Options
MLB making the case of Judge's season to be best hitting season ever....
1948_Swell_Robinson
Posts: 1,689 ✭✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
https://mlb.com/news/aaron-judge-rank-among-best-mlb-offensive-seasons-ever
Cliff notes version is that his 213 OPS+ is in the top 25 seasons of all time.
The players who eclipsed it are from the segregation era(where not all elite players were playing in MLB), shortened season guys with high OPS+ and less at bats, and steroid guys.
Kind of like in the other thread(which nobody saw lol), Judge has 20 more home runs than the next guy in a league with players born and bred to hit home runs and drawn from a pool of 4 billion men.
When you look at the 213 OPS+ and consider he may also win a triple crown, then he has the sabermetric stats in addition to the counting traditional stats. That is a powerful combo.
0
Comments
Ever hear of Ted Williams? A quick look shows him with 4 seasons of 215 or better OPS+ and two (three actually) Triple Crowns. Not to denigrate Judge, but this is not the greatest hitting season ever. OMFG
Yes, Williams had the higher OPS+ in a season. Part of the premise of the article is that Williams did it in pre-integration years and that his + wasn't against all the best players the world had to offer. In William's other year he beat him he missed a lot of games.
Another first for me, pre-integration years!! That puts an interesting twist on the "era" argument.
It is relation to the 'against your peers' statistical measurements. There will never be a hard and fast measurement to account for it, but it certainly is a factor to consider.
As per the article, I am in the camp that Barry Bonds has the best hitting season ever in MLB....and not just the best, but he holds the best, second best, and third best.
Keep in mind in one year Barry Bonds was intentionally walked 120 times in ONE season and he still hit 45 home runs that year and batted .362. So the bat was taken out of his hands 120 times in his most advantageous situations and he still did that offensively. That isn't counting the 'unintentional' intentional walks either. It is absolutely insane.
Steroids? Yup, just like nearly everyone else in the league so it was a level playing field. The few guys that may not have done it, ok, that is a slight tick down for Bonds, but his lead is so big that even considering that factor he is still the best.
The most impressive thing to me about Judge is that he has 20 more home runs than the next guy in the league and this league is filled with players that were born and bred to hit home runs.
MLB may have deadened the ball this year too....but it isn't stopping Judge.
Three of those seasons came with no black players. The fourth saw Williams miss 22 games while hitting (at least) 22 fewer homers than Judge has hit.
I don't necessarily agree with the conclusion but it's not as laughable as you think.
Not only that, but Williams never had to hit against National League pitchers!
Most impressive stat of all time. The single season record, non-Barry Bonds division was 45 by Willie McCovey in 1969. I just have no words. Also, a 1.422 OPS. Highest other than Bonds or Ruth was 1941 Ted Williams 1.287.
Hard to make a case against 2004 Barry Bonds (age 39!) being the best offensive season of all time. Past time to stop saying, as the Boston Globe did, that it's OK to elect cheaters to the HoF as long as they haven't broken any cherished records. This was the argument they advanced to vote for Ortiz. With the likes of Ortiz, Piazza, Perry enshrined, it is silly to keep some of the very best players of all time, Clemens, Bonds, Rodriguez out. There is no more evidence that the latter three cheated than that Ortiz and Piazza did, and considerably more that Perry did. I'm optimistic enough to believe that Niekro's cheating was situational and not systemic.
Nothing about Bonds' big years is impressive to me other than how well his trainers/advisors/dealers and him figured out how to turn him into a monster.
Williams' numbers on the other hand were pretty consistent throughout his career. Ted's 1957, when he was nearly 40 years old, and 10 years after integration is more impressive to me. While it's true he didn't play in as many games and he didn't face NL pitchers, I think this is a better accomplishment. If you need to start adding qualifiers to make a "best ever" claim, that's your perogative. I also like Mantle's 1956 and 1957 better than Judge's year he's having. I'm not a big fan of OPS+ as a single stat to determine who is better.
Mr Judge is having a tremendous year, certainly one of the better all time, but I wouldn't say the best.
The article made a good point that in 1956 and 1957 that it was still only partial integration. 88.2% white in 1956 and 88.1% in 1957...and the American League was even less integration.
William's '57 just simply does not have enough at bats.
Mantle '56 most certainly a strong case can be made even with the info above. That's the thing though, nobody is saying that Judge is outright the best season ever, but his season is so good that a case can be made.
This.
Judge is having a GREAT season. but he is not close to bonds. Barry had at least 4 seasons greater than Judge. Mcgwires 98 and possibly 96 were also better seasons than Judge
As far as Steroids go, if it happened before 2005, I am not concerned about it. MLB was also unconcerned as they were not on the banned substance list until then. Piazza and Bagwell were also admitted users before the ban and they are both enshrined in the HOF.
there have been some other lesser cited great seasons as well. Albert belle had 2 or 3 great seasons, one of which was a 50 HR/50 2B season. Helton and Walker also had some insane years as well.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
To add, I also rank pre-integration seasons at a discount as well. To be honest, I have no formula or methodology to do so, but it is a factor to consider that pre 50s, MLB was not utilizing the entire talent pool.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I think it is amazing how many people just hear things and repeat them so often these days that they can quickly become fact without anyone ever bothering to, you know, check the actual facts.
In 1956, 6.7% of the league was black. In 2016, 6.7% of the league was black.
There are more Latin players now - players who have never been banned from the game at any point.
It all boils down to the fact that people want to believe that “now” is the best time and nothing that came before could possibly be as good. “I didn’t see that happen but aI see what’s happening now and it’s clearly better.”
Sadly, this is the Kardashian world we live in…
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
In 2016 the league was 63% white. In 1956 it was 88% white. While latin players were not banned in 1956 they were clearly not being used....hence an extremely large talent pool being unused to compete against. Nobody was banned in 1956, but clearly the talent in the United States and the world at large was not being utilized to the degree it was in 2016.
And there were far less people overall in the world too. World closing in on 8 billion people now. There were only 2.8 billion in 1956.
>
A lack of full integration cannot be denied. Every era has it's pros and cons. I can only say that Ted had several seasons as good as Judge is having now. How much different they might have been with full integration is un knowable. You could counter with an argument that Ted might have hit .500 if they threw out every ball that had a speck of dirt on it. Un knowable.
>
>
>
547 plate appearances is enough for me. Don't ignore the fact that Ted was 39 in August of 1957. I would say that's pretty impressive!
>
>
>
>
He's certainly having a great year, a case for best ever? Not for me as I don't like OPS+ as much as some do. Ted beats Aaron by quite a bit in BA, OBP and SLG, it's only when you add the "+" that it gets close.
Without that +, then every best pitcher ever is from before 1920, and nearly every best hitter ever is from before WWII. The plus takes you about 85% better than just looking at the raw totals that are severelyinflated/deflated based on the era factors and talent level in the leagues.
The rest of the 15% is what we are talking about now and those are good conversations, such as integration, utilizing the best talent from other countries, and more importantly the sheer number of population increase that makes overall talent pool so much larger, ...and you are right, there is no hard and fast number to put on those.
Of those 8 billion, 25 percent live in China and India who make up just about 0% of the MLB population.
We should probably invalidate everything anyone ever accomplished immediately.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
H> @1951WheatiesPremium said:
Yes, they are from there, as they were from 1956, but of the 2.8 Billion in 1956, we only utilized the talent of the 75 million males in the United States....and not even 75 million because we only took a few minorities from that 75.
It isn't invalidating anything done in 1956. It is just how the world evolved and produced a ton more specimens to choose from.
Whole different level of talent to choose from. There really isn't a comparison.
I would say it is about 50/50 of people giving the past players too much credit, and then people completely discounting the past players. I'm doing neither of those. I used an estimate of 15% difference in talent competition above and that is a reasonable estimate based on the facts and factors. It may even be more. I'm not sure how any reasonable person can see it as much less.
The sheer number of more people in the population make the modern talent pool larger and better.
That is independent of the socio/economic factors that also make the modern pool better because humans are born and bred to be professional athletes due to the extreme monetary gain available.
That is also independent of the advancements of training to increase ability.
The kicker is that 'back in the day' when the talent pool was already much smaller compared to now, there was a concerted effort to not even use a portion of the available talent. That effort succeeded until 1947. But it still took a while before that talent level was used properly as by 1956 the league was still 88% white males from the United States.
I hold past generations in very high regard. There are many pioneers there that made today possible....but they dominated a weaker talent pool and that really isn't a question....and that is mostly because there simply were not as many people to compete against. That doesn't discredit them, but it is just the reality of what occurred.
Again, I used an estimate of 15% difference between talent pools of past and present above and that is a reasonable estimate based on the facts and factors. It may be more. I'm not sure how any reasonable person can see it as much less.
Lots to think about here. 🤔
Because there is more competition for the best athletes, now, too. Much, much more than ever before.
LeBron might have been a great baseball player; Rafael Nadal, too. Danny Ainge chose the C’s over the Blue Jays. Heck, Kyler Murray actually could be playing baseball right now and chose football instead. There is a lot of choice, now, for the phenomenal athlete.
And as it stands right now, the best athletes in the world are not becoming baseball players and, most often, they tend to choose other sports where their athleticism is more on display and correlates more directly to their ultimate success. That is not to say that baseball players aren’t great athletes - they are - but the games most important and definable skill is the ability to hit a baseball and it is not predicated on being able to run fast, jump high or display strength.
While all games feature some form of skill, as well, I could argue that anyone can make a three pointer but very few can even make contact with a 94 MPH slider.
I could see if the sport being discussed was basketball, where a change in attitudes towards race led to the sport basically going from almost all white players to almost all black players, but more than seventy five years after Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier, that has simply not the case with baseball. And, again, 6.7 is a very small percentage of anything - I’m not sure how any reasonable can see it as much 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
The average size of a baseball player is taller and faster than the past and the average velocity has increased by a tremendous amount. If your premise were true, then that would not be happening.
Nobody in latin america is playing in the NBA or NFL. Nobody in Asia is playing in the NFL or NBA so you are quite wrong on ALL counts.
Not many white americans playing in the NBA or NFL either....except the 300 pounders that aren't baseball players anyway.
Your 6.7 number makes zero sense.
Baseball used 88% white americans to fill their league in 1956. in 2016, they used 63 % white americans and drew the rest from different countries and from minority populations in the United States.
So yes, a reasonable person would see that
.
PS, in 1956 Pro football and Pro basketball were taking athletes way back then too
, and both sports were far, far more popular prep sports than baseball was too. So again, wrong.
In fact, both football and basketball were mostly white sports then too....so they were taking MORE of the population of athletes away from baseball since they only chose white players too.
1956 had appx 60 million men to choose from to fill MLB rosters.
2016 had appx 2 billion men to choose from to fill MLB rosters.
Not even a comparison.
Two billion men? Should I be looking out my door for a scout right now? If you’re trying to rely on reason you need to make reasonable arguments. Instead, your premise used lots of data all in an effort to back up an argument that holds no water. Global population data doesn’t mean anything here and it’s borderline ridiculous to act like that is the case. Again, that is certainly unreasonable. The idea that MLB teams are presently engaged in some global quest for talent is absurd. Teams search for talent where the game is played. Period stop. The MLB is not holding tryouts in Moscow or Abu Dhabi or Shanghai. They’re not cultivating talent in Mongolia or Algeria. And by the way, the sport originated here and is played here, too, and it’s considerably cheaper for these for profit business to devote their limited resources to players on this continent.
Sports revenue is based on selling tickets and merchandise and athletes salaries are driven by that. One hundred fifty years ago, boxing paid best. One hundred years ago, Babe Ruth changed that. The sport with the highest paid athlete has now changed hands several times. People, in turn, follow the money. That’s it. What are the chances I’ll make money doing it? Highest chances get chosen every time.
Open your mind here just a little bit - there are around 6.7 percent of MLB players that are African American in 1956 and it’s the same exact percentage again in 2016 (most recent legitimate data I could find) and that is the only group ever to be excluded from Major League play. It was a deplorable policy but that’s a separate topic. One we’d assuredly fall on the same side of, I believe. But please don’t act like that number - 6.7% - comes out of thin air or has no meaning. It most certainly does, though whether you want to acknowledge it or not is your prerogative of course.
Until very recently, both Cuba and Japan had their own prohibitive national rules regarding a players ability to play abroad. Aside from that, players from Mexico, Venezuela, Honduras, the Dominican, Puerto Rico and many other nations have all been eligible with each of those countries producing some tremendous baseball stars and going back a long way.
So again, only an average of 6.7% of the potential talent pool that would potentially and eventually make it was ‘left out’ prior to 1946.
How much does bigger and stronger matter when everyone is bigger and stronger? There are no time machines - if guys ‘switched eras’ they’d be beholden to the technology (and chemistry) of the day.
Maybe BALCO Babe Ruth belts 100!
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
This is the current breakdown, by nation, of MLB talent:
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
In 1956, 6.7% of the league was black. In 2016, 6.7% of the league was black.
So out of the approximately 400 MLB players in 1956 there were about 27 Black players and the entire USA "talent pool" was represented, on average less than two players per team.
That makes me think the "pre-integration" argument is what I thought it was, a bunch of BS hogwash.
@1948_Swell_Robinson
None in basketball?
Manu Ginobili (Argentina)
Al Horford (Dominican Republic)
J.J. Barea (Puerto Rico)
Carl Herrera (Venezuela)
Brook Lopez (Cuban-American)
Luis Scola (Argentina)
Nene Hilario (Brazil)
Leandro Barbosa (Brazil)
Yao Ming (China)
Rui Hachimura (Japan)
Yuta Watanabe (Japan)
Jordan Clarkson (Philippines)
Would it be reasonable to say that’s more than none?
😉
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
And did it in a shortened season.
and while on the gas....and with a corked bat.....and while beating his wife....and while throwing Tito Santana-grade flying forearms to Fernando Vina!
In Bonds' peak (juiced era), the league avg was around .270-.275. It's .243 in 2022. Even 20+ years later, the game is way different than the Bonds/Joey Belle era. Shifts, pen usage (you think Jesse Orosco would be on a roster today? Hint: nope), the ball has been deadened this year. 75% of the league isn't on andro or anabolic stuff.
All you really need to know about Judge's season is it compares to Musial's 1948 season, and Yaz's 1967 season. Where those guys pretty much led MLB in every meaningful statistical category. From the basic counting stats (not including SBs) to the most referenced advanced stuff like WAR, RC+, WPA, WRC+. Minus the batting average, you could also compare it to Schmidt's 1981 season. Also bear in mind Judge has done this while playing over half of his games in CF where he's been above average defensively - which is not nothing because otherwise the Yanks would have to roll out Aaron Hicks and his 82 OPS+ and -4 DRS fielding.
also this
the rest of the Yanks' regular stating lineup (which includes the solid season of Rizzo. and Stanton's 27 HRs)
.231/.311/.393 (102 WRC+)
which is equal to the
.231/.318/.397 (107 WRC+)
that Houston Astros' CF Chas McCormick (who 99.9% of this forum has never heard of and who was demoted in June) has rolled up. Sorry Ohtani truthers, it's Judge this year.
Exactly. Now add up all the populations of those countries that talent is being drawn from(including US). Billions.
393 Foreign born players is quite an influx! That is 15.72 complete MLB teams! Fifteen. So right there you have the roster spots of 1956 almost covered except for just a few bench players!! And since you are taking only the cream of the crop sure things to sign from those countries, you are getting better players.
ALSO:
1956 appx 65 million white males in United States
2016 appx 110 million white males in United States
1956 appx 7.5 million african american males in United States
2016 appx 20 million african american males in United Statles.
So yes, 6.7% african American males used in both 1956 and 2016....but they drew from nearly THREE TIMES the population of them in 2016!
1956 Appx 2 million Latin American males in the United States
2016 Appx 23 million Latin American males in the United States.
In 1956 MLB had 5.1 percent of their league as Latin....and in 2016 MLB had 27% as Latin(while drawing from 10 TIMES the population of them!).
As for the few asian players that made token appearances in the history of the NBA in your chart...superb....now keep going and show me where they are taking MLB talent. Then go ahead do the NFL as well, lol. The NFL and NBA do not take away world wide talent. Not even close. NBA does take white europeans though, no doubt on that.
That hogwash about football and basketball taking the athletes now and not then?? Pure inaccuracies. Those leagues were taking the same percent of players then as now. In fact, football and basketball took more white players from MLB in the 1950's and that was pretty much the entire talent pool that MLB drew from(white american males).
What sport do white american males go pro in now? The NFL and NBA sure aren't taking them away. It is still baseball for them, but now you have MORE of them to choose from, in addition you also have 10 times more latin american players to choose from, and three times more african american players to choose from.
With the BILLIONS more men to choose from in 2016 you can make another entire MLB league right now and that second league would be just as talented as 1956.
None of that is even considering that playing sports was not even an option for many people in the early to mid 20th century. It is unimaginable how much natural talent of the smaller population back then was not even tested or utilized back then for socio/economic reasons or health reasons.
That is far from the case now where every child showing a spec of ability is looked at now since the monetary gain is so much higher percentage wise than it was back then.
If given a percentage I would say that 99% of the US population now has been seen and combed for athletic ability.
If given a percentage I would say that 85% of the population back then was throughly combed for athletic ability...and lower than that in the early 1900's.
You seem very nice and I’m not looking to antagonize you but you confuse opinions with facts, present educated guesses as facts and then make wild assumptions and present them as facts - throughout the entirety of this post…
…and based on what you are saying, the accomplishments of the NBA as a league would also be invalidated by having no white players, who comprise a very small percentage of the player pool, and therefore their absence diminishes the accomplishments of the athletes that comprise the predominantly black league?
Does that sound reasonable or ridiculous?
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
NO worries. You won't antagonize me. I look at this stuff as it keeps my mind off of politics etc...
NONE of the sports utilized minorities anywhere near their full extent in the 1950's. NONE of them.
Early NBA is no doubt nothing like modern NBA. There is no comparison, especially with the current European influx. You are correct in that being far more drastic than the difference in baseball. Baseball has far more historic continuity than NBA or Football.
But lets flip the question. You stated that football and basketball did NOT take players away from MLB in the 1950's. I stated that was incorrect since those were very popular sports, especially for high school kids, and also in college and the pros.
But if you are right and that MLB took ALL the best athletes in 1950's, and the NFL got left with the rejects, and the NFL pretty much also used mostly white players....then that would make Jim Brown's accomplishments a complete joke.
So do you think Jim Brown's accomplishments are a complete joke or do you think the NFL took a hefty share of elite athletes back then?
It is my understanding that Jim Brown was best at lacrosse, then football, then track and field, then basketball. He lettered in those sports in college. At the time his Syracuse career ended, his best chance to make money was in football so Jim Brown played football.
A pro athlete is defined as an athlete that gets paid to perform. Neither the NBA nor the NFL had reached the stature they would but by the time Jim Brown was growing up each was an option; neither was a fledgling league anymore.
However, if Jim Brown grew up in a different part of the country or during the 1930’s? Yes, I do think he would have pursued baseball or boxing because the best athletes in those sports were getting paid big money.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Didn't quite answer my question. If MLB took all the athletes, then that means the NFL got the rejects, thus meaning Brown was competing against a bunch of stiffs, rendering his accomplishments moot compared to Barry Sanders or Emmitt Smith, whom in your words, said the NFL was taking all the athletes away from baseball by that time.
I don't think Brown was a stiff because the NFL most definitely took elite athletes. But your premise makes his accomplishments being done against athletic rejects.
I really don't think humans can comprehend the number of one million. I know leaders and budget makers can't comprehend it since they throw billions around like they are nickels, but I digress.
Lets look at Lou Gehrig and Albert Pujols.
Lou Gehrig went .340/.447/.632 and a 179 OPS+
Albert Pujols went .309/.392/.573 and a 157 OPS+ through his age 36 season(to make it more fair comparison).
Albert Pulos career is .296/.374/.543 and a 144 OPS+
Now Pujols had several years right after age 36 that really dragged down those percentages while Gehrig was still at the top when he retired, so that gap is much larger, and if taking Pujols entire career percentages you see that.
There is no way anyone can look at those numbers and conclude pujols was better, especially the raw numbers. The OPS+ takes the era into account and helps, but still isn't close.
Jimmy FOXX at 163 career had higher OPS+ than Pujols
Greenberg career at 159 the same as PUjols prime, but higher than Pujols career.
Hornsby with a career 179 OPS+ much better than Pujols.
Ruth had a 206 OPS+ career.
Their raw numbers percentages also ALL dwarf pujols. Those guys all played in the same MLB. So is someone going to tell me that ALL those hitters are better than Pujols?
Then look at the demographics of our country when each Gehrig and Pujols were born:
In 1900 there were 5.3 million males age 12-17 in the United States.
In 1910 there were 6.4 million males age 12-17 in the United States.
Gehrig was born in 1903 and that was basically his competition. Except those figures include minorities, of which MLB DID NOT allow to play.
Albert Pujols was born in 1980
In 1980 there were 23 million males age 12-17 in the United States.
In 1990 there were 20 million males age 12-17 in the United States
So you are going to tell me that there were at least five hitters from Gehrig's talent pool that were better than Pujols when Pujols had this talent pool to compete against:
Pujols had to compete against 43 million males near his age group
Gehrig had to compete against 11.7 million males near his age group.
BUT DON"T FORGET, in Gehrig's age group you have to take out all the minorities.
In Pujols age group you have to ADD the millions upon millions from other countries that supplied elite talent to MLB.
As we know now, there are enough foreign both players currently in MLB to comprise the roster spots of an entire MLB in 1930.
If I add the people in that age group from 1920 and 2000 then the gip widens even more.
WITHOUT even considering foreign born players, Pujols is competing against an extra 30 million males in his talent pool(even more when I add the next decade).
30 million just from the United States alone. That is an incomprehensible number. Then add all the millions from foreign countries.
We are talking 30 to 50 million in talent pool difference.
There is no comparison. None at all.
Actually, I answered your question with facts, you didn’t like them so you are changing the narrative - again - to suit your chances of winning the argument. It’s a pretty common technique when someone is losing an argument, to simply change the topic.
And you didn’t answer my question about the absence of white players in the NBA. You can go first.
You are now just making things up, insinuating I said them and then arguing about them with yourself. At least you seem to be winning. I think.
You talk about applying reason yet you are just throwing around population numbers and extrapolating absurdities from them.
It’s much easier to just follow the money and also be correct.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
You didn't provide any facts really in your answer. You guessed as to what Jim Brown may have done in the 1930's...far from factual.
First, no white players in the NBA now means that the white men in the United States are playing baseball instead...but with nearly twice as many as in 1956. Also , with 6.7% of african americans still playing baseball, those elite baseball players are still playing baseball....and there are three times as many of them to choose from than was in 1956. Then 10 times as many Latin American men playing baseball now in comparison to 1956.
Second, you really don't have to answer the question as it really is rhetorical anyway. You said that in 1956 all the best athletes played baseball and that in modern times football has taken away the best athletes from baseball. That leaves Jim Brown to be competing against athletic rejects and modern NFL players as having to compete against every best athlete in the world. Those are your words. I don't agree with them. Football had a great share of elite athletes back then and Brown did not compete against rejects(although his competition was still nowhere near as that of NFL players now).
So I guess in short, I find it far more impressive to be considered the best hitter out of 50-70 million people that are breeding athletes(from several parts of a talented world), than to be the best hitter out of 11-20 million people, many of whom did not have the luxury to even play sports(and in which many of those best athletes were not even allowed to play due to their race).
And if you follow the money....the sports of the last 30 years is where the money was at, at a much higher percentage vs the average salary than any other era.....hence why everyone gives anyone with a smidge of talent to succeed in baseball in this years....whereas in times past that incentive simply was not as strong and other factors prevented kids from ever even picking up a ball.
So yes, follow the money.
Jim Brown didn’t play baseball. Plenty of great athletes don’t. Bringing him up was an attempt to change what this is about.
What I actually said was that athletes have more choice in the 1950s - it is up them to decide what they play. Other sports have become better avenues to success and money. The best professional athletes of the 1940s-50s were playing baseball because when they grew up in the 1930s, the NFL and NBA were not the viable options to fame and fortune they would become in the post war era, which makes sense because they were lagging behind baseball’s inception by about 30 years and so was their national popularity.
The man who broke the color barrier in baseball was, himself, a spectacular football player at UCLA, too. Why did he play baseball? I’m pretty sure it had more to do with the bigger paycheck.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Reason has left the building and seeing as how you are arguing with yourself and changing things up to argue about literally post by post at this point, it’s safe to say we’re done here.
To be safe, though, I’m going to use this time go looking for these athlete breeding labs that you’ve referenced and then see if I can find that rare one percent of the population on planet earth that have not been contacted and worked out by an MLB scout.
😂🤣😂
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Not exactly true...but again, you said the best athletes played baseball. So who played football then? If not the best athletes, then who? So who was Jim Brown competing against if he was not competing against the best athletes?
BTW, the best athletes weren't even allowed to play. A few made it through by the 1950's....but they still neglected the vast majority of them. They also neglected the rest of the people in the world. And the MLB talent pool was very small back then. Our country was still growing. So it isn't surprising when someone with elite natural talent dominated the league so easily.
If you don't realize people are procreating for athletes and have been...then you are debating on the wrong topic. Then training at a very young age for the exact purpose of an athletic career.
Yes, reason has left the building when you believe that all the best players ever came out of a talent pool of 9 million people and that NOBODY from the talent pool of 70 million people can ever be better because they can never replicate the dominance someone had over a very small talent pool.
Can't you guys just enjoy the great year Aaron Judge is having
without trying to immediately put it into a historical context to decide just how great it is?
No. That's not as fun.
I understand the segregation argument, but I think it has more emotional appeal than historical merit. I mean if the league as a whole was that much stronger, then the likes of Musial, Kiner, and Reese would have gone off a cliff starting in 1947. It's the same argument that makes me think that expansion, at least the way that MLB did it, didn't water the sport down as much as is sometimes claimed. And my approach is validated by the WW II numbers where suddenly replacement level players became superstars. For example, Rudy York was vastly better in 1943 than any other year and Bill Nicholson is an excellent example of what I'm talking about.
Except: 1) Why would everybody else fall off a cliff because a single player joins the National League? By the end of 1947, there were five black players in the majors - just two in the NL, one of whom only played a month in 1947. By the end of 1949, there were 11 total. That's hardly enough players to have a big impact, especially since just two of them were pitchers - and one of those two threw all of 10 innings before 1950 (and wasn't any good anyway). 2) You're ignoring the depressing effect on participation of segregation. How many black kids never took up baseball because there was no pro future in it? How much was the development of black players held back by not playing in the regular minor league systems? The full effect of integration wouldn't really be seen in the late 1950s or even later. And offensive numbers did fall off a cliff then.
^^^^^^^this. excellent post.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
By 1957 (perhaps a little earlier) the segregation issue becomes moot.
Looking at HR as the yardstick for GOAT hitting season Judge's season looks to be much better than Maris'.
Of course we seem to have gotten to the point of ignoring Mr Ruth completely.
Batting average is also out of fashion, but to hit for a high average along with lots of HR/high SLG looks to be much harder. Throw in a lot of walks and very few strikeouts and THEN you become.......,......Ted Williams!
It’s been an interesting discussion, for sure. I’ve enjoyed it and it has provoked thought - always a good thing.
There are a variety of factors that contribute to the relatively small percentage of African American baseball players in todays game and that is an interesting topic for another thread. I am not insensitive to the withertos and whyfors - at all - as to why young black men might choose a different sport than baseball.
However, whether white or black, a pro caliber athlete has a different menu of choices today that has increased exponentially over time as more professional, semi professional and even entertainment venues have opened up lanes for the talented athlete to earn a living.
Any intelligent person wants the fastest and easiest route possible to fame and fortune, right? Regardless of field or endeavor?
If I’m a gifted athlete, do I want to spend ages 19-23 in the minor leagues or on an NBA court or NFL field - potentially as the star of the team? Especially in todays day and age where 30 year old athletes are often labeled as ‘past their prime’ or, worse, ‘washed up’.
Maybe Kyler Murray would be in Triple-A right now in baseball and instead he’s a household name and on the cover of magazines and video games and racking up endorsements. Baseball may have a higher pay ceiling (maybe not) but it comes with greater risk, I think, too. He made the smart choice, I think, given the times we live in.
And I also think Dave Winfield made the right choice with baseball over football and basketball when he did it in the 70s because at that time, baseball paid best. Athletes can and should follow the easiest path to the biggest money, just like everyone else.
My main points were two fold: I don’t think taking every white player out of basketball today - by rule - would make the league a ‘lesser’ league or invalidate the accomplishments of the players within it. Sure, you would lose a few elite players and also some benchwarmers but overall the league would be almost the same. And this is largely analogous to what happened with baseball.
My second point was that if you were a pro caliber athlete in the 1930’s to early 40’s, professional basketball and football were not paying the general player what baseball was. And even at the higher end, Hank Greenberg got first $100,000 salary in baseball almost 25 years before Wilt Chamberlain does first it in the NBA. (Precipitating my favorite contract negotiation of all time, where Bill Russell demands a salary of $100,001 from the Celtics or he will retire immediately. They paid. 😉)
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
There are three things at work, segregation, the sheer growth of our country, and the influx of elite international talent.
And there is no cliff point in talent level. It is more of a slow burn with a few small jumps. BUT there is a huge cliff between 1920 and 2016. A smaller cliff between 1956 and 2016. And so forth.
As pointed out from when Lou Gehrig was born and Albert Pujols was born, just the sheer growth of our country had a profound difference on the level of talent to draw from.
People forget how young our country is. We were still a toddler in 1900. We have had immense growth since then.
Gehrig was competing against 11.7 million people near his age group in the United States.
Pujols was competing against 43 million people near his age group in the United States.
However, of those 11 million people Gehrig was competing against, you have to subtract the minorities since they weren't allowed to play.
In Pujol's 43 million people you have to add the elite players from other countries who were also added to that mix.
So it is really more like:
Gehrig competing against 9 million people in his age group.
Pujols competing against 70 million people in his age group.
Those numbers should not need further expounding as to how it would affect talent level.
Baseball is still a white american sport just like it was in 1940. White American males best chance for paid pro sports is baseball and that is where they go. That hasn't changed from 1940 or 1956. Difference is, there are now millions more white american males to play. Baseball is NOT losing any more white athletes to the NFL or NBA than they lost to those sports in 1940 or 1956.
In fact, in 1956, the NBA and NFL both took premiere white athletes away because THOSE sports weren't using minority athletes much either.
The difference now is that there are millions more white athletes than in 1920-1940-1950 to choose from to play baseball.
1956 appx 65 million white males in United States
2016 appx 110 million white males in United States
1956 appx 7.5 million african american males in United States
2016 appx 20 million african american males in United Statles.
So yes, 6.7% african American males used in both 1956 and 2016....but they drew from nearly THREE TIMES the population of them in 2016!
.
MLB has not lost the elite African American baseball player. They are still there. In fact, there are MORE african american players playing in MLB now than they were in 1956...and again, they have three times the population of them of which to draw from. Now that isn't true compared to 1980 where there were far more playing.
In short, 1956 still did NOT utilize/maximize the minority talent that was available in the country and world. Not by a long shot.
1956 Appx 2 million Latin American males in the United States
2016 Appx 23 million Latin American males in the United States.
In 1956 MLB had 5.1 percent of their league as Latin....and in 2016 MLB had 27% as Latin(while drawing from 10 TIMES the population of them!).
NFL and NBA have now taken a lot of african american athletes away from baseball and baseball, but those athletes werent even allowed to play in 1940 and only a handful in 1956, so they were taken away then as well. Further, the sports of football and basketball ALSO took those athletes away in 1950's too.
BUT, again there are THREE times as many African American athletes to choose from now compared to 1956.
Then after all that above, you have to add the international influx of talent. Right now you can fill 15.72 MLB teams with international born players...and those are elite of the elite in that group too.
The notion that elite athletes only played baseball from 1900-1950 is inaccurate and patently ridiculous. Baseball players did not have great salaries then either. The vast majority made squat. A hungry athletic kid had a better chance making money as a boxer than as a baseball player.
They were playing football in the Civil War. First paid football player was in 1892. First contract waas 1893. Here is a breakdown of the evolution. In 1920 they said the biggest problem confronting football was "the rising salaries."
https://profootballhof.com/football-history/chronology-of-professional-football/
Athletes were paid to play basketball and football all through that 1900-1940 time period. Basketball and Football were taking athletes in that entire time. MLB was struggling against competing leagues as well in that time. Just because MLB survived the longest doesn't mean that athletes weren't playing the other sports.
Here is a break down of all the professional basketball leagues from 1898-present. There were several all through that time period and some with high salaries.
https://retroseasons.com/leagues/early-basketball-leagues/
There are newspaper accounts from 1910-1940 of baseball being referred to as a dying sport back then. Same stuff you hear now.
Basketball was far more popular for high school athletes in that time period too. Gyms were packed. Not so on the baseball fields(if they even had one).
Those other sports like football and basketball that appeal to kids now also appealed to kids then.
Again, NONE of those other sports used minority athletes back then just like baseball, so ALL the white athletes were dispersed back then, much more so than now.
By the 1950's football was already knocking on the door as replacing baseball as the most popular sport. Basketball was already the most popular sport in high school.
Don Hutson may have been the best athlete in the world in 1940. He was most likely the fastest non olympian in the world. He was born in 1913 and had a baseball scholarship. He chose football exclusively in the early 1930's.
https://pigskindispatch.com/home/Football-History/Hall-of-Fame-Player-Profiles/Don-Hutson
Its so easy to look at baseball history through rose colored glasses and immortalize people to more than what they actually were. It is also easy to completely discount them as some people do.
The reality is shown in the Gehrig/Pujols comparison above. Its not a knock on Gehrig, but it shows why players in Gehrig's day were able to dominate to a degree that is nearly impossible to replicate in a more competitive era.
I've avoided this topic mostly because the season isn't over yet and we're still talking about a hypothetical. If Judge gets injured today and his season ends, then no, I don't think there's a very strong case for a GOAT season.But, if he plays out the rest of the season at the same level he's played so far, then yes, there's a decent case to be made.
The glaring weakness that Judge has had - especially as a rookie - was that he disappeared when it counted. His WPA in his rookie season with his 52 HR and 1.049 OPS was 2.0, which tied with Ozzie Smith's THIRD best season. He improved some in the years after that, but didn't crack the top 10 until last year. This year, though, he's put that behind him and that's what makes this season a GOAT contender, and Judge's best season by far.
On the WPA all-time leaders, and for the sake of argument we'll throw out the pre-integration stars and the cheaters, Willie McCovey in 1969 is the leader with 10.12, and Albert Pujols in 2006 is second with 9.35. Judge, with a partial season, is currently in 59th, with 7.64. I don't think he'll catch Pujols, and I know he won't catch McCovey; he's on pace for 8.36 which would put him in 36th (much higher than that if we accept the premise (we shouldn't) that pre-integration stats don't count).
Now, a list of WPA is not the same thing as a list of best seasons, but it's a piece of the puzzle. Same thing for OPS+, or batter runs, or for more comprehensive stats that include fielding value. All of these puzzle pieces matter, as do unknowable era adjustments. Judge's season will not be so great that it ends the debate, but it looks like he will get to join it.