@craig44 said:
Dallas is the one who gave us a standard of using statistical evidence to judge who was and was not a cheater. In order for him to be consistent, that standard needs to be applied across the board. That standard sure does make Tony Gwynn seem guilty doesnt it. He certainly improved quite a bit after the age of 33.
I don't know if you're intentionally missing my point, but it is increasingly obvious I'm wasting my time.
But I will comment on one ridiculous thing you said:
@craig44 said:
...there are lots of very suspicious late career surges throughout baseball history. I guess you would say that Tony Gwynn, Ted Williams, Hank Aaron, Warren Spahn, Randy Johnson and Nolan ryan all used steroids...
Lots of different reference points we could use, but I'll use offensive WAR:
Top3 for Bonds: 12.4 (age 36), 11.8 (37), 11.5 (39); best season as a baseball player - 8.9 (31). As a baseball player, he averaged about 6 oWAR per season; as an old man playing drugball he averaged over 8.5. There is no player in history with stats even remotely comparable to that. I can't even imagine the determination it takes to force an otherwise functioning brain to keep from understanding a concept so simple and obvious.
Tony Gwynn's best season, by a mile, was at age 27 with 7.8. He had seasons in the same ballpark (between 5.1 and 5.9) at ages 26, 29, 34, and 37. His next two best (between 4 and 5) were ate ages 24 and 35. You are seeing a "surge" that simply didn't happen. Gwynn didn't decline as much as most players do, and it may be that was because he was taking steroids, but what he did is hardly unprecedented and provides very much weaker evidence than Bonds. And his head didn't grow.
Ted Williams top 7 seasons came, in order, at ages 22, 27, 23, 28, 38, 30, and 29. Pre-Korea, he averaged about 8 oWAR per season; post-Korea he averaged less than 6. He did have a great year in 1957, at age 38, but mostly he stopped facing as many LHP. And his head didn't grow.
You don't say when "late career" starts for Aaron, but there is absolutely nothing unusual in his stats at least through age 34. Aaron's top 5 oWAR all came before that, then come ages 35 and 37, then come 9 more seasons pre-35, then, at the bottom of his oWAR list, come all the rest of his post-35 seasons. A lot of novice baseball fans confuse his 1973 season with a "surge" but it was Aaron's 18th best season. Hitting HR in Atlanta was really, really easy that year; and Aaron didn't "surge"; nor did his head grow.
Spahn's top 6 WAR seasons came before age 33; his ERA+ from 25-35 was 128, and 109 after that. And his head didn't grow.
Ryan and Johnson have first and second halves of careers that are unusually close (they barely declined), but whatever "surge" they had resulted in them being as good, not better, as they had been all along (although Ryan's best four seasons are all from the first half of his career). And neither of their heads grew.
If I were a betting man, I'd bet everything I own that Bonds took steroids (and you are a freaking moron if you wouldn't do the same). I'd also put some money down on Johnson; he, and he alone among the people you listed, appears to have crossed the "more likely than not" line. But only Bonds provides evidence so overwhelming, and overwhelmingly obvious, that we can know with such certainty which years can be ignored.
You also mentioned the HOF, a different topic. I would obviously keep Bonds out, and I also wouldn't have voted for Johnson (no problem whatsoever voting for the others). The HOF is an honor, and Bonds doesn't deserve honors. Johnson may, or may not, deserve the HOF; I'd save my vote until I knew more.
And this will be my last post in this thread, since nobody is listening to them anyway (undoubtedly including this one).
It’s not that no ones listening. It’s just there’s a lot you are saying that makes sense only to you and when met with those facts and realities the response is to default to ‘Barry took steroids!!! How can you not see that!’ when every single poster has already acknowledged it. Repeatedly.
‘He wasn’t playing baseball’ is not logic, tautology or anything else. It’s a (fairly nonsensical) opinion and nothing more.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
Maybe Clemente wasn't as good as Mantle, but I agree with the poster who said he deserves a mention. If you
want to see a hitter who learned how to improve year after year, by being smart and knowing which pitches to
lay off and which pitches he could handle, look at Clemente. Its amazing how he had 4 or 5 of his best years ever
towards the end of his career.
Bonds improved his stats with steroids, Clemente improved his stats with hard work, a smart mind,
and determination to get better and better year after year.
@craig44 said:
Dallas is the one who gave us a standard of using statistical evidence to judge who was and was not a cheater. In order for him to be consistent, that standard needs to be applied across the board. That standard sure does make Tony Gwynn seem guilty doesnt it. He certainly improved quite a bit after the age of 33.
I don't know if you're intentionally missing my point, but it is increasingly obvious I'm wasting my time.
But I will comment on one ridiculous thing you said:
@craig44 said:
...there are lots of very suspicious late career surges throughout baseball history. I guess you would say that Tony Gwynn, Ted Williams, Hank Aaron, Warren Spahn, Randy Johnson and Nolan ryan all used steroids...
Lots of different reference points we could use, but I'll use offensive WAR:
Top3 for Bonds: 12.4 (age 36), 11.8 (37), 11.5 (39); best season as a baseball player - 8.9 (31). As a baseball player, he averaged about 6 oWAR per season; as an old man playing drugball he averaged over 8.5. There is no player in history with stats even remotely comparable to that. I can't even imagine the determination it takes to force an otherwise functioning brain to keep from understanding a concept so simple and obvious.
Tony Gwynn's best season, by a mile, was at age 27 with 7.8. He had seasons in the same ballpark (between 5.1 and 5.9) at ages 26, 29, 34, and 37. His next two best (between 4 and 5) were ate ages 24 and 35. You are seeing a "surge" that simply didn't happen. Gwynn didn't decline as much as most players do, and it may be that was because he was taking steroids, but what he did is hardly unprecedented and provides very much weaker evidence than Bonds. And his head didn't grow.
Ted Williams top 7 seasons came, in order, at ages 22, 27, 23, 28, 38, 30, and 29. Pre-Korea, he averaged about 8 oWAR per season; post-Korea he averaged less than 6. He did have a great year in 1957, at age 38, but mostly he stopped facing as many LHP. And his head didn't grow.
You don't say when "late career" starts for Aaron, but there is absolutely nothing unusual in his stats at least through age 34. Aaron's top 5 oWAR all came before that, then come ages 35 and 37, then come 9 more seasons pre-35, then, at the bottom of his oWAR list, come all the rest of his post-35 seasons. A lot of novice baseball fans confuse his 1973 season with a "surge" but it was Aaron's 18th best season. Hitting HR in Atlanta was really, really easy that year; and Aaron didn't "surge"; nor did his head grow.
Spahn's top 6 WAR seasons came before age 33; his ERA+ from 25-35 was 128, and 109 after that. And his head didn't grow.
Ryan and Johnson have first and second halves of careers that are unusually close (they barely declined), but whatever "surge" they had resulted in them being as good, not better, as they had been all along (although Ryan's best four seasons are all from the first half of his career). And neither of their heads grew.
If I were a betting man, I'd bet everything I own that Bonds took steroids (and you are a freaking moron if you wouldn't do the same). I'd also put some money down on Johnson; he, and he alone among the people you listed, appears to have crossed the "more likely than not" line. But only Bonds provides evidence so overwhelming, and overwhelmingly obvious, that we can know with such certainty which years can be ignored.
You also mentioned the HOF, a different topic. I would obviously keep Bonds out, and I also wouldn't have voted for Johnson (no problem whatsoever voting for the others). The HOF is an honor, and Bonds doesn't deserve honors. Johnson may, or may not, deserve the HOF; I'd save my vote until I knew more.
And this will be my last post in this thread, since nobody is listening to them anyway (undoubtedly including this one).
It’s not that no ones listening. It’s just there’s a lot you are saying that makes sense only to you and when met with those facts and realities the response is to default to ‘Barry took steroids!!! How can you not see that!’ when every single poster has already acknowledged it. Repeatedly.
‘He wasn’t playing baseball’ is not logic, tautology or anything else. It’s a (fairly nonsensical) opinion and nothing more.
Dallas has a hard time when he finds himself coming up short in a discussion. He sure does like to think he is right about every. Single. Topic.
Notice how he has backed off the whole bonds did not play baseball argument and refuses to address parts of posts that he can't defend. Can't win em all.
@Darin said:
Maybe Clemente wasn't as good as Mantle, but I agree with the poster who said he deserves a mention. If you
want to see a hitter who learned how to improve year after year, by being smart and knowing which pitches to
lay off and which pitches he could handle, look at Clemente. Its amazing how he had 4 or 5 of his best years ever
towards the end of his career.
Bonds improved his stats with steroids, Clemente improved his stats with hard work, a smart mind,
and determination to get better and better year after year.
Deserves a mention for what? The topic is guys who were better than Mantle. Clemente CLEARLY wasn't. So why mention him? He was great but everybody knows that already. But he wasn't better than Mantle and so doesn't "deserve a mention" in this thread.
Clemente could hit. He consistently posted one of the best averages in the league and his career high of 29 home runs came in a time when 29 home runs put you near the league lead.
Clemente is regarded as one of the best defensive right fielders to step onto a field and he had what many believe to be the strongest throwing arm in the history of the outfield.
The one knock against Clemente is his speed. He was not slow, but he never stole more than 12 bases in a season.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
@Darin said:
Maybe Clemente wasn't as good as Mantle, but I agree with the poster who said he deserves a mention. If you
want to see a hitter who learned how to improve year after year, by being smart and knowing which pitches to
lay off and which pitches he could handle, look at Clemente. Its amazing how he had 4 or 5 of his best years ever
towards the end of his career.
Bonds improved his stats with steroids, Clemente improved his stats with hard work, a smart mind,
and determination to get better and better year after year.
Deserves a mention for what? The topic is guys who were better than Mantle. Clemente CLEARLY wasn't. So why mention him? He was great but everybody knows that already. But he wasn't better than Mantle and so doesn't "deserve a mention" in this thread.
First off, I'll mention whoever I want to mention.
1951 Wheaties premium mentioned Jeter, Ripken, Henderson, Griffey, and a few others with no chastising from
you. For pete's sake, 1970's for some reason posted four or five posts in a row about some pitcher named
Dalkowski, why didn't you tell him Dalkowski doesn't deserve a mention in this thread.
Why don't you try to add some value to this thread instead of criticizing my post?
1970's , I enjoyed your posts about Dalkowski, I don't have a problem with them.
Was just wondering why Tabe had a problem with me commenting about Clemente when I wasn't
the only one mentioning a player who probably wasn't as good as Mantle.
@Darin said:
1970's , I enjoyed your posts about Dalkowski, I don't have a problem with them.
Was just wondering why Tabe had a problem with me commenting about Clemente when I wasn't
the only one mentioning a player who probably wasn't as good as Mantle.
Why single me out? Dimeman said basically the same thing.
I mentioned you because you followed up a "Clemente doesn't belong" post with a "yeah, you're right but I feel like mentioning him anyway" response.
No offense was intended though obviously some was taken so I apologize.
FWIW, I did add value earlier by making the case for Bonds
Dalkowski at 110MPH is a bit of an exaggeration, right up there with 700 foot home runs by Babe Ruth.
The same test the Army used to measure Feller at 98MPH, got Dalkowski at 93.5...however, it took Dalkowski 100+ pitches to put one into the area it needed to go so it can be measured.
Considering Dalkowski was a master of the 150+ pitch game, I don't think he goes from 110MPH to 93.5 MPH after 100+ pitches.
Certainly an interesting pitcher though...and no doubt a flame thrower with the best of them.
@Skin2 said:
Dalkowski at 110MPH is a bit of an exaggeration, right up there with 700 foot home runs by Babe Ruth.
The same test the Army used to measure Feller at 98MPH, got Dalkowski at 93.5...however, it took Dalkowski 100+ pitches to put one into the area it needed to go so it can be measured.
Considering Dalkowski was a master of the 150+ pitch game, I don't think he goes from 110MPH to 93.5 MPH after 100+ pitches.
Well, the implication is that he "took something off" to get it into the area needed so it ended up being much slower than his normal speed. I...uh...am more than a little skeptical of that.
My guess is Dalkowski was around 99-100 and that lots of guys throw harder now than he ever did.
@Skin2 said:
Dalkowski at 110MPH is a bit of an exaggeration, right up there with 700 foot home runs by Babe Ruth.
The same test the Army used to measure Feller at 98MPH, got Dalkowski at 93.5...however, it took Dalkowski 100+ pitches to put one into the area it needed to go so it can be measured.
Considering Dalkowski was a master of the 150+ pitch game, I don't think he goes from 110MPH to 93.5 MPH after 100+ pitches.
Well, the implication is that he "took something off" to get it into the area needed so it ended up being much slower than his normal speed. I...uh...am more than a little skeptical of that.
My guess is Dalkowski was around 99-100 and that lots of guys throw harder now than he ever did.
I don't know if you guys are aware of the documentary on the fastball, but the speed is now being measured right after it leaves the pitchers hand as opposed to the earlier methods that measured it close to the catcher.
Some of the old timers were prolly bringing it as fast as they are now.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
I’m not saying this necessarily matters in this debate BUT...
...you play 9 innings of defense every game. There are usually 3-4 innings where you get to hit and typically the best of the best players will fail in 2-3 of them.
How much do you/should you weight defense?
I know often we default to hitting because it is clearly more measurable. But I also know that those who saw them all play have described DiMaggio and Mays as being the best defensive center fielders in their respective leagues in baseball history.
Also, should the position played have any weight? Defense up the middle seems to be considered the premium positions.
Thoughts?
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
I don't know if you guys are aware of the documentary on the fastball, but the speed is now being measured right after it leaves the pitchers hand as opposed to the earlier methods that measured it close to the catcher.
Some of the old timers were prolly bringing it as fast as they are now.
I have seen it. It helped explain to me why SOOOOO many guys hit 100+ now compared to before.
Still, I doubt there were more than a couple guys - at best - throwing as hard as the top guys now.
@1951WheatiesPremium said:
I’m not saying this necessarily matters in this debate BUT...
...you play 9 innings of defense every game. There are usually 3-4 innings where you get to hit and typically the best of the best players will fail in 2-3 of them.
How much do you/should you weight defense?
I know often we default to hitting because it is clearly more measurable. But I also know that those who saw them all play have described DiMaggio and Mays as being the best defensive center fielders in their respective leagues in baseball history.
Also, should the position played have any weight? Defense up the middle seems to be considered the premium positions.
Thoughts?
In his most defensively prolific season, Dimaggio had 451 total chances. That's 3 per game. I would venture to guess that 90% of those 451 were of the "can of corn" variety. (side note: Dimaggio committed a fair number of errors for a CF...)
So maybe 45 chances a year where skill really matters. And, of those, I would guess most CFs are making most of the plays. So hardly any where being an elite CF really matters.
That's a roundabout way of saying I don't put a whole heck of a lot of weight on defense. Offense matters much, much more.
Disclaimer: Yes, the above percentages are all speculative nonsense on my part
@Skin2 said:
Dalkowski at 110MPH is a bit of an exaggeration, right up there with 700 foot home runs by Babe Ruth.
The same test the Army used to measure Feller at 98MPH, got Dalkowski at 93.5...however, it took Dalkowski 100+ pitches to put one into the area it needed to go so it can be measured.
Considering Dalkowski was a master of the 150+ pitch game, I don't think he goes from 110MPH to 93.5 MPH after 100+ pitches.
Well, the implication is that he "took something off" to get it into the area needed so it ended up being much slower than his normal speed. I...uh...am more than a little skeptical of that.
My guess is Dalkowski was around 99-100 and that lots of guys throw harder now than he ever did.
I don't know if you guys are aware of the documentary on the fastball, but the speed is now being measured right after it leaves the pitchers hand as opposed to the earlier methods that measured it close to the catcher.
Some of the old timers were prolly bringing it as fast as they are now.
Yes, I'm well aware.
Yes, some old timers did throw as hard as top guys now...with the top guys throwing 100 MPH.
It certainly wasn't everyone clustered at the top with 95-102 MPH fastballs.....and then one guy throwing 110. That is ridiculous.
There are simply more guys that do it now....and not because of evolution...because as I pointed out about the avaialble population...and the fact that all the training done now is to teach them to throw as hard as possible(though I don't believe throwing as hard as possible necesarrily makes a better pitcher).
@1951WheatiesPremium said:
I’m not saying this necessarily matters in this debate BUT...
...you play 9 innings of defense every game. There are usually 3-4 innings where you get to hit and typically the best of the best players will fail in 2-3 of them.
How much do you/should you weight defense?
I know often we default to hitting because it is clearly more measurable. But I also know that those who saw them all play have described DiMaggio and Mays as being the best defensive center fielders in their respective leagues in baseball history.
Also, should the position played have any weight? Defense up the middle seems to be considered the premium positions.
Thoughts?
In his most defensively prolific season, Dimaggio had 451 total chances. That's 3 per game. I would venture to guess that 90% of those 451 were of the "can of corn" variety. (side note: Dimaggio committed a fair number of errors for a CF...)
So maybe 45 chances a year where skill really matters. And, of those, I would guess most CFs are making most of the plays. So hardly any where being an elite CF really matters.
That's a roundabout way of saying I don't put a whole heck of a lot of weight on defense. Offense matters much, much more.
Disclaimer: Yes, the above percentages are all speculative nonsense on my part
Tabe, I would say that is a pretty darn good analysis.
To take it one step further, nearly every Division I college centerfielder catches 85-90% of those balls too, right now at their age.
However, maybe .005% of those division I centerfielders will come close to putting up an OPS+ of 100 at their age.
That shows you where the value is at.
Also, it is the pitcher keeping the ball in the park and not being hit as a missile that deserves the lions share of the credit....not the guy catching the routine ball.
@1951WheatiesPremium said:
I’m not saying this necessarily matters in this debate BUT...
...you play 9 innings of defense every game. There are usually 3-4 innings where you get to hit and typically the best of the best players will fail in 2-3 of them.
How much do you/should you weight defense?
I know often we default to hitting because it is clearly more measurable. But I also know that those who saw them all play have described DiMaggio and Mays as being the best defensive center fielders in their respective leagues in baseball history.
Also, should the position played have any weight? Defense up the middle seems to be considered the premium positions.
Thoughts?
In his most defensively prolific season, Dimaggio had 451 total chances. That's 3 per game. I would venture to guess that 90% of those 451 were of the "can of corn" variety. (side note: Dimaggio committed a fair number of errors for a CF...)
So maybe 45 chances a year where skill really matters. And, of those, I would guess most CFs are making most of the plays. So hardly any where being an elite CF really matters.
That's a roundabout way of saying I don't put a whole heck of a lot of weight on defense. Offense matters much, much more.
Disclaimer: Yes, the above percentages are all speculative nonsense on my part
Tabe, I would say that is a pretty darn good analysis.
Pitching and defense are of great import in a real baseball game where winning is the goal. Hard to figure doesn’t mean unimportant.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@1951WheatiesPremium said:
I’m not saying this necessarily matters in this debate BUT...
...you play 9 innings of defense every game. There are usually 3-4 innings where you get to hit and typically the best of the best players will fail in 2-3 of them.
How much do you/should you weight defense?
I know often we default to hitting because it is clearly more measurable. But I also know that those who saw them all play have described DiMaggio and Mays as being the best defensive center fielders in their respective leagues in baseball history.
Also, should the position played have any weight? Defense up the middle seems to be considered the premium positions.
Thoughts?
In his most defensively prolific season, Dimaggio had 451 total chances. That's 3 per game. I would venture to guess that 90% of those 451 were of the "can of corn" variety. (side note: Dimaggio committed a fair number of errors for a CF...)
So maybe 45 chances a year where skill really matters. And, of those, I would guess most CFs are making most of the plays. So hardly any where being an elite CF really matters.
That's a roundabout way of saying I don't put a whole heck of a lot of weight on defense. Offense matters much, much more.
Disclaimer: Yes, the above percentages are all speculative nonsense on my part
Tabe, I would say that is a pretty darn good analysis.
Pitching and defense are of great import in a real baseball game where winning is the goal. Hard to figure doesn’t mean unimportant.
I would never lump the value of a pitcher compared to that of a position player. There is no comparison. Pitchers are the king of the defense, and comprise most of the defensive value....and their value is quite easy to measure.
Defense is definitely not unimportant...but catching fly balls is certainly not as good a commodity as generating hits at the bat.
As mentioned above, the fly ball out is mostly the result of the pitcher keeping the ball in the park and it not being hit like a missile. That credit goes mostly to the pitcher. Over 90% of balls hit are catchable...and catchable by anyone in MLB, and many outside of MLB.
Finding hitters that can hit 100 OPS+ is rare in the country, and that is considered average for MLB. Finding guys that can catch fly balls is not rare. Heck, during the home run derby, 13 yr old kids are tracking down many of those balls hit off of MLB hitters hitting rockets and hauling them in. I don't think any of those kids could step to the plate and hit pitches off MLB pitchers throwing hard and hit them over the fence.
@1951WheatiesPremium said:
I’m not saying this necessarily matters in this debate BUT...
...you play 9 innings of defense every game. There are usually 3-4 innings where you get to hit and typically the best of the best players will fail in 2-3 of them.
How much do you/should you weight defense?
I know often we default to hitting because it is clearly more measurable. But I also know that those who saw them all play have described DiMaggio and Mays as being the best defensive center fielders in their respective leagues in baseball history.
Also, should the position played have any weight? Defense up the middle seems to be considered the premium positions.
Thoughts?
In his most defensively prolific season, Dimaggio had 451 total chances. That's 3 per game. I would venture to guess that 90% of those 451 were of the "can of corn" variety. (side note: Dimaggio committed a fair number of errors for a CF...)
So maybe 45 chances a year where skill really matters. And, of those, I would guess most CFs are making most of the plays. So hardly any where being an elite CF really matters.
That's a roundabout way of saying I don't put a whole heck of a lot of weight on defense. Offense matters much, much more.
Disclaimer: Yes, the above percentages are all speculative nonsense on my part
Tabe, I would say that is a pretty darn good analysis.
Pitching and defense are of great import in a real baseball game where winning is the goal. Hard to figure doesn’t mean unimportant.
I would never lump the value of a pitcher compared to that of a position player. There is no comparison. They are the king of the defense, and comprise most of the defensive value....and their value is quite easy to measure.
Defense is definitely not unimportant...but catching fly balls is certainly not as good a commodity as generating hits at the bat.
As mentioned above, the fly ball out is mostly the result of the pitcher keeping the ball in the park and it not being hit like a missile. That credit goes mostly to the pitcher. Over 90% of balls that are catchable...are catchable by anyone in MLB, and many outside of MLB.
Finding hitters that can hit 100 OPS+ is rare in the country, and that is considered average for MLB. Finding guys that can catch fly balls is not rare. Heck, during the home run derby, 13 yr old kids are tracking down many of those balls hit off of MLB hitters hitting rockets and hauling them in. I don't think any of those kids could step to the plate and hit pitches off MLB pitchers throwing hard and hit them over the fence.
That covers pop flies. It does not cover home runs robbed, taking the angle to turn a double to a single, throwing out runners or maybe even better, runners not advancing on balls hit to that player because of his known arm.
Again, these are sometimes the plays that make the difference in baseball games.
Once again, it’s not easy to measure so it’s significance is downplayed but, as an example, Joe DiMaggio was considered vastly superior to Mickey Mantle at their respective defensive peaks.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
Low level minor league hitters saw the ball off of him. He pitched almost all of his innings in A, B, and C ball. Only 68 innings above A ball. So basically, he was pitching to high school players.
Yet, those LOW LEVEL Minor league hitters got 671 hits in 935 innings off Dalkowski. So those guys have better eye sight than Ted Williams? How do you get that many hits if you cannot even see the ball?
You also "see" the ball when you choose not to swing...hence the 1,200 walks in those same innings.
For comparison, Craig Kimbrel has pitched 532 innings and given up only 285 hits. Chapman 502/277....and we know that everyone can see their pitches...even the fans sitting farther away from the plate can see them...Heck, people from the upper deck can see the ball. I guess Ted Williams has worse eye sight than average Joe at the stadium.
So I guess Ted Williams is saying that tennis players have better eye sight than him, because they can see 140MPH serves.
Move on. You have a habit of picking an un-defendable stance. You've already been laughed off the boards with ridiculous claims, walking away with your tail between your legs.
And if you yourself cannont "see" an 88 MPH fastball...then I'm still waiting for that athletic contest between you and I. Should be fun.
...and the *Bonds record still stands. The sucker fans were told not to worry as the clean A-Rod would surpass the record HR count. Both aspects were incorrect.
Is any one in the pipeline that has a sh> @DIMEMAN said:
It's too bad it is not possible to measure the speed of a BB from film clips.
And to say Ted Williams has the worst eye in BB has to be the stupidest statement EVER!
Low level minor league hitters saw the ball off of him. He pitched almost all of his innings in A, B, and C ball. Only 68 innings above A ball. So basically, he was pitching to high school players.
Yet, those LOW LEVEL Minor league hitters got 671 hits in 935 innings off Dalkowski. So those guys have better eye sight than Ted Williams? How do you get that many hits if you cannot even see the ball?
You also "see" the ball when you choose not to swing...hence the 1,200 walks in those same innings.
For comparison, Craig Kimbrel has pitched 532 innings and given up only 285 hits. Chapman 502/277....and we know that everyone can see their pitches...even the fans sitting farther away from the plate can see them...Heck, people from the upper deck can see the ball. I guess Ted Williams has worse eye sight than average Joe at the stadium.
So I guess Ted Williams is saying that tennis players have better eye sight than him, because they can see 140MPH serves.
Move on. You have a habit of picking an un-defendable stance. You've already been laughed off the boards with ridiculous claims, walking away with your tail between your legs.
And if you yourself cannont "see" an 88 MPH fastball...then I'm still waiting for that athletic contest between you and I. Should be fun.
Perk and I can't help but laugh at your stupidity once again skinrash.
First, a tennis court is 78 feet long. The ball is tossed high in the air before it is hit by the racket.
The pitchers mound to home plate is 60 feet. That's an 18 foot difference, and the baseball is not tossed high in the air so the batter can see it before it is coming at him.
You know what. I'm not going to even address the other stupidity that came from your mouth in this post. It's not even worth it.
Now go put your hat back on.
The only stupid thing is someone believing that he threw 115 MPH, moron....and then believe that Ted Williams could actually not see the ball...despite low level minor league hitters having no problem at all seeing the ball...idiot.
Tell me again, how is it that low level minor leaguers could see the ball...yet Ted Williams could not?
And if Ted Williams could not see the ball...how was Cal Ripken Sr. able to see it in order to catch it??....or all the other minor league catchers. Should have been 100 passed balls a game then. Should have not been any hits given up either if hitters weren't capable of seeing the ball. Minor league hitters got 671 hits in 935 innings off Dalkowski. So those guys have better eye sight than Ted Williams? How do you get that many hits if you cannot even see the ball? You also "see" the ball when you choose not to swing...hence the 1,200 walks in those same innings.
But really, the most pathetic thing is a guy who says he was not able to see an 88 MPH fastball...and then boasts that he is an athlete. LMAO.
Comments
It’s not that no ones listening. It’s just there’s a lot you are saying that makes sense only to you and when met with those facts and realities the response is to default to ‘Barry took steroids!!! How can you not see that!’ when every single poster has already acknowledged it. Repeatedly.
‘He wasn’t playing baseball’ is not logic, tautology or anything else. It’s a (fairly nonsensical) opinion and nothing more.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Maybe Clemente wasn't as good as Mantle, but I agree with the poster who said he deserves a mention. If you
want to see a hitter who learned how to improve year after year, by being smart and knowing which pitches to
lay off and which pitches he could handle, look at Clemente. Its amazing how he had 4 or 5 of his best years ever
towards the end of his career.
Bonds improved his stats with steroids, Clemente improved his stats with hard work, a smart mind,
and determination to get better and better year after year.
Dallas has a hard time when he finds himself coming up short in a discussion. He sure does like to think he is right about every. Single. Topic.
Notice how he has backed off the whole bonds did not play baseball argument and refuses to address parts of posts that he can't defend. Can't win em all.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I bet Dallas uses autocorrect when he writes his posts. I think that he is cheating and that must mean he isn't posting at all.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Deserves a mention for what? The topic is guys who were better than Mantle. Clemente CLEARLY wasn't. So why mention him? He was great but everybody knows that already. But he wasn't better than Mantle and so doesn't "deserve a mention" in this thread.
Clemente could hit. He consistently posted one of the best averages in the league and his career high of 29 home runs came in a time when 29 home runs put you near the league lead.
Clemente is regarded as one of the best defensive right fielders to step onto a field and he had what many believe to be the strongest throwing arm in the history of the outfield.
The one knock against Clemente is his speed. He was not slow, but he never stole more than 12 bases in a season.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
First off, I'll mention whoever I want to mention.
1951 Wheaties premium mentioned Jeter, Ripken, Henderson, Griffey, and a few others with no chastising from
you. For pete's sake, 1970's for some reason posted four or five posts in a row about some pitcher named
Dalkowski, why didn't you tell him Dalkowski doesn't deserve a mention in this thread.
Why don't you try to add some value to this thread instead of criticizing my post?
Roberto Clemente, Roberto Clemente, Roberto Clemente !!!!!!!!!!
Willie Stargell deserves a mention here.
What's up, Tabe?
Mike Schmidt deserves a mention here.
1970's , I enjoyed your posts about Dalkowski, I don't have a problem with them.
Was just wondering why Tabe had a problem with me commenting about Clemente when I wasn't
the only one mentioning a player who probably wasn't as good as Mantle.
Darin, you got singled out 😂
Why single me out? Dimeman said basically the same thing.
I mentioned you because you followed up a "Clemente doesn't belong" post with a "yeah, you're right but I feel like mentioning him anyway" response.
No offense was intended though obviously some was taken so I apologize.
FWIW, I did add value earlier by making the case for Bonds
Dalkowski at 110MPH is a bit of an exaggeration, right up there with 700 foot home runs by Babe Ruth.
The same test the Army used to measure Feller at 98MPH, got Dalkowski at 93.5...however, it took Dalkowski 100+ pitches to put one into the area it needed to go so it can be measured.
Considering Dalkowski was a master of the 150+ pitch game, I don't think he goes from 110MPH to 93.5 MPH after 100+ pitches.
Certainly an interesting pitcher though...and no doubt a flame thrower with the best of them.
Well, the implication is that he "took something off" to get it into the area needed so it ended up being much slower than his normal speed. I...uh...am more than a little skeptical of that.
My guess is Dalkowski was around 99-100 and that lots of guys throw harder now than he ever did.
I don't know if you guys are aware of the documentary on the fastball, but the speed is now being measured right after it leaves the pitchers hand as opposed to the earlier methods that measured it close to the catcher.
Some of the old timers were prolly bringing it as fast as they are now.
I’m not saying this necessarily matters in this debate BUT...
...you play 9 innings of defense every game. There are usually 3-4 innings where you get to hit and typically the best of the best players will fail in 2-3 of them.
How much do you/should you weight defense?
I know often we default to hitting because it is clearly more measurable. But I also know that those who saw them all play have described DiMaggio and Mays as being the best defensive center fielders in their respective leagues in baseball history.
Also, should the position played have any weight? Defense up the middle seems to be considered the premium positions.
Thoughts?
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
I have seen it. It helped explain to me why SOOOOO many guys hit 100+ now compared to before.
Still, I doubt there were more than a couple guys - at best - throwing as hard as the top guys now.
In his most defensively prolific season, Dimaggio had 451 total chances. That's 3 per game. I would venture to guess that 90% of those 451 were of the "can of corn" variety. (side note: Dimaggio committed a fair number of errors for a CF...)
So maybe 45 chances a year where skill really matters. And, of those, I would guess most CFs are making most of the plays. So hardly any where being an elite CF really matters.
That's a roundabout way of saying I don't put a whole heck of a lot of weight on defense. Offense matters much, much more.
Disclaimer: Yes, the above percentages are all speculative nonsense on my part
Yes, I'm well aware.
Yes, some old timers did throw as hard as top guys now...with the top guys throwing 100 MPH.
It certainly wasn't everyone clustered at the top with 95-102 MPH fastballs.....and then one guy throwing 110. That is ridiculous.
There are simply more guys that do it now....and not because of evolution...because as I pointed out about the avaialble population...and the fact that all the training done now is to teach them to throw as hard as possible(though I don't believe throwing as hard as possible necesarrily makes a better pitcher).
Tabe, I would say that is a pretty darn good analysis.
To take it one step further, nearly every Division I college centerfielder catches 85-90% of those balls too, right now at their age.
However, maybe .005% of those division I centerfielders will come close to putting up an OPS+ of 100 at their age.
That shows you where the value is at.
Also, it is the pitcher keeping the ball in the park and not being hit as a missile that deserves the lions share of the credit....not the guy catching the routine ball.
Pitching and defense are of great import in a real baseball game where winning is the goal. Hard to figure doesn’t mean unimportant.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
I would never lump the value of a pitcher compared to that of a position player. There is no comparison. Pitchers are the king of the defense, and comprise most of the defensive value....and their value is quite easy to measure.
Defense is definitely not unimportant...but catching fly balls is certainly not as good a commodity as generating hits at the bat.
As mentioned above, the fly ball out is mostly the result of the pitcher keeping the ball in the park and it not being hit like a missile. That credit goes mostly to the pitcher. Over 90% of balls hit are catchable...and catchable by anyone in MLB, and many outside of MLB.
Finding hitters that can hit 100 OPS+ is rare in the country, and that is considered average for MLB. Finding guys that can catch fly balls is not rare. Heck, during the home run derby, 13 yr old kids are tracking down many of those balls hit off of MLB hitters hitting rockets and hauling them in. I don't think any of those kids could step to the plate and hit pitches off MLB pitchers throwing hard and hit them over the fence.
That covers pop flies. It does not cover home runs robbed, taking the angle to turn a double to a single, throwing out runners or maybe even better, runners not advancing on balls hit to that player because of his known arm.
Again, these are sometimes the plays that make the difference in baseball games.
Once again, it’s not easy to measure so it’s significance is downplayed but, as an example, Joe DiMaggio was considered vastly superior to Mickey Mantle at their respective defensive peaks.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
@Darin
Except Henderson, Griffey and Schmidt all were as good or better than Mantle.
And all better than Clemente.
Yaz Master Set
#1 Gino Cappelletti master set
#1 John Hannah master set
Also collecting Andre Tippett, Patriots Greats' RCs, Dwight Evans, 1964 Venezuelan Topps, 1974 Topps Red Sox
Lemme see how to put this...
Ted is ... uh ... mistaken.
It's literally not humanly possible to throw a baseball hard enough that it can't be seen under normal lighting conditions.
Here's one at 100mph. Not difficult to see at all.
Well, your eyesight must not be very good. MLB hitters can see Aroldis Chapman's fastball. Yes, even left-handed hitters.
1970s,
Its called hyperbole.
Low level minor league hitters saw the ball off of him. He pitched almost all of his innings in A, B, and C ball. Only 68 innings above A ball. So basically, he was pitching to high school players.
Yet, those LOW LEVEL Minor league hitters got 671 hits in 935 innings off Dalkowski. So those guys have better eye sight than Ted Williams? How do you get that many hits if you cannot even see the ball?
You also "see" the ball when you choose not to swing...hence the 1,200 walks in those same innings.
For comparison, Craig Kimbrel has pitched 532 innings and given up only 285 hits. Chapman 502/277....and we know that everyone can see their pitches...even the fans sitting farther away from the plate can see them...Heck, people from the upper deck can see the ball. I guess Ted Williams has worse eye sight than average Joe at the stadium.
So I guess Ted Williams is saying that tennis players have better eye sight than him, because they can see 140MPH serves.
Move on. You have a habit of picking an un-defendable stance. You've already been laughed off the boards with ridiculous claims, walking away with your tail between your legs.
And if you yourself cannont "see" an 88 MPH fastball...then I'm still waiting for that athletic contest between you and I. Should be fun.
You never know what Ted was going to say. He MAY have been being sarcastic. He MAY have been being honest.
However I do think that Dalkowski could have been that "freak of nature" that could throw over 100mph, maybe 105, maybe?????
Several major league players and managers seemed to think he was the fastest ever.
It's too bad it is not possible to measure the speed of a BB from film clips.
And to say Ted Williams has the worst eye in BB has to be the stupidest statement EVER!
According to sports scientists. The three toughest hand/eye coordination sports are.....
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
You missed tiddlywinks very tough.
...and the *Bonds record still stands. The sucker fans were told not to worry as the clean A-Rod would surpass the record HR count. Both aspects were incorrect.
Is any one in the pipeline that has a sh> @DIMEMAN said:
Around here it is probably not in the top 100.
The only stupid thing is someone believing that he threw 115 MPH, moron....and then believe that Ted Williams could actually not see the ball...despite low level minor league hitters having no problem at all seeing the ball...idiot.
Tell me again, how is it that low level minor leaguers could see the ball...yet Ted Williams could not?
And if Ted Williams could not see the ball...how was Cal Ripken Sr. able to see it in order to catch it??....or all the other minor league catchers. Should have been 100 passed balls a game then. Should have not been any hits given up either if hitters weren't capable of seeing the ball. Minor league hitters got 671 hits in 935 innings off Dalkowski. So those guys have better eye sight than Ted Williams? How do you get that many hits if you cannot even see the ball? You also "see" the ball when you choose not to swing...hence the 1,200 walks in those same innings.
But really, the most pathetic thing is a guy who says he was not able to see an 88 MPH fastball...and then boasts that he is an athlete. LMAO.
It helps that the pitching machine throws the same pitch in the same place every time.
Let's see him face major league pitching.
