio, by the was comes out as an equally bad defensive centerfielder in '47, '48 and '50.

Its just not fair to call Williams one dimensional when he was an above average fielder for a stretch of time as long as Dimaggio's entire peak, and then at the same time to say that Dimaggio should be rated on HIS defensive peak and we should ignore his bad defensive seasons after he had some physical problems.

6) Dimaggio lost a lot offensively due to his home park. I think he would have been a better hitter anywhere else (though Williams again was hurt slightly by his park in terms of relative rates). Personally, I do consider this, because its not like a player can just pick out his ballpark, but I give Dimaggio some defensive props back for handling that vast outfield-so the same thing that robs him, also boosts him back up.

Net result:

Williams longevity is impossible to overcome or overlook.

Hitting accounts for about 60% of a player's value to his team (about 15% fielding, 15% baserunning and 10% unaccounted for) and Williams was almost a 25% better hitter for (projected) 30% longer.

Williams was a solid fielder and runner through '51 and so even his best 12-13 years he was a better all around player than Dimaggio.

Dimaggio's best 3 years, in '39-'41, he was probably not as good as William's best 3 years all around considering that Williams was not a bad runner or fielder, and that Williams put up several of the top 10 hitting seasons of all time.

10 years ago, I though that Dimaggio had a case as the greatest (as did Williams). 5 years ago, I had dropped Dimaggio to around 25 after seeing some of the more telling stats.

Now I have moved Dimaggio back up somewhat, but he is currently 19th in my ranking. Williams is has gone down from 2 or 3 to 7th or 8th (behind Ruth, Cobb, Mays, Wagner, Bonds, Mantle and possibly Aaron) but has come back up to at least 5 and possibly 4.

Wade8813

08-02-2007, 09:20 AM

Teddy Ballgame (brett more or less summed up my reasoning)

digglahhh

08-02-2007, 12:32 PM

I wonder what Joe D.'s rep would be like if he played in the modern era of meida vultures, and on a below average team.

Dimaggio was great, but he couldn't hang with Ballgame for more than his best few seasons.

He never put up a single OPS+ as high as Ted's career OPS+!

At their respective bests, I could understand how somebody might choose Dimaggio, but I wouldn't.

361 HR and 369 K is pretty cool...

Then again, so is 2021 BB and 709K.

ChrisLDuncan

08-02-2007, 12:54 PM

Joe's power numbers were murdered by OYS so realistically if a player gets a five percent boost by his home road splits Joe ends up being about a

.342/.415/.625 which puts him at the OPS+ range of 172, which is pretty damn good. Also he had one of the five or six greatest offensive starts too his career ever, when he came back from the war he just wasn't the same. Not saying that makes him better than Williams, but I think it counts for somehting.

Also part of that "He gets press because he's a Yankee" non-sense doesn't consider that he didn't just happen to be a Yankee he was the heart of that Yankee dynasty. After Gehrig he had some pretty big shoes to fill and he filled them well. I can think of maybe ten or fifteen guys who could have done that. Being a Yankee is a double edged sword, if you're a great player you get press and people know it...but if you perform just a tick below the expectations for you...your ass gets booed, and booed hard. Also the New York Hacks make you public enemy number one, and get badgered to death by the New York media, ask Alex Rodriguez. He's seen the bad, last year, and the great, this year.

TRfromBR

08-02-2007, 12:57 PM

Joe doesn't get a ton of respect from me for his defense

DiMaggio was the greatest fielder ever to step foot in Yankee Stadium's centerfield. No one before or since has played it better. He was light years better than Williams as a fielder. And, in the days of Death Valley, a great centerfielder meant even more, by far, than it means today. All the greats greatly respected DiMaggio's preeminent fielding skills. He was the best centerfielder of his day, far and away better than Williams.

ChrisLDuncan

08-02-2007, 01:00 PM

DiMaggio was the greatest fielder ever to step foot in Yankee Stadium's centerfield. No one before or since has played it better. He was light years better than Williams as a fielder. And, in the days of Death Valley, a great centerfielder meant even more, by far, than it means today. All the greats greatly respected DiMaggio's preeminent fielding skills. He was the best centerfielder of his day, far and away better than Williams.

Yes you're absolutely right TR. Statistically, Joe DiMaggio is a very very good centerfielder, as in best of an era type guy, but just a notch below one of the greatest ever. However most stats don't take into account that huge park that he had too cover, I give him a little bit of credit for being able to cover OYS so well...that puts him into my top echelon CFs.

TRfromBR

08-02-2007, 01:05 PM

It's also hearsay as to how great DiMaggio was on defense

When guys like Williams & Musial (and so many other people who witnessed his greatness) tell you DiMaggio was the greatest player they ever saw, that's not hearsay. Hearsay is when people who never saw him say that Williams & Musial (and so many others who witnessed his greatness) were all wrong.

They were both all-time greats, with Williams being the better pure hitter and having better longevity, and DiMaggio the better fielder, baserunner, team leader and all-round player.

hellborn

08-02-2007, 01:36 PM

You make a lot of good points, but what's that about Williams not being respected by teammates?

He had a bizzare relationship with the media, but he was universally respected by all his peers, and of course, his teammates.

When he was young, Splinter was widely disliked amongst fans, writers, and players. Jim Tabor boxed his ears for not hustling...even the good-natured Foxx called him a spoiled boy. Ted was filled with rage...if you've ever read Richard Ben Cramer's story of having dinner at Ted's house, you know that rage could still appear out of nowhere when Ted was older. If Ted had a bad game with the bat, he would act out about it in the field, didn't matter if it hurt the team.
Things got better as the years passed...Ted matured, people realized what an amazing talent he was, Ted learned to put a good effort into playing the OF. You still had the spitting incident at Fenway, and many of the writers still rode him, but most of the fans and players came around to Ted's side. Ted became the generous teacher, although Lou Kaufman was the only woman in his life who could live with him long term. My favorite story in all of baseball is about Ted calling up old ballplayers who were struggling to send him a small check for the Jimmy Fund, and Ted then wiring $10,000 into their accounts to help them get by. This from a man whom everybody called cheap...also from Cramer, btw.

It's hard to believe now, but Clipper was unpopular in his early years...people didn't appreciate him holding out for money after little service time when Gehrig would always just sign his contract. Amazing at it seems, he was referred to as a "Dago" in the press. Can you believe it? Actually never heard about complaints from other players other than that he was quiet and aloof, but that doesn't mean there weren't any.

Honestly, if I had a choice between them as young players and I were building a team from scratch, I would pick Clipper, because he would hit close to TW in a neutral park and also play a key defensive position well. Clipper would also probably bring hotter babes to the game, although you must remember that Ted did marry a Miss Vermont (John Henry's mom). It's a very tough choice.

dl4060

08-02-2007, 01:37 PM

Joe D contributed to more facets of the game, But Williams' bat is too great to ignore. I would love to have either, but I would rather have Williams. Williams bat has more value than than Joe's combination. I would take Williams, the same as I would take Bonds' of 01-04 over Griffey of the 90's.

hellborn

08-02-2007, 01:38 PM

Also part of that "He gets press because he's a Yankee" non-sense doesn't consider that he didn't just happen to be a Yankee he was the heart of that Yankee dynasty.

How come that stuff didn't rub off on Charlie Keller and Joe Gordon??
Maybe they should have married Rita Hayworth and Katherine Hepburn...

DiMag4Life

08-02-2007, 01:41 PM

Remember when some dude made a stupid thread on how DiMaggio shouldn't be in the hall of fame?:crazy

TRfromBR

08-02-2007, 01:43 PM

Regarding the claim that DiMaggio was regarded great because he played in New York: nonsense. DiMaggio was regarded the greatest (up-and-coming) ballplayer in the world before he was ever a Yankee. That's why the Yankees brought him to New York, from San Francisco, where he was the greatest PCL player ever.

P.S. He proved them right in his very first season. And he led the Yanks through possibly the most successful runs in Baseball history - 10 pennants, 9 World Championships.

TRfromBR

08-02-2007, 01:44 PM

Remember when some dude made a stupid thread on how DiMaggio shouldn't be in the hall of fame?:crazy

Vince, Dom, or Marilyn?

DiMag4Life

08-02-2007, 01:48 PM

I think one named Guiseppe Paolo.:)

DiMag4Life

08-02-2007, 01:49 PM

Google "Joe DiMaggio- baseball fever", and it's on the first page.:)

TRfromBR

08-02-2007, 01:59 PM

When he was young, Splinter was widely disliked amongst fans, writers, and players. Jim Tabor boxed his ears for not hustling...even the good-natured Foxx called him a spoiled boy. Ted was filled with rage...if you've ever read Richard Ben Cramer's story of having dinner at Ted's house, you know that rage could still appear out of nowhere when Ted was older. If Ted had a bad game with the bat, he would act out about it in the field, didn't matter if it hurt the team.
Things got better as the years passed...Ted matured, people realized what an amazing talent he was, Ted learned to put a good effort into playing the OF. You still had the spitting incident at Fenway, and many of the writers still rode him, but most of the fans and players came around to Ted's side. Ted became the generous teacher, although Lou Kaufman was the only woman in his life who could live with him long term. My favorite story in all of baseball is about Ted calling up old ballplayers who were struggling to send him a small check for the Jimmy Fund, and Ted then wiring $10,000 into their accounts to help them get by. This from a man whom everybody called cheap...also from Cramer, btw.

It's hard to believe now, but Clipper was unpopular in his early years...people didn't appreciate him holding out for money after little service team when Gehrig would always just sign his contract. Amazing at it seems, he was referred to as a "Dago" in the press. Can you believe it? Actually never heard about complaints from other players other than that he was quiet and aloof, but that doesn't mean there weren't any.

Honestly, if I had a choice between them as young players and I were building a team from scratch, I would pick Clipper, because he would hit close to TW in a neutral park and also play a key defensive position well. Clipper would also probably bring hotter babes to the game, although you must remember that Ted did marry a Miss Vermont (John Henry's mom). It's a very tough choice.

I agree with you completely, Hellborn. They both belong in the Pantheon, but DiMaggio is the better guy to build a winning club around. Ted could hit up a storm from day one, but he really wasn't the best guy to lead a team or deal with the public. Joe, on the other hand, was a guy who made sure everybody played their best - every play, every game, every season. He may have done it in an ofttimes unorthodox and imperious manner, but he did it.

DiMaggio also gives you not only a great hitter and leader, he solves the problem of finding someone to play all those old cavernous centerfields. If you pick Williams first, you still have to find a great centerfielder. Filling Williams position is not too much of a challenge. Indeed, it would be relatively easy to find a better fielder and baserunner.

I agree with Williams: DiMaggio was the best.

TRfromBR

08-02-2007, 02:07 PM

Google "Joe DiMaggio- baseball fever", and it's on the first page.:)

I just read it and couldn't believe my eyes. All I can say is I hope Dodgerfan 66 is feeling better.

P.S. BF management may want to prompty remove that from GoogleWorld, before it ruins the good name of us Feverites.

brett

08-02-2007, 02:19 PM

Honus Wagner Rules

08-02-2007, 02:24 PM

brett

08-02-2007, 02:29 PM

The ultimate point that I find interesting is that Dimaggio gets people asking "what if?" about his decline period-imagining how good he would have been if he had continued to play with his '39-'41 dominance into the early 50s, while Williams gets remember defensively for his decline period while statistically everything suggests that he was an above average left fielder for 13 years (10 of which he played).

Its just a strange dynamic of how players are remembered. Dimaggio never got to fulfill his full potential and people longed to think of him at his best. Williams just hung around and coming back and people remembered some of his later negative traits.

Even if Joe had been a 170 OPS+ guy, its still over only 2/3 of the time frame that Williams did his thing with the bat.

I think that Dimaggio's big 4 years-'37 and '39-'41, with consideration for YS, and defensive excellence at a critical position, may be better than Williams best 4 where he was basically winning 2 legs of the triple crown, and leading the league in slugging and on-base% every year, but you can not just throw out the fact that Williams hit and hit and hit for over 20 years. He had 180 OPS+ seasons 20 years apart and most years in-between.

TRfromBR

08-02-2007, 02:35 PM

The big problem with ranking Dimaggio is that he didn't have a great year in '42 (due in part to a heel injury I believe) but he looked like he had lost his utter edge. If he had had a great '42 and then gone to war, we can invision a best case scenario for what he might have done.

Hitting accounts for about 60% of a player's value to his team (about 15% fielding, 15% baserunning and 10% unaccounted for) and Williams was almost a 25% better hitter for (projected) 30% longer.

10 years ago, I though that Dimaggio had a case as the greatest ...

Your complete argument above presents alot of excellent points, Brett. but I'd like to discuss the three points cited above.

DiMaggio had one of the greatest seasons in Baseball history in 1941, and was poised to continue his great hitting, fielding and leadership for a good number more years. But, several things occured to partially derail him. One was Pearl Harbor and the fact that he was well aware by Spring Season he was ultimately headed to the service. This greatly complicated his already strained relationship with the Yankees financial tyrants, who always refused to pay him what he was worth. Right after his legendary '41 season, DiMaggio was heavily engaged in renegotiating his contract. After Pearl Harbor, the Yankees front office orchestrated a campaign against him to make him appear greedy and unpatriotic. They used similar tactics against Ruth at the onset of the Depression.

On top of all this, his first wife - a real beauty - thought she might do financially well divorcing Joe after his phenomenal 56-game-hitting-streak year. Combined with everything else in his life, including the fact he knew he would soon be marching off to war, led to a very difficult and emotionally draining year. But, by no means, was his greatness spent. In light of these facts, I think his three years in the Army should be highly valued.

Regarding the percentage breakdown above, it doesn't seem to give much credit to how a ballplayer contributes to his team through exceptional inspiration and leadership - like DiMaggio did, for example. Can you explain where this statistical breakdown of a player's value comes from, and how it was calculated? I think such rigid formulaic approaches fail to accurately assess many great ballplayers.

Ten years ago, when you regarded DiMaggio as possibly the greatest player ever, what was your reasoning? And what intervening events, evidence or facts caused you to degrade him to dramatically?

ChrisLDuncan

08-02-2007, 02:37 PM

How come that stuff didn't rub off on Charlie Keller and Joe Gordon??
Maybe they should have married Rita Hayworth and Katherine Hepburn...

Oh I remember Joe Gordon, I don't think he was quite on the level of a Joe DiMaggio type guy. Joe D is a top five CF of all time, I don't think Gordon is a top five 2Bman of all time.

TRfromBR

08-02-2007, 02:38 PM

Fortunately the Red Sox had Dimaggio in centerfield as well.

Yes, Brett, but the wrong one.

ChrisLDuncan

08-02-2007, 02:39 PM

What fascinates me about DiMaggio was that he almost hit .400 in 1939. I believe he had an eye infection in early September 1939 that cost him a shot at .400. How late in the 1939 season was DiMaggio above .400?

I think mid August he was hitting .400...I can't imagine how much an eye infection must suck.

DiMag4Life

08-02-2007, 02:40 PM

DiMag4Life

08-02-2007, 02:42 PM

Yes, Brett, but the wrong one.

Dom was a great defensive player, but he didn't have Joe's range. An outfielder who has great range makes every other outfielder look better, that was his point.

brett

08-02-2007, 02:47 PM

Just thought I'd look at Dom's defensive "rating" versus Joe's.

Baseball prospectus give Dom years of 50, 42, 41, 39 and 37 feilding runs above replacement and Joe only 36, 36, 35, 30 and 30.

Everything I have read suggests that Joe was at least a slightly better defensive player at his best so I have to assume that the difference between Joe and Dom is probably due to the dynamics of YS.

Joe's top 4 WARP 1 seasons are
13.8, 13.2, 12.0 and 10.7 and Ted's were
16.1, 15.7, 13.7 and 13.5,

BUT if I give Joe the same fielding rating as Dom then he picks up about 1 more WARP per season putting him at
14.8, 14.2, 13.0 and 11.7.

Given some edge for baserunning and the damage to his hitting from YS, I think that we can't really differentiate these seasons based on stats. I might be inclined to rate Joe higher for his best 4 years as an all-around player, and I think he is likely to move up on my all-time list.

I still have to give Williams an edge for his ability to maintain his production for so long-though in his last 8 years he was a) platooned, b) slower and c) a clearly below average fielder.

I just would like more that 4 great all around season's from Dimaggio to get my teeth into. If '42 had been as good as '41 it changes a lot.

Even though he had a couple of offensive years on par with his early great ones after the war, he was not the same defensive player.

TRfromBR

08-02-2007, 02:51 PM

ChrisLDuncan

08-02-2007, 02:58 PM

Even if Joe had been a 170 OPS+ guy, its still over only 2/3 of the time frame that Williams did his thing with the bat.

Ehh...I never said Joe was better, I just tend to rank him as the guy with that 170 OPS+ with respect to OYS.

hellborn

08-02-2007, 02:59 PM

I agree with you completely, Hellborn. They both belong in the Pantheon, but DiMaggio is the better guy to build a winning club around. Ted could hit up a storm from day one, but he really wasn't the best guy to lead a team or deal with the public. Joe, on the other hand, was a guy who made sure everybody played their best - every play, every game, every season. He may have done it in an ofttimes unorthodox and imperious manner, but he did it.

DiMaggio also gives you not only a great hitter and leader, he solves the problem of finding someone to play all those old cavernous centerfields. If you pick Williams first, you still have to find a great centerfielder. Filling Williams position is not too much of a challenge. Indeed, it would be relatively easy to find a better fielder and baserunner.

I agree with Williams: DiMaggio was the best.

I think that Dressen had just joined the Yanks as a coach, and threw stuff on the field after a bad call...Clipper told him to get out there and pick it up. Dressen did it, too...Joe told him that the Yankees hit HRs when they were mad, they didn't throw tantrums.
As much as I think of Splinter as a ballplayer, I might pick Musial to play LF if I were assembling a dream team. The Man had some stick, too, plus better D and speed, and unbelievable hustle. I guess that the guy you want for your team is not just going to be the guy with the best numbers or maximum "greatness".
Of course, I might pick Turkey Stearnes to play LF or CF over any of these guys...

DiMag4Life

08-02-2007, 03:02 PM

I would take Williams over Musial as well. Better all-round player, no question.

hellborn

08-02-2007, 03:04 PM

Yes, Brett, but the wrong one.

Are you implying that,
"Better than his brother Joe,
Do-mi-nic Di-Mag-gio",
is a lie????

TRfromBR

08-02-2007, 03:04 PM

brett

08-02-2007, 03:09 PM

Your complete argument above presents alot of excellent points, Brett. but I'd like to discuss the three points cited above.

DiMaggio had one of the greatest seasons in Baseball history in 1941, and was poised to continue his great hitting, fielding and leadership for a good number more years. But, several things occured to partially derail him. One was Pearl Harbor and the fact that he was well aware by Spring Season he was ultimately headed to the service. This greatly complicated his already strained relationship with the Yankees financial tyrants, who always refused to pay him what he was worth. Right after his legendary '41 season, DiMaggio was heavily engaged in renegotiating his contract. After Pearl Harbor, the Yankees front office orchestrated a campaign against him to make him appear greedy and unpatriotic. They used similar tactics against Ruth at the onset of the Depression.

On top of all this, his first wife - a real beauty - thought she might do financially well divorcing Joe after his phenomenal 56-game-hitting-streak year. Combined with everything else in his life, including the fact he knew he would soon be marching off to war, led to a very difficult and emotionally draining year. But, by no means, was his greatness spent. In light of these facts, I think his three years in the Army should be highly valued.

Regarding the percentage breakdown above, it doesn't seem to give much credit to how a ballplayer contributes to his team through exceptional inspiration and leadership - like DiMaggio did, for example. Can you explain where this statistical breakdown of a player's value comes from, and how it was calculated? I think such rigid formulaic approaches fail to accurately assess many great ballplayers.

Ten years ago, when you regarded DiMaggio as possibly the greatest player ever, what was your reasoning? And what intervening events, evidence or facts caused you to degrade him to dramatically?

It is a little simplisitic, but a great hitter will produce about 40 runs above an average pr season over his career. A great fielder will save about 10 runs above an average player at his position in a typical year. A great baserunner will gain about 10 runs on an average baserunner through steals and other baserunning. This is based on some of the stat work done on this site.

So we have about a 4 to 1 to 1 breakdown for hitting, fielding and baserunning. Fielding may be even a little higher and baserunning a little lower.

Those 3 factors predict about 90% of team's success over all time, so in general 10% of team's success could be attributed to a) situational production ie "clutch" and b) intangibles though I suppose that a player making others better is not really factored in. A team might be +/- 10% of what's predicted based on known stats, but I suppose that one player in particular may be better than that, maybe 20% or so.

I guess I could call it 4:1:1:2 hitting, fielding, running and intangibles. You would be hard pressed to find a team that won more by 1 part in 4 what they should have won-in fact no team would do that consistently over the course of one player's career.

My lost of top players 10 years ago would have been-not in ANY order just the guys I considered for #1:

Ruth
Williams
Gehrig
Aaron
Mays
Musial
Cobb
Hornsby
Wagner
Dimaggio

There was nobody on that list who I considered to be BOTH a) clearly a better hitter than Dimaggio AND at the same time b) a better fielder.

And he also had the winning edge.

Mays and Wagner were both possibly better fielders, but I considered Joe to be probably a little better hitter than both of them-a lot more than Wagner but I didn't realize how good he was for his era.

TRfromBR

08-02-2007, 03:10 PM

Are you implying that,
"Better than his brother Joe,
Do-mi-nic Di-Mag-gio",
is a lie????

Oh, Brother, not that one again.:rolleyes:

I personally don't believe in the Dominic Theory, Hellborn. :crazy

Nor do I think Vince was so Invincible, either. :rofl:

AstrosFan

08-02-2007, 03:17 PM

Williams, Musial, and DiMaggio were the top players of the 1940s. Statistically speaking, the ranking goes:

1. Williams
2. Musial
3. DiMaggio

It's close, but I'm pretty sure that's how they rank. But ask anyone who was alive during that time, and DiMaggio jumps to number one. He was almost universally regarded as a perfect player. Bill James notes that there have been basically three perfect players in baseball history: Mays, Wagner, and DiMaggio. These are the guys who were great at everything. Maybe Speaker could join that list. I'm not sure how good his power was. DiMaggio hit for average and power, was a great fielder, had one of the strongest arms in the game, and was a swift and aggressive, but smart baserunner, though he didn't steal many bases.

TR is right on the money when he says DiMaggio was a huge prize coming out of the PCL. But DiMaggio had suffered a major knee injury his last season there, and that scared off more than a few teams. The Yankees were smart enough to realize that DiMaggio was still the greatest all-around talent to come along in years, and signed him. DiMaggio would have a history of injuries in his career, but when he was on the field, he was regarded as the best in the game.

I wonder what the thoughts are on DiMaggio being a winner. If Ted Williams played on the Yankees and DiMaggio on the Red Sox, would Williams win the World Series and DiMaggio keep falling short every year?

I think there needs to be a balance between the stats and the observation, because we don't know how to measure Joe's instinct for knowing when to be patient, and when to be aggressive at the plate, on the basepaths, in the field. There's more to DiMaggio than the stats show. Maybe he was better than Williams, maybe not, but we can't just pretend we'll get the answer from Baseball Reference.

brett

08-02-2007, 03:18 PM

Brett, statistically speaking, how accurately do you believe players from DiMaggio's era (1936-1951) can be correctly profiled, and with what range of error? For instance, reviewing all the data available, with how much verifiable certainty can one actually rate a player - in absolute and relative terms? Does this vary for batting, fielding, running, leadership, and intangibles? And with what range of potential error?

My feeling is that there is about 10% of winning that can not be accounted for by a team producing or saving runs.

Also I think that the stats themselves (including an estimate of a players baserunning that does not show up readily in the stat line) are all about 10% lacking in their ability to predict runs produced or saved, so we can reconstruct about 80% of a player's value from stats and good guesses. That doesn't mean that contemporary opinion is only good for 20%. Two different factors can both predict more than 1/2 of a player's value.

The stats with the greatest variance in their consistency from one player to another are in my opinion walks, steals and caught stealing. These are very much influenced by situations.

I believe that walks are worth less for 3/4 hitters who walk a lot because they may be situationally walked.

I believe walks are worth more for #1 and #2 hitters.

I think that steals are worth less for players who steal a huge amount of bases because they are often getting less meaningful steals.

So in total, I think that the stats we have can predict SAFELY about 70% of a player's value. If we include some deeper statistical analysis like looking at a players ballpark dimensions, and also predicting how he did on the bases in various situations, we can get 80% of a player's value.

DiMag4Life

08-02-2007, 03:28 PM

Williams, Musial, and DiMaggio were the top players of the 1940s. Statistically speaking, the ranking goes:

1. Williams
2. Musial
3. DiMaggio

Nope, I would rank DiMaggio ahead of Musial. DiMaggio was the better hitter in the 40's, and Musial played for 7 more seasons.

Musial had better TOTALS, such as homeruns, RBI's, and runs, but he played way more games, in a ballpark that doesn't have any real disadvantage.

Here are some crucial numbers:

SLG.

DiMaggio: .579 Musial: .559

At bats per RBI:

DiMaggio: 4.44 Musial: 5.08

At bats per home run:

DiMaggio: 18.9 Musial: 23.10

AstrosFan

08-02-2007, 03:38 PM

The difference between Musial and DiMaggio is that Musial played 22 seasons, DiMaggio 13. There is no way DiMaggio can make up that kind of ground on peak value in the numbers, when Musial had one hell of a peak. Musial, for example, had a 159 OPS+ in his career. DiMaggio was at 155. Now, OPS+ is unfair to DiMaggio, because he played in a park that was hell for right-handed hitters. But he's still got to make up nine years worth of great hitting. He doesn't beat Musial's career numbers statistically by a long shot, and if his statistical peak is better, it's only by a little bit.

By the way, none of the numbers you listed are "crucial".

DiMag4Life

08-02-2007, 03:41 PM

How so? Percentages are way more telling than totals. If totals told the story, Carl Yastremski would probably be the consumate top 10 player.

brett

08-02-2007, 03:45 PM

How so? Percentages are way more telling than totals. If totals told the story, Carl Yastremski would probably be the consumate top 10 player.

Its not that he didn't have better percentages, but that he gets to base those percentages on a shorter period of excellence.

I think it would be better to look at Musials first 13 years, or his best 13 year run, but a guy still has to get an edge for staying healthy and playing longer.

hellborn

08-02-2007, 03:52 PM

Oh, Brother, not that one again.:rolleyes:

I personally don't believe in the Dominic Theory, Hellborn. :crazy

Nor do I think Vince was so Invincible, either. :rofl:

:cap:

Well, you at least gotta give the Bosox fans of the '40s credit for having a chant that was a lot more clever than "YANKEES SUCK!"

Do you agree that the DiMaggios were poorly named and should have been the "TriMaggios"???? (Maybe it was a sign that Vince shouldn't have been in the majors, leaving Joe and Dom as the Di-Maggios...)

TRfromBR

08-02-2007, 04:03 PM

"There was never a day when I was as good as Joe DiMaggio at his best. Joe was the best, the very best I ever saw." - Stan Musial

"As one of nine men, (Joe) DiMaggio is the best player that ever lived." - Connie Mack

"(Joe) DiMaggio was the greatest all-around player I ever saw. His career cannot be summed up in numbers and awards. It might sound corny, but he had a profound and lasting impact on the country." - Ted Williams

"Heroes are people who are all good with no bad in them. That's the way I always saw Joe DiMaggio. He was beyond question one of the greatest players of the century." - Mickey Mantle

"He's the most complete ball player I've ever seen. He can hit, hit for power, run, throw, and play the outfield." - Joe McCarthy who was then asked by a reporter if he could bunt to which he replied, "I'll never know."

"Name a better right handed hitter, or a better thrower, or a better fielder, or a better base runner. That's right, a better base runner. Did you ever see him slide when he hooked the bag with his toe? Absolutely perfect." - Hank Greenberg

"Ted Williams was the greatest hitter I ever saw, but (Joe) DiMaggio was the greatest all around player." - Bob Feller

"Picking all-time team".
"My old Red Sox side-kick, Tris Speaker, wins center field in my book, even though I recognize that Joe DiMaggio of the present-day Yankees is a greater center fielder. But "Spoke" was something extra special. Only those who played with or against him really appreciated what a great ballplayer he was."- Babe Ruth

Thanks for all the information on statistical analysis above, Brett. I certainly appreciate how valuable such analysis can be. At the same time, it seems to have severe shortcomings, most particularly in evaluating a great fielding centerfielder like DiMaggio. I don't yet see how it properly accounts for his legendary ability to read a hit, his great range, strong arm, or his near-flawless decisions in the field - all which led to his being regarded the best. Nor does it sufficiently account for his batting venue at OYS. Even more importantly, this type of analysis, though certainly of value, omits any assessment of the most crucial quality guys like DiMaggio (Joe, not Dom nor Vince) brought to a team - the most magical and sought after ingredient of all - the ability to bring his team all the way. Where is that stat? And why are puely statistical evaluations of DiMaggio so out of step with expert contemporaneous assessments like those quoted above, from DiMag4Life's earlier post?

None of this is criticism of your uniformly excellence in posting. Rather I am just trying to determine just how the value, limits, and shortcomings, of current statistical analysis in Baseball, which I can see has been mostly progressing favorably through recent years.

Again thanks for yout terrific posts, which are always interesting and insightful.

TRfromBR

08-02-2007, 04:09 PM

:cap:

Well, you at least gotta give the Bosox fans of the '40s credit for having a chant that was a lot more clever than "YANKEES SUCK!"

Do you agree that the DiMaggios were poorly named and should have been the "TriMaggios"???? (Maybe it was a sign that Vince shouldn't have been in the majors, leaving Joe and Dom as the Di-Maggios...)

Very good, hellborn. Vince did pave the way, though. He may not have been the 'Perfecta', but he definitely belongs in the 'Trifecta.'

btw, has there ever been a better trio of brothers in the Show?

DiMag4Life

08-02-2007, 04:13 PM

btw, has there ever been a better trio of brothers in the Show?

Nope, nor will there ever be.

Each one has their tradedmarks: Joe was the talented one, the best of the three, Dom was the one who had to overcome his size, squeezed the best of his ability, and of course, Vince paved the path.

Honus Wagner Rules

08-02-2007, 04:17 PM

.

Regarding the percentage breakdown above, it doesn't seem to give much credit to how a ballplayer contributes to his team through exceptional inspiration and leadership - like DiMaggio did, for example. Can you explain where this statistical breakdown of a player's value comes from, and how it was calculated? I think such rigid formulaic approaches fail to accurately assess many great ballplayers.

This part of DiMaggio's persona has been a great interest to me. I have no doubt DiMaggio's teammates were awed and had great respect for DiMaggio's talents. Aside form his talent on the ballfield what did DiMaggio bring as a leader? I know he was known to be aloof and a loner. I've seen interviews with Phil Rizutto where he spoke at length about Joe D. After all these years the Scooter still was awed by and revered DiMaggio but it was obvious that he was never close to DiMaggio in the sense that they were "buddies" or spent much time together away form the ballpark. I never bought into or agree with the "lead by example" is a good leadership style. A leader must communicate with the people he is leading at least some of the time. And if Joe D never spoke to his teammates then his leadership abilities would be limited at best. Was DiMaggio the kind of player that would take a young player aside and encourage him or take him out to dinner to "show him the ropes"? Rizutto, though he would admit it directly as to not make Joe look bad, pretty much admitted that Joe didn't associate much with his teammates.

A few years ago Petter Gammonds shared a Joe DiMaggio story right after he died. Gammonds was in the Bay Area with a friend. They spotted Joe buying a hot dog at a hot dog stand. According to Gammonds, Joe looked like he just got out of bed. His appearance was not the "Joe D look" everyone is used to. Anyway Gammonds and his friend didn't want to bother Joe D because they were in "awe" of him, knew Joe was a private man, and didn't want to embarrass Joe. Now if they would have seen Willie Mays or Yogi Berra, or Stan Musial, or Henry Aaron, I think Gammonds would have approached these other ballplayers simply because they all have a more approachable personality. Being known for an "unapproachable" person is not a good quality to have in my opinion.

I'm not saying Joe D was not a good leader. I just don't know enough about his personal relationships with his teammates. Joe did win many World Series titles and he was "the face" of the Yankees for his entire career.

TRfromBR

08-02-2007, 04:31 PM

Was DiMaggio the kind of player that would take a young player aside and encourage him or take him out to dinner to "show him the ropes"?

No, but if he didn't hustle and perform, Joey D would certainly "show him the stadium exit." Leadership comes in many varieties. With Joey D, there was a no doubt a healthy dose of fear among all young players, and probably the rest of them, too. But, everyone of them performed at their max.

So, yes, HWR, he was an imperious leader, but one the greatest there has ever been, if you measure by his team's success. Maybe of the Julius Caesar variety. Can you think of another player who would have better inspired or led that particular dynasty? I can't.

Check out Mickey below . Does he look like a guy who wants to slack off or screw up in front of DiMaggio. I think not.

Steffo

08-02-2007, 04:32 PM

Percentages may be more important than totals, but they don't make the player either.

Dimaggio had great percentages, but they weren't for long. Musial had comparable percentages and sustained them for 9 seasons more! Surely the advantage in percentages is not so much that it offsets 9 seasons of performance more.

If Albert Pujols were to retire today, would he be a first ballot hall of famer? Would he be better than dimaggio? His numbers are .331, .419, .631. He's got a career OPS+ of 169. He has 9.71 RC/27! He has a 14.15 at bat per homer, he has a 4.67 At bat per rbi! His percentage numbers are ridiculous and some of the best percentage numbers anyone has ever put up! He's the highest active player in slugging, 4th in OBP, and 2nd in OPS! He's second in batting average. (By the way, dimaggio's rbi totals are far more of an indicator of his teammates than of him)

This guy's talents are ridiculous!

But still, nobody is going to elect him to the hall if he retired today. He isn't currently considered a better player than Dimaggio. Why not? Because he played half as long as dimaggio. He has played a quarter of the length of musial's career. What makes those players ahead of him are their sustained levels of greatness, their ability to dominate for years and years and years. Musial went 22 seasons and still, even after going through a decline period, even after passing his peak, he posted .331, .417, .559.

Dimaggio didn't go through a decline period. Dimaggio was unable to sustain ridiculous league leading numbers for as long as Musial. We're effectively comparing the better half of Musial's career to Musial's entire career. In fact, I'll do that, for the more commonly looked at stats. I've even taken the liberty of calling Musial's first "season" (10 games) one of his first 13 seasons.

Musial: 8149 plate appearances, 7028 abs, 1396 runs, 2418 hits, 292 homers, 1253 RBI, 1054 walks, 4105 total bases, .344 batting average, .426 soft OBP (very rough.. hits+walks/pas.. since it's not really OBP I did the same for Dimaggio), .563 slugging average.

Dimaggio: 7671 plate appearances, 6821 at bats, 1390 runs, 2214 hits, 361 homers, 1537 rbi, 790 walks, 3948 total bases, .325 batting average, .392 soft OBP, .579.

The stats seem to say that Musial, despite having one 12 game season at his disposal, has still amassed a higher counting stat in everything but homers and rbi. RBI are clearly explained by the caliber of Dimaggio's teams. Homers were one of Dimaggio's advantages. Despite Musial also having more atbats and plate appearances, he has higher totals in batting average and on base percentage. Dimaggio's advantage in slugging is attributed entirely to home runs. Subtract home runs, and dimaggio has 2508 total bases. Musial has 2937. Aside from home runs, Musial did everything better. Home runs are important, of course, I'm not discrediting that. But it seems that Musial was better at everything except them, in this 13 year period thing.

Now if Musial was better in those 13 years, and he also sustained a level of play well above the league for another 9 years, why is Dimaggio considered better? Dimaggio was certainly a great player. But Musial was better for longer.

brett

08-02-2007, 04:41 PM

This part of DiMaggio's persona has been a great interest to me. I have no doubt DiMaggio's teammates were awed and had great respect for DiMaggio's talents.

I feel that Williams was totally in awe of Dimaggio, almost like an freshman looking at the varsity quarterback. And I don't think Dimaggio was in awe of anybody.

ChrisLDuncan

08-02-2007, 04:55 PM

ChrisLDuncan

08-02-2007, 04:56 PM

I feel that Williams was totally in awe of Dimaggio, almost like an freshman looking at the varsity quarterback. And I don't think Dimaggio was in awe of anybody.

He liked Chuck Gehringer quite a bit, he also had some pretty good things to say about Ted's hitting.

Steffo

08-02-2007, 04:58 PM

Actually from my calculations if DiMaggio were playing in a neutral park his OPS+ would be about 172. Since I'm not that big on career value, I'd tend to lean DiMaggio. Musial was pretty damn good though.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but doesn't OPS+ already factor in park effects?

ChrisLDuncan

08-02-2007, 05:14 PM

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but doesn't OPS+ already factor in park effects?

Overall park effects but not handed park effects...and by DiMaggio's home road splits he was clearly hurt by his home park. And judging by the lack of other great right handed hitters at OYS and by the dimensions it's obvious that his park hurt him. If a player gets a five percent bump by his home park, which is about standard, Joe's line would be about .342/.415/.625 which would give him a 172 OPS+

brett

08-02-2007, 05:17 PM

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but doesn't OPS+ already factor in park effects?
Yes, but his home OPS+ was only about 145 and his road OPS+ was about 165. Because he was a righty in a park with a HUGE left field his park adjusted home rates were worse.

brett

08-02-2007, 05:20 PM

Overall park effects but not handed park effects...and by DiMaggio's home road splits he was clearly hurt by his home park. And judging by the lack of other great right handed hitters at OYS and by the dimensions it's obvious that his park hurt him. If a player gets a five percent bump by his home park, which is about standard, Joe's line would be about .342/.415/.625 which would give him a 172 OPS+

Players get about a 4% bump in OPS+ from their home park but that's only 2% relative on-base% and 2% relative slugging. Also, maybe he could have adjusted better to his home park but didn't.

Steffo

08-02-2007, 05:20 PM

"If a player gets a five percent bump by his home park, which is about standard,"

Er, if the average player's park gives him a 5% boost, then it really doesn't give him a boost. It's neutral, there's no extra boosting. You can't set somebody's park effect to neutral, saying that there is no effect, then say a neutral park bumps the average stats. Neutral is the median, the point where there is no bias.

Also, how do you figure his ops+ based on career OBP and SLG? or did you take the time to go season by season?

edit: oh i misunderstood you. I thought you meant a 5% boost in his park factor, no tin being at home.

Baseball Guru

08-02-2007, 05:26 PM

I'll take the Splinter. You get more production for longer. Both guys did lose three prime years to WWII.

Plain and simple and I agree..

TRfromBR

08-02-2007, 06:00 PM

I feel that Williams was totally in awe of Dimaggio ...

And why do you think he was in awe of DiMaggio, rather than someone else?

Williams was only in awe of the very best - Jackson, Ruth, Foxx & DiMaggio. He had extemely high standards and did not tend to overrate anyone. The truth is DiMaggio was the best, most awe-inspiring, and winningest player of his generation, just like virtually all who saw him said.

TRfromBR

08-02-2007, 06:03 PM

I feel that Williams was totally in awe of Dimaggio ... And I don't think Dimaggio was in awe of anybody.

Ruth, Marilyn ...

Honus Wagner Rules

08-02-2007, 06:52 PM

No, but if he didn't hustle and perform, Joey D would certainly "show him the stadium exit." Leadership comes in many varieties. With Joey D, there was a no doubt a healthy dose of fear among all young players, and probably the rest of them, too. But, everyone of them performed at their max.
Most veteran ballplayers do that anyway. Again, I'm interested in specific examples of DiMaggio's leadership abilities. To lead requires some sort of action on the leader's part. I'm looking for details.

So, yes, HWR, he was an imperious leader, but one the greatest there has ever been, if you measure by his team's success. Maybe of the Julius Caesar variety. Can you think of another player who would have better inspired or led that particular dynasty? I can't.
Well, I doubt DiMaggio's "leadership" was as important as his production with the bat and and his glove plus the great players who were their teammates. "Leadership" isn't as valuable if your leader were to hit .265 with 15 HRs and 55 RBI. Mantle won his lion's share of World Series yet I don't hear the same poetic descriptions of his leadership skills.

Check out Mickey below . Does he look like a guy who wants to slack off or screw up in front of DiMaggio. I think not.

How old is Mantle in the photo? Twenty? I don't see any fear in Mantle. He seems to just be listening to DiMaggio tell a funny story of something. I'm sure Mantle knew who DiMaggio was and showed him the proper respect. Remember, Mantle was 17 years younger than DiMaggio. That's quite an age gap between ballplayers. He would have shown the same respect to Ted Williams or Stan Musial if they were his teammates. That doesn't really give us any insight into DiMaggio's leadership abilities, though.

TR, can you, or anyone else, recommend a DiMaggio biography that delves into DiMaggio's personality?

DiMag4Life

08-02-2007, 06:54 PM

"Ruth, Marilyn"

Gehrig as well.......

baseballPAP

08-02-2007, 07:19 PM

One of the problems with statistics now showing us that Williams was a very good fielder is that such a conclusion conflicts with contemporaneous reports. Even his biggest fans would often comment on how mediocre his fielding was. Revisionist claims that he was actually very good and "only a step behind DiMaggio" are absurd. I love Ted Williams as a ballplayer, but he was not close to being a great fielder. He never wanted to be, never tried to be, and never was.

I've spoken with people who used to go out of their way to see him, because they thought him so highly. Almost invariably, those people have commented about how poor his fielding seemed to be. I wish I could opine otherwise, because I think he was one of the greatest.

See...here is the conflict that "old-school" vs. "new-school" always leads to, in a nutshell. The argument is that so and so said he was the best, so he was. By this argument, every Negro-Leagues player was better than anyone else, ever. And it is the same argument you're using to defend DiMaggio.

The other side of the argument uses every available statistic, and forms an opinion dependent of...well, dependent of opinions. The numbers, especially where fielding is concerned, don't tell the whole story. But, they can't be ignored either....and that is many times the case.

I'm not claiming by any stretch that DiMaggio wasn't a superb CFer at his best. What I AM claiming is that his best was pretty much done by 1941. After that, he had an injury plagued year, and then went to the service, and wasn't the same afterwards (except in 1948). He simply didn't hold his edge long enough to be considered among the top CFers ever with the glove.

I'm also not claiming Williams was in his league defensively. Williams was a little above average as a LFer during his best years, quite possibly helped by a knack for playing the ball well off the Monster.

Neither side is completely correct most of the time.... but obviously, I lean a little new school :shrug:

TRfromBR

08-02-2007, 07:48 PM

See...here is the conflict that "old-school" vs. "new-school" always leads to, in a nutshell. The argument is that so and so said he was the best, so he was. By this argument, every Negro-Leagues player was better than anyone else, ever. And it is the same argument you're using to defend DiMaggio.

Don't mischaracterize what I've said. I have never excluded consideration of any statistic, I just happen to recognize that statistical data and analyses are often insufficient to correctly assess a ballplayer's skills and contributions - and especially so with a guy like DiMaggio.

And your "so and so" argument is also erroneous, as I have only referred to the first-hand and quite unanimous assessments some of Baseball's leading talents and authorities. I fail to see why you would know better than men like Ruth, Williams & Musial. In fact, I'm sure you don't

As for your Negro League commentary, that's equally absurd.

Perhaps you can explain why all those greats who saw DiMaggio were wrong. Good luck.

TRfromBR

08-02-2007, 08:13 PM

Here are some quotes about DiMaggio by people who know a thing or two:

"There was never a day when I was as good as Joe DiMaggio at his best. Joe was the best, the very best I ever saw." - Stan Musial

"As one of nine men, (Joe) DiMaggio is the best player that ever lived." - Connie Mack

"(Joe) DiMaggio was the greatest all-around player I ever saw. His career cannot be summed up in numbers and awards. It might sound corny, but he had a profound and lasting impact on the country." - Ted Williams

"He was beyond question one of the greatest players of the century." - Mickey Mantle

"He's the most complete ball player I've ever seen. He can hit, hit for power, run, throw, and play the outfield." - Joe McCarthy who was then asked by a reporter if he could bunt to which he replied, "I'll never know."

"Name a better right handed hitter, or a better thrower, or a better fielder, or a better base runner. That's right, a better base runner. Did you ever see him slide when he hooked the bag with his toe? Absolutely perfect." - Hank Greenberg

"Ted Williams was the greatest hitter I ever saw, but (Joe) DiMaggio was the greatest all around player." - Bob Feller

"Picking all-time team".
"My old Red Sox side-kick, Tris Speaker, wins center field in my book, even though I recognize that Joe DiMaggio of the present-day Yankees is a greater center fielder. But "Spoke" was something extra special. Only those who played with or against him really appreciated what a great ballplayer he was."- Babe Ruth

Honus, the above assessments, by many of Baseball's greatest, are representative of what you'll find in biographies of DiMaggio. Everyone who played with him will tell you he was the undisputed leader of the team, and with him leading there was no fooling around. From Opening Day you were working at 100% to win the pennant. He may not have been the most fun guy and leader, but he was the best player and leader to have on your team, if your goal was to win.

He's a complex guy, but judging him as a ballplayer is pretty simple stuff. Early biographies focused on his skill and performance, later ones on his personality quirks and marriage to Marilyn. I prefer the earlier ones, particularly because alot of Joe's friends and teammates did not participate in the sensationalized psycho-biographies, which dwell more on his reclusive post-career behavior than his phenomenal skills as a ballplayer. After you've read them all, you'll find that the above quotes sum up his baseball skills quite nicely. You will also find numerous examples of how he led his team, in a frequently stern, but always effective manner.

Honus Wagner Rules

08-03-2007, 01:06 AM

Honus, the above assessments, by many of Baseball's greatest, are representative of what you'll find in biographies of DiMaggio. Everyone who played with him will tell you he was the undisputed leader of the team, and with him leading there was no fooling around. From Opening Day you were working at 100% to win the pennant. He may not have been the most fun guy and leader, but he was the best player and leader to have on your team, if your goal was to win.
Sure all those quotes attest to his greatness as a ballplayer. I don't doubt that for one second. I've come to appreciate DiMaggio as a ballplayer even more since I came to BBF. I like how csh described him a while ago, "For the first six seasons of his career Joe DiMaggio was the perfect ballplayer...". I know DiMaggio was a serious player and a serious person and that his teaamates knew he demanded a lot of then but DiMaggio demanded even more of himself. I think that is what drove him to be the best. This fear of not being the best or looking bad on the ballfield.

On any team the best player, especially a HoF caliber player, is looked on as the "team leader" regardless if he has actual leadership skills or the desire to be the team leader. The reason is because his performance on the field often overshadows his teammates. Just today I read an article about Prince Fielder in ESPN the Magazine. It's interesting to see this young man, just 23 years old, becoming the Brewers team leader. The article described at length the things that Fielder does to keep his teammates focused and when they are struggling. There's one funny example about how Fielder approached his pitcher that was stuggling. There are quotes from the team veterans like Geoff Jenkins who marvel at this young man's tough mental attitude and his focused approach to the game. There's even a quote from Tony Gwynn who refers to Fielder as "a power hitter with a contact hitter's mindset". These are the kinds of things I'd like to read about DiMaggio.

He's a complex guy, but judging him as a ballplayer is pretty simple stuff. Early biographies focused on his skill and performance, later ones on his personality quirks and marriage to Marilyn. I prefer the earlier ones, particularly because alot of Joe's friends and teammates did not participate in the sensationalized psycho-biographies, which dwell more on his reclusive post-career behavior than his phenomenal skills as a ballplayer. After you've read them all, you'll find that the above quotes sum up his baseball skills quite nicely. You will also find numerous examples of how he led his team, in a frequently stern, but always effective manner.
I think I'll read a few of his biographies. I was never that interested in DiMaggio until I came to BBF. That's why I love this place!

DiMag4Life

08-03-2007, 01:15 AM

I think I'll read a few of his biographies. I was never that interested in DiMaggio until I came to BBF. That's why I love this place!

I recommend you read "summer of '49", it's among the greatest baseball books I've ever read.

It's a book about the pennant chase between the Yankees and the Red Sox, and the Williams-DiMaggio rivalry.

Read the reviews, the book has had it's praises sung.

Great book.

TRfromBR

08-03-2007, 02:56 AM

I recommend you read "summer of '49", it's among the greatest baseball books I've ever read.

It's a book about the pennant chase between the Yankees and the Red Sox, and the Williams-DiMaggio rivalry.

Read the reviews, the book has had it's praises sung.

Great book.

Good call, DiMag. David Halbertstein's account of the great AL pennant race of '49 accurately portrays both DiMaggio, who was already an injured player by that time, and Williams, who was at his peak. Unfortunately, many people today get all their opinions on DiMaggio from Richard Ben Cramer's pycho-tabloid-biography on DiMaggio, which focuses less on what made DiMaggio a great ballplayer than it does on his [alleged] personality flaws, extracurricular activities, and romantic liaisons. Cramer should have stuck to writing about Israel, his field of specialty, and refrained from digging so deeply, darkly, and salaciously, into unnecessary and irrelevant details of a great ballplayer's private life. One look at Cramer below, and it's obvious he was not the best equipped person to be judging DiMaggio. No wonder why Joe so often steered clear of the press. This vulture waited years for DiMaggio to die, so that he could cravenly attack him free of libel action. And then came Morris Engelberg, another greedy slimeball.

DiMag4Life

08-03-2007, 03:29 AM

Good call, DiMag. David Halbertstein's account of the great AL pennant race of '49 accurately portrays both DiMaggio, who was already an injured player by that time, and Williams, who was at his peak. Unfortunately, many people today get all their opinions on DiMaggio from Richard Ben Cramer's pycho-tabloid-biography on DiMaggio, which focuses less on what made DiMaggio a great ballplayer than it does on his [alleged] personality flaws, extracurricular activities, and romantic liaisons. Cramer should have stuck to writing about Israel, his field of specialty, and refrained from digging so deeply, darkly, and salaciously, into unnecessary and irrelevant details of a great ballplayer's private life. One look at Cramer below, and it's obvious he was not the best equipped person to be judging DiMaggio. No wonder why Joe so often steered clear of the press. This vulture waited years for DiMaggio to die, so that he could cravenly attack him free of libel action. And then came Morris Engelberg, another greedy slimeball.

I agree completely. In fact, a lot of the stuff he wrote had no link or explanation how he came to that.

At first, I though he actually was (stupid me) telling the truth.

But it got to the point where he was literally taking us step by step into Joe and Marilyn's you-know-what life.

Joe was way too private to tell, even a family member, about his encounters.

He had no source, just trying to bring up book sales.

Also, it was pretty aware that he became angry at DiMaggio after the Clipper refused to help him with the biography.

I read the whole book, and it really got under my skin.

And this really isn't bias. I'm not a Yankee's fan, I just always admired DiMaggio and Williams..... they were the two best players in the greatest baseball era this game has ever known, and it kills me to think that all that is forgotten about after a Ham-and-Eggs author tries to get the dirt.

DiMag4Life

08-03-2007, 03:30 AM

Double post.

TRfromBR

08-03-2007, 05:33 AM

I agree completely. In fact, a lot of the stuff he wrote had no link or explanation how he came to that.

At first, I though he actually was (stupid me) telling the truth.

But it got to the point where he was literally taking us step by step into Joe and Marilyn's you-know-what life.

Joe was way too private to tell, even a family member, about his encounters.

He had no source, just trying to bring up book sales.

Also, it was pretty aware that he became angry at DiMaggio after the Clipper refused to help him with the biography.

I read the whole book, and it really got under my skin.

And this really isn't bias. I'm not a Yankee's fan, I just always admired DiMaggio and Williams..... they were the two best players in the greatest baseball era this game has ever known, and it kills me to think that all that is forgotten about after a Ham-and-Eggs author tries to get the dirt.

Exactly, DiMag. Not a true baseball biography, at all. Rather, an obvious attempt to cash in on Joe's life outside baseball, with highly questionable motives and sources. Cramer would have never gotten away with such smear tactics, when DiMaggio was alive. Libel laws would have precluded that. I might add that Cramer's book went a long way in confirming DiMaggio's [warranted] suspicions about ill-motivated media.

I'm not a Yankee fan either, DiMag. And, I, too, think that Williams and DiMaggio are two of the greatest ever to play the game. And both from one of Baseball's true Golden Age's. We were blessed to have them.

DiMag4Life

08-03-2007, 06:03 AM

I'm not a Yankee fan either, DiMag. And, I, too, think that Williams and DiMaggio are two of the greatest ever to play the game. And both from one of Baseball's true Golden Age's. We were blessed to have them.

Yup. Since I'm 24, I unfortunately never got to see either play....... but I've always been fascinated with both of them. I've read "Ted Williams; A Baseball Life", "Summer of '49", and many biograhies of the Clipper.

I really don't think that this era really appreciates how important those two were to the game.

baseballPAP

08-03-2007, 06:14 AM

Don't mischaracterize what I've said. I have never excluded consideration of any statistic, I just happen to recognize that statistical data and analyses are often insufficient to correctly assess a ballplayer's skills and contributions - and especially so with a guy like DiMaggio.

And your "so and so" argument is also erroneous, as I have only referred to the first-hand and quite unanimous assessments some of Baseball's leading talents and authorities. I fail to see why you would know better than men like Ruth, Williams & Musial. In fact, I'm sure you don't

As for your Negro League commentary, that's equally absurd.

Perhaps you can explain why all those greats who saw DiMaggio were wrong. Good luck.

Please, try reading the post before you get insulted. I used your quote as an example, and didn't put you down in any way. I said that you were taking the old-school approach in defending a player you obviously admire. Anyone who has read this discussion this far couldn't argue with that. I never made any claims to know more than anyone... I have my own opinions, and form them from whatever information I have. I'm not a standard Bill James guy, nor do I ignore first hand accounts...I just temper them with what the numbers say.

The so and so comment is meant as a generalization....and it definitely does apply, not only to your own posting of quotes saying how admired Joe is, but to any other similar post. It doesn't matter who the player is... The NeLers have very little in the way of stats to back their greatness. If you want to research them, you'll find no end of "he was as good as Player X" and "He was the black Player Y" comments. The problem with first hand accounts is that very rarely do you see any comments that claim anything other than how good a player is....no comments saying that a player was an average player. Read Riley's NeL Encyclopedia sometime...if you take it word for word then you'll come out believing that every black team should have 6 or 8 representatives in Cooperstown.

Again, I'm not saying DiMaggio isn't a great player. I do have him at #28, but not because I think there are 27 players who had a better 6 year run.... I just think there are 27 players who did more on the baseball field, due to any combination of longetivity, skill, achievemant and any other relevant factor. Joe finishes #28 because he just didn't sustain it long enough.

I do find it odd that there are several posters on this forum who treat DiMaggio as if he is family. It is considered a personal attack if someone tries to instill anything other than praise on the great DiMaggio. Objectivity is somehow overlooked in his case more than in any other player. I don't treat any player with anything other than objectivity, although I do have my favorite player too high on my top 100 list, I fully admit that I do.

DiMag4Life

08-03-2007, 06:21 AM

I do find it odd that there are several posters on this forum who treat DiMaggio as if he is family. It is considered a personal attack if someone tries to instill anything other than praise on the great DiMaggio. Objectivity is somehow overlooked in his case more than in any other player. I don't treat any player with anything other than objectivity, although I do have my favorite player too high on my top 100 list, I fully admit that I do.

baseballPAP, are you regarding to me? I do admit that I admire DiMaggio, but I respect the opinion of others, and it's not like I will be personally insulted if you say something negative about DiMaggio......... everyone has their own opinion.

EdTarbusz

08-03-2007, 06:25 AM

I think mid August he was hitting .400...I can't imagine how much an eye infection must suck.

In mid August he was hitting around .390. He raised his average above .400 in September. Going into the second week of September, he was still above .400.

DiMag4Life

08-03-2007, 06:27 AM

In mid August he was hitting around .390. He raised his average above .400 in September. Going into the second week of September, he was still above .400.

He was held to an 0-4 game, followed a few games later by an 0-5 game. That ruined his chance.

DiMag4Life

08-03-2007, 06:31 AM

I can't believe I don't know this, but how was the relationship between DiMaggio and Williams?

I knew they respected each others abilities, but it seems like they had a pretty cold relationship.

EdTarbusz

08-03-2007, 06:52 AM

Most veteran ballplayers do that anyway. Again, I'm interested in specific examples of DiMaggio's leadership abilities. To lead requires some sort of action on the leader's part. I'm looking for details.

Peter Golenbock gives a good example in Dynasty where he talks about an incident in which DiMaggio chews out a young Yogi Berra with one pithy comment about his work ethic. DiMaggio strikes me as a guy who didn't have to talk to show his leadership. He showed it by playing in pain and by having the abilility to show someone his displeasure by giving them an ice cold glance.

PVNICK

08-03-2007, 06:53 AM

When guys like Williams & Musial (and so many other people who witnessed his greatness) tell you DiMaggio was the greatest player they ever saw, that's not hearsay. Hearsay is when people who never saw him say that Williams & Musial (and so many others who witnessed his greatness) were all wrong.

They were both all-time greats, with Williams being the better pure hitter and having better longevity, and DiMaggio the better fielder, baserunner, team leader and all-round player.

I just meant hearsay (or more like readsay) as to me. Point taken nonetheless.

hellborn

08-03-2007, 06:58 AM

Exactly, DiMag. Not a true baseball biography, at all. Rather, an obvious attempt to cash in on Joe's life outside baseball, with highly questionable motives and sources. Cramer would have never gotten away with such smear tactics, when DiMaggio was alive. Libel laws would have precluded that. I might add that Cramer's book went a long way in confirming DiMaggio's [warranted] suspicions about ill-motivated media.

I'm not a Yankee fan either, DiMag. And, I, too, think that Williams and DiMaggio are two of the greatest ever to play the game. And both from one of Baseball's true Golden Age's. We were blessed to have them.

Didn't read Cramer's book on Clipper, sorry to hear that it was apparently a hack job. I think that Cramer's stuff on Splinter is outstanding, but Cramer was able to become part of Ted's life, a friend. I wonder if this led to him taking sides in the Splinter/Clipper rivalry, and resenting the fact that Joe wouldn't have a personal relationship with him. Cramer's writings on Williams show him as a human being...a man full of love and rage, a cheapskate who would send a ballplayer down on his luck $10k anonymously, a man who wouldn't give his phone number out but would make strong, lifelong friendships with those he trusted. I don't know if Joe's nature would allow anybody to draw such a rich picture of him.
I don't understand why the way Cramer looks, or the fact that he is an expert on Israel, affects his ability to write a baseball biography, though.

As for Joe and Ted, I get the feeling that Ted tried to cultivate a friendship, but Joe held him at arm's length. It may have been Cramer who told the story about Joe telling the crowd at a dinner about how much he regretted having never fished with the great angler Ted Williams, and Ted yelled out, "SOB! I invited you THREE TIMES!!!"
They both lived in Florida, too...maybe Joe had enough of fishing as a young man in SF.

TRfromBR

08-03-2007, 07:59 AM

erroneously duplicated post

538280

08-03-2007, 08:30 AM

I just always admired DiMaggio and Williams..... they were the two best players in the greatest baseball era this game has ever known,

Why is that the best era the game has ever known? Seriously, if I were to want to go back and watch the baseball of any era that I haven't seen, the last one I'd go back and watch would be 40s baseball. 40s baseball was the era where very few skills could even be put on display in the game. It was the Bob Feller era of pitchers, and I don't mean this as a slight on Feller at all, he was a great, great pitcher, but many pitchers tried to have a similar style to him, trying to throw really hard at the expense of control and the result was that they walked a ton of batters. Walk numbers have never been higher than where they were in that era. There was a lot of taking of wild pitches from pitchers who walked a ton of guys and a lot of hitters who just took advantage of this, like Eddie Yost, Eddie Stanky, Eddie Joost, Ferris Fain, and Pat Seerey just to name some. The only skills they brought to the table was just being able to take those often wild pitches thrown at them. Now, don't get me wrong, these guys were still good baseball players because the goal of the game is to win and because they were on base often they conributed to that goal. But that doesn't make them exciting in any way, effective, but not exciting. Most of the normal exciting skills in baseball weren't happening during that era. Batting averages were down, doubles and triples were down. The "balata ball" briefly came into use which made it hard for hitters to drive in any way-so there wasn't much power and even batting averages went down with that ball because it just wasn't easy to hit. There were no stolen bases, very little way to use someone's speed to an advantage. With so many walks and with pitchers often throwing harder, so strikeouts were on the rise, the fielders couldn't even do as much as they often could. You may have different preferences than me, and I don't have a problem with that, but I serioulsy don't think that's the kind of baseball I'd want to watch. Teams didn't have much varying strategy, they just all went by that same type of game, and IMO it wasn't even really that exciting of a game. Baseball attendance shot up after WWII but after a few years of that type of baseball it declined.

If I were to want to see a specific type of baseball it would be the baseball of the late 70s going into the early 90s, before the HR explosion started. About 1977-1993. This was a game where all possibly skills and talents of all different types of baseball players could be put on display. You had a game where steals were prevalent and players could definitely use their speed to their advantage. You had players who could hit to all fields for high BAs, like Rod Carew and George Brett. You had players who just brought great power to the game, you had acrobatic fielders. Any kind of skill was open for expression in that era and on the field at one time you had a battle of all different skill sets. Every game it was a wonder which one would prevail-and I think that's what makes baseball exciting. That's why my favorite type of players have always been the power/speed guys. The guys who are strong and can hit for a lot of power but still run fast, can steal bases and are usually good fielders. Eric Davis and Darryl Strawberry, childhood friends obvioulsy, are the types who I would love to watch. Very few players would I have liked to watch more than Davis in his prime.

About this comparison, I'd take Williams. I don't think Williams was a below aveage fielder. Not a great one and certainly not even close to DiMaggio, but he was known to be good at fielding balls hit off the Green Monster, and sometimes throwing runners out in that way. That is often overlooked IMO about Red Sox left fielders. Manny Ramirez does that as well and the year he led the league in assists or came close it was mainly throwing runners out in that way. Williams has a big offensive edge on DiMaggio and the difference between even a great CF (and it's not even clear that DiMaggio should be called that, he very well could be though) and a little above average LF isn't as large as the difference in hitting which is probably at least 30 runs a year. Not to mention that Williams has a big longevity advantage, even based on just raw games played and he actually deserves more war credit than DiMaggio because Williams actually missed five seasons to the war (1943-1945 to WWII, 1952-1953 to korea), while DiMaggio only missed the three to WWII. Williams was still one of the best hitters in the game even in his "decline", even if he wasn't playing nearly as many games.

TRfromBR

08-03-2007, 08:31 AM

Didn't read Cramer's book on Clipper, sorry to hear that it was apparently a hack job. I think that Cramer's stuff on Splinter is outstanding, but Cramer was able to become part of Ted's life, a friend. I wonder if this led to him taking sides in the Splinter/Clipper rivalry, and resenting the fact that Joe wouldn't have a personal relationship with him. Cramer's writings on Williams show him as a human being...a man full of love and rage, a cheapskate who would send a ballplayer down on his luck $10k anonymously, a man who wouldn't give his phone number out but would make strong, lifelong friendships with those he trusted. I don't know if Joe's nature would allow anybody to draw such a rich picture of him.
I don't understand why the way Cramer looks, or the fact that he is an expert on Israel, affects his ability to write a baseball biography, though.

As for Joe and Ted, I get the feeling that Ted tried to cultivate a friendship, but Joe held him at arm's length. It may have been Cramer who told the story about Joe telling the crowd at a dinner about how much he regretted having never fished with the great angler Ted Williams, and Ted yelled out, "SOB! I invited you THREE TIMES!!!"
They both lived in Florida, too...maybe Joe had enough of fishing as a young man in SF.

DiMaggio lived down here in Hollywood for decades, Hellborn, and I never recall him fishing. I think Joe never had much love for fishing, or the poverty he associated it with, which was likely a large part of his motivation to play ball. Williams, as you know, was similarly scarred by the tough circumstances of his youth. For years, he avoided anything reminiscent of his youth - except baseball, fishing and hunting - which were his escapes. Both guys had tremendously hard childhoods that left scars.

Concerning Cramer, my take is that he's a talented writer, who went way over the line DiMaggio's biography. Having said that, I don't see him as having much of any real experience as a ballplayer. His true expertise was in analyzing Israeli politics. I think his experience on a baseball is extremely limited, and his disturbing habit to dig so salaciously into the irrelevant non-baseball details of DiMaggio's life was mostly despicable - rooted in greed and retaliation. More troubling is the fact that this pscho-bio is where most of today's public, either directly or indirectly, gets there impression of DiMaggio.

In his era, he was the best there was. Back then, everyone knew it. It was relatively brief, but it was magnificent. Then along came Williams, Musial, Mays & Mantle. What an incredible group of talent.

AstrosFan

08-03-2007, 02:23 PM

TRfromBR

08-03-2007, 03:11 PM

TR, I'm not sure what you're upset at Cramer about. Are you saying he shouldn't have dug into DiMaggio's personal life, because that was something Joe wanted kept out of the spotlight? Or are you accusing him of making stuff up to increase book sales? Because if it's the latter, and you have no proof of that; if Cramer ever found out who you were, he could sue you for libel.

AF, if you run into him, please do give him my whereabouts. Tell him we can either meet in court, or I could give him and his pussycat a few lessons in any athletic contest of his choosing. Richard Ben Cramer ... what a joke. I don't need Richard Ben Cramer, or any of his ilk, to tell me how good Joe DiMaggio was at baseball. And neither do you, AF. You know baseball far better than he. He's just a slimeball opportunist.

AstrosFan

08-03-2007, 03:25 PM

A) That didn't answer my question
B) I don't think Cramer wrote the biography to inform people how good Joe DiMaggio was at baseball.

TRfromBR

08-03-2007, 03:39 PM

A) That didn't answer my question
B) I don't think Cramer wrote the biography to inform people how good Joe DiMaggio was at baseball.

A) I'm not here to answer your questions.
B) The Cramer biography came up in relation to books concerning DiMaggio's greatness as a baseball player.
C) Read more closely and you'll see that I have indeed answered your question.

P.S. If you need Richard Ben Cramer to provide you answers to the subject of this thread, you're in deep trouble. Cramer couldn't coach T-Ball.

AstrosFan

08-03-2007, 03:42 PM

No, you did not directly answer my question. You just skirted around the issue, and called Cramer a "joke" and a "slimeball". That in no way answers my question.

Secondly, I am not reading Cramer's biography to improve my knowledge of how good a baseball player Joe DiMaggio was. I would never use a biography to do that, ever, under any circumstances. That is not what a biography should be used for, no matter how knowledgeable the person is about baseball.

Baseball Guru

08-03-2007, 03:45 PM

Keep it civil folks and on the subject..

Thanks:)

AstrosFan

08-03-2007, 03:47 PM

Sure thing, BG. I'm not mad at TR. I just want to know why he is so upset at Cramer.

TRfromBR

08-03-2007, 04:06 PM

Sure thing, BG. I'm not mad at TR. I just want to know why he is so upset at Cramer.

Before I go into this any further, AF, please let me know if you've read the biography. That will help me understand your comments and inquiries.

For the record, many biographies provide excellent information and insight into a ballplayer's abilities and performance. In fact, I have no objections to the portions of Cramer's work devoted to DiMaggio's actual ballplaying, though he brings no particular expertise to such reporting.

AF, this is an age when many people are far less interested in how good Britney Spears' last album was musically than what color panties she was[n't] wearing last night. As you'd know if you've read it, Cramer's psycho-biography mostly dwells on topics not necessary to understanding DiMaggio's baseball abilities and performance - which is the subject of this thread.

AstrosFan

08-03-2007, 04:12 PM

My point is that I couldn't care less what Cramer knows about DiMaggio's ballplaying abilities. Actually, I'm reading the book right now, and enjoying it thoroughly, mainly because Cramer is such a great writer. I wouldn't dare approach it as a tool for enhancing my knowledge of DiMaggio the player.

Thanks for the response, TR.

TRfromBR

08-03-2007, 04:14 PM

I wouldn't dare approach it as a tool for enhancing my knowledge of DiMaggio the player.

Smart move.

AstrosFan

08-03-2007, 04:24 PM

Oh, snap. Mr. Cramer, you got served.

OK, seriously, let's get back to DiMaggio vs. Williams. I generally lean Williams, but because of the way Yankee Stadium affected DiMaggio, I wouldn't call it a fixed thing.

AstrosFan

08-03-2007, 04:26 PM

Does anyone have season by season data on Joe's home road splits (BA/OBP/SLG/HR)? I think that would be helpful for people who are having difficulty deciding, whether the effect of Yankee Stadium can make up enough of the hitting ground that Joe's superiority in fielding and baserunning can cover the rest of the distance.

brett

08-03-2007, 05:05 PM

If Williams had played in YS, and didn't miss years to the war, he probably has the second highest batting average of all time. Given basic lefty, righty splits for YS and Williams home-road splits, and using his years around the war as a gauge he hits about .360/.660/.500 with 760 home runs and 2500 RBI and 3500 hits playing half his games in NY.

Dimaggio probably hits .345, with 520 home runs and a .610 slugging and .420 on base percentage with his war years and playing in Boston.

Still, Williams could have had the most home runs, and RBI, the second highest average, the highest on-base%, the most runs, the second highest slugging percentage, and I think retired #2 on the all time hit list, and had the most total bases and times on base in history.

Honus Wagner Rules

08-03-2007, 05:20 PM

dl4060

08-03-2007, 05:20 PM

If I were to want to see a specific type of baseball it would be the baseball of the late 70s going into the early 90s, before the HR explosion started. About 1977-1993. This was a game where all possibly skills and talents of all different types of baseball players could be put on display. You had a game where steals were prevalent and players could definitely use their speed to their advantage. You had players who could hit to all fields for high BAs, like Rod Carew and George Brett. You had players who just brought great power to the game, you had acrobatic fielders. Any kind of skill was open for expression in that era and on the field at one time you had a battle of all different skill sets. Every game it was a wonder which one would prevail-and I think that's what makes baseball exciting. That's why my favorite type of players have always been the power/speed guys. The guys who are strong and can hit for a lot of power but still run fast, can steal bases and are usually good fielders. Eric Davis and Darryl Strawberry, childhood friends obvioulsy, are the types who I would love to watch. Very few players would I have liked to watch more than Davis in his prime.

I grew up watching baseball from the mid-80's to the early 90's, and I think it was a far less interesting game then the one played today. Just my opinion but the 1990's were far more exciting. It seemed as if there were far more superstars, far more larger than life players. You might feel completely the opposite, but as a child I felt shortchanged. When Thomas, Griffey, Mcgwire, Bonds, and Bagwell started doing huge things in the mid and late 90's I found the game far more interesting. People were putting up seasons that were historic, records were being set. I remember praying in the late 80's that I would get to see a 50 hr season, or players like Mantle or Williams. I do agree about Eric Davis, in the 1987 season I thought I was finally going to see Willie Mays. To me, very few players in the 1980's transcended the game the way many of the stars of the 90's did, just a feeling I got watching both era's. Davis, in the first two months of 1987, was the exception. I thought he was going to hit 50 to 60 homeruns, bat about .320, and steal 60 bases, not too mention numerous homeruns from the opposition. He was truly a joy to watch, as exciting a player as I have ever seen.

Honus Wagner Rules

08-03-2007, 05:30 PM

538280

08-03-2007, 05:50 PM

I grew up watching baseball from the mid-80's to the early 90's, and I think it was a far less interesting game then the one played today. Just my opinion but the 1990's were far more exciting. It seemed as if there were far more superstars, far more larger than life players. You might feel completely the opposite, but as a child I felt shortchanged. When Thomas, Griffey, Mcgwire, Bonds, and Bagwell started doing huge things in the mid and late 90's I found the game far more interesting. People were putting up seasons that were historic, records were being set. I remember praying in the late 80's that I would get to see a 50 hr season, or players like Mantle or Williams. I do agree about Eric Davis, in the 1987 season I thought I was finally going to see Willie Mays. To me, very few players in the 1980's transcended the game the way many of the stars of the 90's did, just a feeling I got watching both era's. Davis, in the first two months of 1987, was the exception. I thought he was going to hit 50 to 60 homeruns, bat about .320, and steal 60 bases, not too mention numerous homeruns from the opposition. He was truly a joy to watch, as exciting a player as I have ever seen.

I didn't see 1980s baseball so I can't dispute your opinion. I actually like baseball today a lot and like watching the games. Today's game is one that, in a broad historical sense, I also think would be enjoyable to watch. It's just that my whole life of watching baseball I really only remember this style of home run baseball. Not that I don't like it, in fact I do, but I just would like to see what other brands of baseball are like and I think the 70s/80s type game would be the style that I would want to see the most. I was talking more about the style in which the game was played anyway, not the level of top tier superstars. I think many of the superstars from the 70s/80s tended to not be as dominating in that they were setting records and such but often had diversified skill sets and overall were worth just as much as those from later eras. I don't think that era had any players quite as good as Barry Bonds, even before his enhanced years, but I do think players like Joe Morgan, Mike Schmidt, and Rickey Henderson can hold their own with the superstars of any era, though I don't want to get into another debate about that.

DiMag4Life

08-03-2007, 05:57 PM

538280

08-03-2007, 06:17 PM

Williams hit .361 at Fenway career, .305 at YS.......... so not a very accurate theory........

Just curious, where are you getting that data? In the years we have data on BBRef (only the very end of his career, unfortunately) Williams hit .339/.553/.714 at YS and .340/.471/.586 at Fenway. That also shows why it's important to show more than just batting average. Could you show Williams' entire line in both parks, if you have that data? Williams' gain in YS would probably be more in the power department than average. Fenway actually wasn't a very good park for a hitter like Williams anyway (or at least vs. most other hitters, I would say if you're going to give DiMaggio a boost because the park factor doesn't accurately reflect it's effect on him as an individual you should do the same for Williams-though not to quite the same degree).

HDH

08-03-2007, 06:19 PM

>

The story I heard is that it was DIMAGGIO HIMSELF who insisted that he would appear at Old Timers Games ONLY if he could take the field last and be introduced as the "GREATEST LIVING BALLPLAYER."

It was Joe's description of himself, and given what we now know about his obsession with his reputation,, it's a perfectly plausible story.

I heard the same story on XM some time ago... In addition, he always expected expensive "gifts" for appearing at functions which he hoarded the rest of his life.

DiMag4Life

08-03-2007, 06:34 PM

Just curious, where are you getting that data? In the years we have data on BBRef (only the very end of his career, unfortunately) Williams hit .339/.553/.714 at YS and .340/.471/.586 at Fenway. That also shows why it's important to show more than just batting average. Could you show Williams' entire line in both parks, if you have that data? Williams' gain in YS would probably be more in the power department than average. Fenway actually wasn't a very good park for a hitter like Williams anyway (or at least vs. most other hitters, I would say if you're going to give DiMaggio a boost because the park factor doesn't accurately reflect it's effect on him as an individual you should do the same for Williams-though not to quite the same degree).

Here you go, career line at YS:

Games:158 AVG: .313 HR: 30 RBI: 92

That was all I could get from the book "Baseball Life", sorry I couldn't get slg. and opb., and ops.

.345 vs. Yanks overall, but .313 vs. Yankees at YS.

AstrosFan

08-03-2007, 06:45 PM

I didn't see 1980s baseball so I can't dispute your opinion. I actually like baseball today a lot and like watching the games. Today's game is one that, in a broad historical sense, I also think would be enjoyable to watch. It's just that my whole life of watching baseball I really only remember this style of home run baseball. Not that I don't like it, in fact I do, but I just would like to see what other brands of baseball are like and I think the 70s/80s type game would be the style that I would want to see the most. I was talking more about the style in which the game was played anyway, not the level of top tier superstars. I think many of the superstars from the 70s/80s tended to not be as dominating in that they were setting records and such but often had diversified skill sets and overall were worth just as much as those from later eras. I don't think that era had any players quite as good as Barry Bonds, even before his enhanced years, but I do think players like Joe Morgan, Mike Schmidt, and Rickey Henderson can hold their own with the superstars of any era, though I don't want to get into another debate about that.

The 1970s and 1980s brand of baseball has a reputation for being the era of specialization. Maybe that's why it doesn't appeal to everyone. I wonder if being a great all-around player was worth more in that era. The three superstars you mentioned, Morgan, Henderson, and Schmidt, were all great all-around players in their prime. All hit for a good average compared to the league, despite having career BAs below .280. All displayed good to great power. All had good patience. All were good fielders. All were good to great baserunners. Another name I would add to that group is Ryne Sandberg, who isn't at their level, quite, but had the same all-around skills.

BoSox Rule

08-03-2007, 06:51 PM

brett

08-03-2007, 07:09 PM

A .660 OBP?!!! :crazy

Slugging percentage, though if his danger factor got high enough he could have moved into the .600s like Bonds did. I think he was close.

brett

08-03-2007, 07:21 PM

Williams hit .361 at Fenway career, .305 at YS.......... so not a very accurate theory........

That's not really the issue though. The Yankees pitching staves gave up about 20% fewer runs than the league average during William's career.

20% more runs is about 10% more batting average and 16% more home runs (using a typical conversion) so a .305 average would be .336 just due to pitching staff alone. 30 home runs converts to about 35 in 158 games.

Throw in the fact that hitters have about 4% better batting averages at home than on the road it comes to about .350.

brett

08-03-2007, 07:23 PM

IMO, the only argument for DiMaggio is tools. That doesn't really hold any water. Williams was a great player the last year of his career, DiMaggio was out of baseball at 36. Nobody is close to Williams as a hitter (besides Ruth who is probably ahead of him) and maybe Bonds depending on how you view it. Nothing in the world makes up for that.

A funny thing about tools. I saw Kareem Abdul Jabbar destroy Dr. J in a 1 on 1 exhibition. It was like 40-16 and 42-18 in 2 games. Who had more "tools?" A couple of great tools can make a guy the best.

538280

08-03-2007, 07:39 PM

A little more on Fenway affecting Williams this is a post I made before:

On the parks issue. I don't think Ted benifited anymore from the parks at all than the regular park factor would suggest. In fact if anything he benefited less. When you take those home/road splits you find his OPS was 6.1% better at home. Most players do around 5% better at home anyway due to familiary factors so he's 1.1% over that. Just based on that he's being helped less than the regular Fenway park factor would suggest. Then there's Fenway itself which will always help other hitters (RH) more than it will lefties, automatically leaving lefties at a bit of a disadvantage.

I've seen you mention this before and I don't get it. Fenway still probably helped Ted a little, but compared to other hitters it did not help him that much. You seem to have the idea that it helped him far more than it did most other players. If you are used to seeing LH sluggers in Fenway every year then you would know this is not true.

Williams was a lefty pull hitter in Fenway park. Those types of hitters are not always too well served hitting in Fenway. Even with that little power area they made for him Williams' overall game was not as well suited as other types of hitters were. Aside from the part right at "Pesky's Pole" when it is like 300 feet or so, it goes out rather quickly from there and the right center field area, called "The Triangle" is 420 feet and it not too easy for the LH pull hitters to get to. Fenway is a bandbox park and extreme for hitters, but the LH pull hitters is one of the worst types of hitters for Fenway. The area "Williamsburg" referenced may have changed this a bit but I doubt it totally changed the dynamic. It still may be somewhat favorable for Williams, I seriously doubt that it was unfavorable to anyone, but I don't think it was a huge deal with Williams. Given the home/road data and that most other types of hitters were more well suited (park factors, of course, are based on how all hitters are affected)if anything the park factors overrate the effect Fenway had on Williams (they peanlize him more than he, the individual, deserves). I don't give him any credit for that, but if you don't think the park factor makes adequate compensation for Fenway's influence then it should be going in the opposite way, making him look better. Again, I wouldn't do that though. Value is value. But if you're into that kind of thing then the park factors are probably too extreme IMO.

538280

08-03-2007, 07:43 PM

The 1970s and 1980s brand of baseball has a reputation for being the era of specialization. Maybe that's why it doesn't appeal to everyone. I wonder if being a great all-around player was worth more in that era. The three superstars you mentioned, Morgan, Henderson, and Schmidt, were all great all-around players in their prime. All hit for a good average compared to the league, despite having career BAs below .280. All displayed good to great power. All had good patience. All were good fielders. All were good to great baserunners. Another name I would add to that group is Ryne Sandberg, who isn't at their level, quite, but had the same all-around skills.

I agree, I like specialization in baseball though-I think it makes things more interesting as you have so many different types of players on the same field and thus all different kinds of skills which can be expressed. That's just a matter of preference though. Morgan and Henderson had such a broad range of skills that they often look bad in BA just because they were able to last so long on their other skills after their BA skill had declined. Morgan late in his career lost 60 points off his BA, stole less than half as bases as he had, hit for less power, and wasn't quite the same defenisvely-but still was perhaps the best offensive 2Bman in the game at the time, only Grich was probably better and Morgan was the best in the NL. He still was a very good offensive player who produced a lot of runs and did it as still a good enough fielder at a key offensive position. He was a tremendous player. The only way he could look bad is if you compare him to his own peak. In fact he was so great then that it often made him look bad late in his career. Henderson was similar. Even later in his career (and being traded around the leauge :) ), he still got on base very well and stole quite a few bases. He wasn't as good as he had been, but comparing him to that standard is the only way how he could possibly look bad. Unfortunately, for some reason many people do just that.

brett

08-03-2007, 08:21 PM

DiMag4Life

08-04-2007, 08:47 PM

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

SHOELESSJOE3

08-04-2007, 09:44 PM

Lets hear it from the man himself, Ted Williams and his thoughts on hitting at Yankee Stadium.

SHOELESSJOE3

08-04-2007, 09:52 PM

More Ted Williams and hitting at Yankee Stadium.

dl4060

08-06-2007, 12:50 AM

I don't think that era had any players quite as good as Barry Bonds, even before his enhanced years, but I do think players like Joe Morgan, Mike Schmidt, and Rickey Henderson can hold their own with the superstars of any era, though I don't want to get into another debate about that.

I didn't get to see Morgan play, at least not in the 70's, but I agree with you about Schmidt and the Rickey. Schmidt was my favorite player growing up, and I never felt he got his due.

dl4060

08-06-2007, 12:59 AM

A funny thing about tools. I saw Kareem Abdul Jabbar destroy Dr. J in a 1 on 1 exhibition. It was like 40-16 and 42-18 in 2 games. Who had more "tools?" A couple of great tools can make a guy the best.

Nice story, and a great point. Williams and the older Barry Bonds are three tool guys, power, patience, and the ability to hit for contact. But those tools are the most valuable tools there are.

TRfromBR

08-06-2007, 07:17 AM

Nice story, and a great point. Williams and the older Barry Bonds are three tool guys, power, patience, and the ability to hit for contact. But those tools are the most valuable tools there are.

When exactly did patience become one of the big tools, separate from both power and percentage hitting. I must have missed that memo.

dl4060

08-06-2007, 05:18 PM

When exactly did patience become one of the big tools, separate from both power and percentage hitting. I must have missed that memo.

I never said it was considered one of the big tools, only that it was an important and valuable one. Many scouts(like the guys who drafted Jeff Jackson ahead of Frank Thomas) still do not consider it one of the big tools, though most intelligent baseball men probably do. I would take patience over speed or a strong throwing arm any day of the week. As to it being separate from power and percentage hitting I think one can clearly have patience without power, contact, or both, so I can see no intelligent reason why it should not be separate. Patience is clearly distinct from hitting for power and hitting for contact, though it contributes to both.

The memo is most of the good sabermetric work of the last 20 years, and the presence of men like Billy Beane, Theo Epstein, and Paul Depodesta

Honus Wagner Rules

08-06-2007, 05:21 PM

Many scouts(like the guys who drafted Jeff Jackson ahead of Frank Thomas) still do consider it one of the big tools, intelligent baseball men do. I would take patience over speed or a strong throwing arm any day of the week. As to it being separate from power and percentage hitting I think one can clearly have patience without power, contact, or both, so I can see no intelligent reason why it should not be separate. Patience is clearly distinct from hitting for power and hitting for contact, though it contributes to both.
The immortal Jeff Jackson! Wasn't he supposed to be the next Eric Davis? I still remember his 1990 Topps baseball card.

TRfromBR

08-06-2007, 06:56 PM

The memo is most of the good sabermetric work of the last 20 years, and the presence of men like Billy Beane, Theo Epstein, and Paul Depodesta

Oh, so that's who discovered patience.:laugh If they had just been more patient and given Ted Williams a call, he could have told them all about it and how he learned about it from Hornsby, and so on ... saving them those twenty years.

baseballPAP

08-06-2007, 07:14 PM

538280

08-06-2007, 07:17 PM

BigSix

08-06-2007, 08:59 PM

If you ask me, both are overrated. However, Williams lasted longer, and just may be baseball's greatest hitter. To me, it is not even close.

TRfromBR

08-06-2007, 09:06 PM

All humor aside, it is a valid point being made. Patience wasn't considered as valuable an asset until it became possible to do more analytical work. There were still guys that knew how to work a walk, it just wasn't well known as to how much it helped a team. Ask Miller Huggins and Billy Hamilton....

I'm sure it's true, BaseballPAP, that there are some minor mathematical nuances that weren't known about the statistical significance of a walk versus other plate "events." But, the essential and critical knowledge of what a walk achieves has long been a part of the game. One may disagree with a guy like DiMaggio not taking as many walks as Williams, for instance, but that doesn't mean Joey D didn't understand walks. He knew exactly what he was doing.

Decades before Theo Epstein was in his first diaper, coaches have been teaching kids about patience at the plate. Making someone pitch to you, waiting for the right pitch, and working the walk are ancient concepts and practices. True, many great baseball players and coaches have preferred to hit and put the ball in play, rather than walk - but that's a conscious decision, involving much more than statistical analysis in a vacuum. Who wants a bunch of Eddie Gaedel's?

SHOELESSJOE3

08-06-2007, 09:17 PM

SHOELESSJOE3

08-06-2007, 09:20 PM

See if this one is more legible.

TRfromBR

08-06-2007, 09:32 PM

Some numbers, Ted at home and at Yankee Stadium.

That is some pretty powerful data, Shoeless Joe. Especially considering Teddy was a lefty. I seem to recall in his book, "The Hit List," that he summed up his feeling about playing in Old Yankee Stadium in a manner consistent with the chart you have posted. He commented, too, how it was even harder for DiMaggio to play there as a righty.

SHOELESSJOE3

08-06-2007, 09:33 PM

Ted Willams career home runs by AL clubs.

From the book " Hitter The Life and Times of Ted Williams".
Page 405

SHOELESSJOE3

08-06-2007, 09:42 PM

That is some pretty powerful data, Shoeless Joe. Especially considering Teddy was a lefty. I seem to recall in his book, "The Hit List," that he summed up his feeling about playing in Old Yankee Stadium in a manner consistent with the chart you have posted. He commented, too, how it was even harder for DiMaggio to play there as a righty.

I did post some info on Ted's thoughts on hitting at Yankee Stadium a while back. In case it was missed by some here it is again.

SHOELESSJOE3

08-06-2007, 09:47 PM

Ted's home run hit chart at Fenway.

DiMag4Life

08-07-2007, 06:57 AM

That's not really the issue though. The Yankees pitching staves gave up about 20% fewer runs than the league average during William's career.

20% more runs is about 10% more batting average and 16% more home runs (using a typical conversion) so a .305 average would be .336 just due to pitching staff alone. 30 home runs converts to about 35 in 158 games.

Throw in the fact that hitters have about 4% better batting averages at home than on the road it comes to about .350.

Well, he hit .373 in Fenway against them. So it must've been somewhat of a difference.

DiMag4Life

08-07-2007, 07:20 AM

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

TRfromBR

08-07-2007, 09:04 AM

This is a perfect example, DiMag, of how Cramer's book has spawned erroneous opinions of DiMaggio. The fact is Mantle regarded DiMaggio as the greatest of all centerfielders. And, with respect to the World Series injury of Mantle, I know of absolutely no evidence or any good reason at all to believe that DiMaggio caused Mantle's injury. Mantle, still being inexperienced as a ML outfielder, misplayed the ball.

Cramer and Pete Golenbach are two peas in a pod when it comes to assassinating DiMaggio. Both didn't get interviews with DiMaggio, and proceeded to destroy his rep. Mickey never retreated from his stellar assessment of Joltin' Joe as a ballplayer. What he did express was that he felt bad about Joe being so reclusive in his retirement, and particularly so after Marilyn Monroe's death, which Joe, for good reason, regarded as a murder. Mickey [correctly]thought DiMaggio was one of the greatest ballplayers that ever lived.

I met Golenbach at a book ("No. 7") signing in St. Pete, less than two months ago. What a complete blowhard he is, continually recycling books (with new titles) on Mickey and Billy, etc., based on salacious and unsubstantiated rumors and hearsay. When weasels like these destroy a man's rep in order to make a few bucks, they should be shunned. Who cares what guys like Cramer and Golenbach think about DiMaggio, anyhow. Neither one of them were capable of carrying his jockstrap, nevermind judging his baseball skills.

SHOELESSJOE3

08-07-2007, 11:17 AM

I hope we're not going down that road again. That Joe although unintentional "may have" been partly at fault. Because he waited too long causing Mantle to put on the brakes and caught his spike on that drain cover, or sprinkler top.

Now I'm not saying those are your words, it's Ben Cramer and it appears that his last line about Joe making it look easy and then throwing Mantle and his pain, his whole career that he tries to connect Joe's call and Mick's injury

Pure bull. I hope I can find and post the book (source) that I saw the following words in. Will look, saw it at the library a while back. Not his exact words but very close, his description. That he ( Mantle) could not believe that Joe could get to that ball , get under it. He was surprised to see Joe camped under the ball.

I think I would have to take the words, the description by one of the two players involved. Some put a bad rap on Joe for this one, some of the opinion that his late call was deliberate and the cause of what took place or even partly Joe's fault.

Blame it on the ground crew at the stadium, that sprinkler head should have not been as high as it was. Suppose Mantle or any opponents outfielders stepped on that head while in full stride

Here it is again, Ben Cramer is full of it.This was not the fault of Joe Dimaggio, it's Mantle's own words.

The problem is even when some are shown in print what actually happened according to Mantle, some refuse to believe Mantle's words. They say Mick just did not want to put Joe in a negative light. Well thats their opinion.

How can some say that Joe made a late call just to make Mick look bad, some still keep harping on that line.

How many times have we seen outfielders who have played together for years show some confusion and at times even collide. Joe and Mick did play that many games together and besides that we don't even know if there was a late call.

Mick had been instructed by Stengel to "cover for the big Dago", his legs were not the same, can't cover ground the way he once could.

Can we bury this BS story, it wasn't Joe it was some foolish situation, a sprinkler that had no business being raised in the outfield with players at times running full out after a ball.

TRfromBR

08-07-2007, 01:50 PM

Here it is again, Ben Cramer is full of it.This was not the fault of Joe Dimaggio, it's Mantle's own words.

The problem is even when some are shown in print what actually happened according to Mantle, some refuse to believe Mantle's words. They say Mick just did not want to put Joe in a negative light. Well thats their opinion.

How can some say that Joe made a late call just to make Mick look bad, some still keep harping on that line.

How many times have we seen outfielders who have played together for years show some confusion and at times even collide. Joe and Mick did play that many games together and besides that we don't even know if there was a late call.

Mick had been instructed by Stengel to "cover for the big Dago", his legs were not the same, can't cover ground the way he once could.

Can we bury this BS story, it wasn't Joe it was some foolish situation, a sprinkler that had no business being raised in the outfield with players at times running full out after a ball.

Before anyone should launch such a malicious charge - that DiMaggio ruined Mantle's career - they should examine all the evidence, including the news wire photo of the play. Anyone who's played ball can see that Mantle damaged himself independent of Joe DiMaggio's fielding. Shoeless Joe's observation about the sprinkler being misappropriately placed appears to be correct. In any case, it certainly wasn't DiMaggio's alleged arrogance that caused Mickey to hurt himself, as Cramer and Golebach have apparently misled people to believe.