A new perspective on Mike Schmidt and his place in history relative to others, ease of competition &
Skinpinch
Posts: 1,531
in Sports Talk
Babe Ruth is famous for outhomering every team. While that is quite remarkable, it is only possible for reasons that players from other era's did not have the benefit of having. As a result, Ruth is viewed as a God that will never change, probably even in the year 5000.
I am going to do an exercise with Mike Schmidt, and give him just ONE of the advantages that Ruth had that Schmidt didn't.
The following are the all time HR leaders, as compared to the players in their own era's
20's/30's:
Ruth 714
Foxx 534
Ott 511
Gehrig 493
70's/80's:
Schmidt 548
Yaz 452
Kingman 442
D. Evans 414
STOP! If you haven't figured it out yet, the one advantage I gave Schmidt that Ruth received, was the advantage of only being compared to white players. Yes, those are the all time HR leaders from players who played their careers primarily in the 70's/80's. Gone are guys like Reggie, Winfield, Murray, because they were not white. I am confident that MLB wouldn't have a white guy waiting on the bench to even come remotely close to Reggie if it were an all white league. So I am confident that those leaderboards are indicative of what Schmidt would be competing against in an all white league.
Do you want to be blown away? Look at the HR leaderboard of whites only from the point of the 1950's to early 90's...
Killebrew 573
Schmidt 548
Mantle 536
Yaz 452
Kingman 442
D. Evans 414
Murphy 398
If one thing jumps out it you, is that Dale Murphy would be an easy HOFer, much like many players from the pre war were(who shoulnd't be).
Remember, this is just one clear advantage we are erasing. The following changes things drastically!!
1) The biggest reason why it was easy for Ruth to out homer his competition was that MLB at that time was very much filled with dead ball type hitters, and they weren't going to be hitting HR even if they were playing wtih golf balls. I am not even giving this advantage Ruth enjoyed, to Mike Schimdt, and it would be a considerable advantage, as a guy like Dave Kingman would most likely not make a team if the dead ball style of hitting were in vogue in Schmidt's era. And, it is quite possible that a guy like Yaz would never turn to a power hitter, and instead do something like Ty Cobb did...remain a line drive average hitter. This is a tough thing to figure, and it would take more work, but keep it in the back of your mind.
2)MORE PEERS FOR SCHMIDT!! There is another thing that makes it much harder for Schimdt to shine among his peers! HE HAD MORE PEERS TO OUTSHINE!!! No, not just minorities, but more whites to outshine! The fact is, the years around Babe Ruth's birth produced MILLIONS less babies than the years around Schmidt's birth. Schmidt had to compete against millions of more youth and men, which means the law of averages would produce many more players with talent on par as Schmidt. It is much harder to outdistance your peers, when there are more like you!
If we took this advanatge into consideration, many of the guys on Schmidt's leaderboards would never even have been born, plain and simple. The implications are obvious and HUGE!
FACTORS TO CONSIDER WITH THE POPULATION.
Baseball as #1 sport: When both players were growing up, baseball was the clear number one sporting option...in fact, in Schmidt's youth, that was the golden age of baseball. Even though there was pro football to choose from for Schmidt, this was negligible, as most youth of that time played both, and if they were studs in both, baseball was the most likely choice. Football may have taken some bruts...but bruts weren't the baseball body then. I call the sport of choice factor even
Infant Mortality rate: Big difference between the era's. Of the millions less kids born in Ruth's birth, many many more got diseased and simply didn't reach age two. Mortality rates only cover up to age two, and there is a big difference between the eras. Keep in mind that kids got diseases after age two as well...and they were much harder to cure in Ruth's childhood, then Schmidt's. So, in those millions of births, you can add even MORE kids who Ruth didn't have to contend with!
Think the 1918 flu pandemic where 25% of AMerica was inflicted, and 675,000 americans died of the flu. Think along these lines, and see the gravity of sickness.
Workplace choices: Aside form the millions less of competition for Ruth, many, many, more never even got a chance to play sports!! Why? Because they had to work for family survival. These weren't just meak kids that were lost to sports, but strong healthy kids who never got a chance to hone a natural skill they may have had. Child labor was horrible at that time, and it would sicken most parents today. They coulnd't even comprehend what the kids had to do. I don't know how many we can tack on to the millions less as it is, but this factor gives much more.
Immigration: Fresh immigrants were a NON factor in baseball. 90% of the immigrants were adults already. They didn't play baseball from the countries they came from. Their children became a factor, but they are accounted for in births.
3) Foreign countries: Not included in the millions of Americans born, Schmidt also was in a time where the best of certain countries made contributions. Since this is whites only above, these aren't considered, but they are a big factor in the overall picture, adding even MORE palyers Schmidt had to compete against.
4)Level of pitching to hit against. The biggest factor is that you saw the same pitcher much more oftne in Ruth's time...and this is a benefit to the hitter. When you look at the numbers, a player's performance swells in the 4th time facing the same pitcher in a game. This is a factor that can be measured, I don't feel like doing it right now, but it is certainly a factor for Ruth's total HR.
Also, keep in mind the population. As less are born, there are less stud pitchers...and the percentages of males born, compared to the number of teams in the league(expansion factor), still has the edge to Schmidt's era in the level of expansion type pitchers to face.
5)Ruth vs. pitchers specifically. The Yankees led, or were atop the league leaders in ERA almost all of Ruth's years...which means he didn't have to face the best pitchers in the league.
Fans, even biased ones, sit back and ask yourself....looking at how Schmidt fared against the whites only players of his league, and compare it to Ruth's, aren't you just as impressed at Schmidt's performance as RUth's??
If not, then look further at all the population factors...isn't Mike Schmidt's performance every bit as impressive as Ruth's?
Fans, does anyone see how a guys true performance can be severly clouded by factors out of his control...factors which other players enjoyed? Factors that completely skew the truth? Baseball fans have basically been trained or 'brainwashed' to think a certain way, and it is VERY hard to overcome this type of thinking and look outside for a moment. But, when you look outisde and 'unlearn' the falsehoods, it paints a more truthful world.
I am going to do an exercise with Mike Schmidt, and give him just ONE of the advantages that Ruth had that Schmidt didn't.
The following are the all time HR leaders, as compared to the players in their own era's
20's/30's:
Ruth 714
Foxx 534
Ott 511
Gehrig 493
70's/80's:
Schmidt 548
Yaz 452
Kingman 442
D. Evans 414
STOP! If you haven't figured it out yet, the one advantage I gave Schmidt that Ruth received, was the advantage of only being compared to white players. Yes, those are the all time HR leaders from players who played their careers primarily in the 70's/80's. Gone are guys like Reggie, Winfield, Murray, because they were not white. I am confident that MLB wouldn't have a white guy waiting on the bench to even come remotely close to Reggie if it were an all white league. So I am confident that those leaderboards are indicative of what Schmidt would be competing against in an all white league.
Do you want to be blown away? Look at the HR leaderboard of whites only from the point of the 1950's to early 90's...
Killebrew 573
Schmidt 548
Mantle 536
Yaz 452
Kingman 442
D. Evans 414
Murphy 398
If one thing jumps out it you, is that Dale Murphy would be an easy HOFer, much like many players from the pre war were(who shoulnd't be).
Remember, this is just one clear advantage we are erasing. The following changes things drastically!!
1) The biggest reason why it was easy for Ruth to out homer his competition was that MLB at that time was very much filled with dead ball type hitters, and they weren't going to be hitting HR even if they were playing wtih golf balls. I am not even giving this advantage Ruth enjoyed, to Mike Schimdt, and it would be a considerable advantage, as a guy like Dave Kingman would most likely not make a team if the dead ball style of hitting were in vogue in Schmidt's era. And, it is quite possible that a guy like Yaz would never turn to a power hitter, and instead do something like Ty Cobb did...remain a line drive average hitter. This is a tough thing to figure, and it would take more work, but keep it in the back of your mind.
2)MORE PEERS FOR SCHMIDT!! There is another thing that makes it much harder for Schimdt to shine among his peers! HE HAD MORE PEERS TO OUTSHINE!!! No, not just minorities, but more whites to outshine! The fact is, the years around Babe Ruth's birth produced MILLIONS less babies than the years around Schmidt's birth. Schmidt had to compete against millions of more youth and men, which means the law of averages would produce many more players with talent on par as Schmidt. It is much harder to outdistance your peers, when there are more like you!
If we took this advanatge into consideration, many of the guys on Schmidt's leaderboards would never even have been born, plain and simple. The implications are obvious and HUGE!
FACTORS TO CONSIDER WITH THE POPULATION.
Baseball as #1 sport: When both players were growing up, baseball was the clear number one sporting option...in fact, in Schmidt's youth, that was the golden age of baseball. Even though there was pro football to choose from for Schmidt, this was negligible, as most youth of that time played both, and if they were studs in both, baseball was the most likely choice. Football may have taken some bruts...but bruts weren't the baseball body then. I call the sport of choice factor even
Infant Mortality rate: Big difference between the era's. Of the millions less kids born in Ruth's birth, many many more got diseased and simply didn't reach age two. Mortality rates only cover up to age two, and there is a big difference between the eras. Keep in mind that kids got diseases after age two as well...and they were much harder to cure in Ruth's childhood, then Schmidt's. So, in those millions of births, you can add even MORE kids who Ruth didn't have to contend with!
Think the 1918 flu pandemic where 25% of AMerica was inflicted, and 675,000 americans died of the flu. Think along these lines, and see the gravity of sickness.
Workplace choices: Aside form the millions less of competition for Ruth, many, many, more never even got a chance to play sports!! Why? Because they had to work for family survival. These weren't just meak kids that were lost to sports, but strong healthy kids who never got a chance to hone a natural skill they may have had. Child labor was horrible at that time, and it would sicken most parents today. They coulnd't even comprehend what the kids had to do. I don't know how many we can tack on to the millions less as it is, but this factor gives much more.
Immigration: Fresh immigrants were a NON factor in baseball. 90% of the immigrants were adults already. They didn't play baseball from the countries they came from. Their children became a factor, but they are accounted for in births.
3) Foreign countries: Not included in the millions of Americans born, Schmidt also was in a time where the best of certain countries made contributions. Since this is whites only above, these aren't considered, but they are a big factor in the overall picture, adding even MORE palyers Schmidt had to compete against.
4)Level of pitching to hit against. The biggest factor is that you saw the same pitcher much more oftne in Ruth's time...and this is a benefit to the hitter. When you look at the numbers, a player's performance swells in the 4th time facing the same pitcher in a game. This is a factor that can be measured, I don't feel like doing it right now, but it is certainly a factor for Ruth's total HR.
Also, keep in mind the population. As less are born, there are less stud pitchers...and the percentages of males born, compared to the number of teams in the league(expansion factor), still has the edge to Schmidt's era in the level of expansion type pitchers to face.
5)Ruth vs. pitchers specifically. The Yankees led, or were atop the league leaders in ERA almost all of Ruth's years...which means he didn't have to face the best pitchers in the league.
Fans, even biased ones, sit back and ask yourself....looking at how Schmidt fared against the whites only players of his league, and compare it to Ruth's, aren't you just as impressed at Schmidt's performance as RUth's??
If not, then look further at all the population factors...isn't Mike Schmidt's performance every bit as impressive as Ruth's?
Fans, does anyone see how a guys true performance can be severly clouded by factors out of his control...factors which other players enjoyed? Factors that completely skew the truth? Baseball fans have basically been trained or 'brainwashed' to think a certain way, and it is VERY hard to overcome this type of thinking and look outside for a moment. But, when you look outisde and 'unlearn' the falsehoods, it paints a more truthful world.
0
Comments
In general, Schmidt was probably competing against athletes who spent a lot of their time (including offseason) concentrating on workouts and proper nutrition. In Ruth's day, many players had to have off-season jobs because baseball didn't have to pay all that well.
That is possible that some guys have maximized their ability to a greater degree...though Schmidt may also as well. So it may be a wash, being that their competitors lived under the same 'house'....albeit different houses.
I do want to emphasize that this isn't the typical what if scenario people always engage.
Fans have to ask themselves the question....is it fair to compare Ruth to only White players, while on the other hand compare Schmidt to MILLIONS MORE of the same white players as well as all the minority players? Isn't it painfully obvious that the player who is being judged against a fraction of the competition will shine brighter when they are put up against a player who is judged against the tougher circumstances Schmidt faced?
It is no wonder why all the measurements...even the good ones...are top heavy with Pre War players. They should be, because those players are being compared against a fraction of what Schmidt and his era faced. The pre war players will naturally shine brighter because of those circumstances.
Moreover, isn't it odd that Ruth and an unproportion amount of players from that era shine so high relative to their peers in history? We already know Ruth actually isn't that much better, as outlined above. There seems to be a human limit in athletics.
How come all the best flamethrowers throw 100 to 101? Why isn't there anybody that jumps out and throws 112 MPH?
Why do all the best sprinters come within a 100th of a second to each other. Why isn't there anybody that goes a half second faster?
Why do all the javelin throwers come within the same few inches? Why doens't somebody throw one 20 feet further?
Why isn't there a field goal kicker that goes out and just knocks them in from 75 yards?
Because there aren't wild variables that cloud the measurement picture, like the Ruth and Schmidt example above. Ruth and all the other Pre War players shine so bright because the variables are masking the reality.
I would think it is painfully obvious to fans that it is pure variable at work that allowed Ruth to outhomer the entire league...a variable that doesn't even give Schmidt a chance to do anything remotely close to that. Yet that is the most obvious thing. Only until somebody gets past that first hurdle can they then begin to comprehend the entire reasons why certain era's will have an inherent advantage.
you cant have it both ways....either it was easier for batters to hit for higher averages, or the pitchers were better...doesnt seem right to have both situations....
you argue Ruth played with less competiton, but the pitchers had better ERA..that in itself could point to the shear dominance and greatness of ruth....
I'm not going to disagree with any of your points; the facts supporting them are pretty straightforward.
But, if your larger point is that we can use those points to reach any conclusions then I am going to disagree with you. You listed all the advantages that players in the 20's have over players in the 70's, but you didn't list all the entries on the opposite side of the ledger. In the end, Babe Ruth was asked to go play baseball and he may well have played it as well as it is humanly possible to do (ignoring whatever damping of his stats alcohol and VD caused).
I think your analysis is similar to forming opinions about a lesser-known college football team that finishes the season 12-0; absent a head-to-head meeting with a recognized power, how do you know whether this team was just lucky to face easy opponents or was actually a really great team? The obvious answer is, you don't. All that team can do is win all its games; given a 12 game schedule it is not the case that a lesser team wins 12 but a really great team wins 13. Babe Ruth, in head to head matchups with everyone of his time, goes undefeated with an average margin of victory of about 6 touchdowns (if you'll bear with my analogy). For him to "win" versus Schmidt in your analysis requires him to go 13-0 in a 12 game schedule.
Now, to the degree that your post convinces people that Schmidt was the greatest player of his day then I'm all for it; but I have still never seen any reason to doubt that Ruth was - easily - the best baseball player ever.
The best pitchers also receive the benefit of distancing themselves from a thin pool of players available. I don't think you read the entire post, but think of it like this. Think of 1910, and then add Pedro, Tiant, Rivera, Lee Smith etc...
Then most importantly, add 10 million more american men to choose from to garner more talent from, and add all those pitchers to compete against Christy Mathewson. Christy Mathewson will have a much harder time to distance himself from that amount of peers, and it would be something that Nolan Ryan had the misfortune of having to distance himself from.
Or think of it backwards. How good would Nolan Ryan look if he is compared to only 2/3 of the white players that he played against?
Those guys are being compared to less people...which makes them look better than reality.
By the way, the straight ERA is a hyperbole example...as ERA+ takes league environement somewhat into account. The best ERA's of the 83 come primarily from the dead ball era. The ERA leaders of history, and their overwhelming representation from the dead ball era tells anybody right there that it is variable at work...unless somehow they believe only the guys born in 1860 knew how to pitch. If someone believes that, then I am not going to ruin their acid trip. It tells you that the variables are at work. I am telling you that ERA+ doesn't account for all the variables either.
There are no variables on the opposite side of the ledger in Ruth's era's favor.
Fans have to ask themselves the question....is it fair to compare Ruth to only White players, while on the other hand compare Schmidt to MILLIONS MORE of the same white players as well as all the minority players? Isn't it painfully obvious that the player who is being judged against a fraction of the competition will shine brighter when they are put up against a player who is judged against the tougher circumstances Schmidt faced?
It is no wonder why all the measurements...even the good ones...are top heavy with Pre War players. They should be, because those players are being compared against a fraction of what Schmidt and his era faced. The pre war players will naturally shine brighter because of those circumstances.
Dallas, you already know of all the ERA leaders being from the dead ball era. You know that isn't a true representatio of the best pitchers. ERA+ shows the same bias toward that era, and that is relative to the peers.
Why would you recognize the giant bias in just using ERA to get a list of the top 80 pitchers being from that time....and then ignore the same bais that comes with ERA+? ERA+ is a measurement relative to their peers, yet it to shows the same bias as 10 of the top 11 all come from pre war. The batting measurements are the same.
Keep in mind that I didn't exactly say Schmidt was the better player...but I am for certain saying that RUth is not nearly as good as those circumstance driven numbers suggest.
It is all about comparing Ruth to a smaller pool of players, and then comparing Schmidt to a much larger pool of players, and then coming under the conclusion that Ruth is that much better because he distances himself farther from the easier comparison. To make the assumption that the actual talent level of Schmidt's pool got worse over time would be rather odd. The talent level didnt' really change....ONLY THE NUMBER OF TALENTED PLAYERS THAT THEY HAD TO COMPETE AGAINST!
They are numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 that allowed him to win by six touchdowns. Not because he was THAT much better than everyone else. That would make him the ony human to exceed the human limit, yet no sprinter can, no shot putter.
Then, you have the other high proportion of players from the same era exhibiting the same distancing ease from their peers. Why?
Reasons 1,2,3,4, and 5 are why.
Good point about the white only leagues back then. Same argument can be made for Josh Gibson. Many believe he was the best player ever. He was pretty damn good, don't get me wrong, but his league consisted of only a fraction of the population too.
As for the top 83 ERA's being prewar, that just proves the point the most of the hitters sucked back then which proves the point that it was easier for Ruth to look so good.
Well, look at how it puts Mike Schmidt on the all tiem HR list from his era when those players are not around to compete against. He shines just as bright. Schmidt may not have been as good as Ruth, but he is no way as far away from him as all the numbers suggest. Offensively speaking (bat only) of course.
Ruth contributed as a pitcher, while Schmidt was vastly superior defensively(second best ever at least at hsi position). Schmidt vastly superior runner too. But, that isn't what this is about yet.
Aaron
Bonds
Ruth
Mays
Musial
Rose
Cobb
Yaz
Henderson
Murray
Longevity is obviously a factor. I would further describe it but would likely screw it up. I can mail or fax you a copy if you want it
You might not agree with it ( ballparks and other factors not included), but the guy thinks like you...which is scary
Biggio probably was next
Bowman Baseball -1948-1955
Fleer Baseball-1923, 1959-2007
Al
I think I was arguing a point you weren't making, but I'm still not entirely sure what point you are making.
Ruth WAS that much better than his peers. You are offering reasons why that might have been so, but I guess my question then is what, exactly, could the greatest player who ever lived - who happened to play in the 1920's - have done to convince you that he was as good as his numbers suggest? You seem to be asking him to have won 13 games out of 12 (yes, I still think my analogy is exactly on point). Logically, what you are saying is that it is not possible to be as good as your numbers suggest if you played in the 1920's.
In more mathematical terms, here's my problem. Granted that the average level of competition was better in Schmidt's day than in Ruth's day, what does that tell us about any individual player? Imagine a player who hit 1.000 in Ruth's day (the 12-0 team in my analogy); would that player hit 1.000 in the 1970's? The only certain answer is "I don't know", but (as unlikely as the premise may be), I would be inclined to answer "probably". But batting 1.000 isn't possible in baseball, nor is .900 or .700 or so on. As human beings there is an upper limit to just how good we can be at baseball, we can only win 12 games out of 12. A few years back they recalibrated the SAT because the mean had fall below 1000; students who scored around 950 the year before could expect to score about 1000 the year after; but players who scored 1600 one year could expect to score 1600 the next year. Adjusting for the group is not the same thing as adjusting every member of the group. A student can only score 1600 (now its 2400, but you get my point) on the SAT - that one does so against weak competition and another against strong competition tells us nothing about how those students compare. If they made the test very much harder, which of the two would still score 1600? There is absolutely no way to know the answer to that question.
Was Ruth a 1600 SAT baseball player? I don't know, but my answer is somewhere between "possibly" and "probably". Would he have been as dominant in the 1970's as he was in the 1920's? Again, I don't know, but I'm inclined to again answer somewhere between "possibly" and "probably", depending on what you mean by "dominant". He clearly wouldn't have been as much better than an average player as he was in his day - the average unarguably moved up - but I see no reason to believe that he would not have been the best player in the majors year in and year out, just as he was in his own day.
Bishop, no offense to their fans among us but any list that ranks Yaz and Murray ahead of Mantle and Williams in ANYthing is not worth reading. There is obviously a serious problem with his method. But if he thinks like me, he can't be all bad.
You can simply say that baseball is an integrated game today (minus the geography contstraint) and that the best ballplayers are who they are. I see nothing productive out of looking into statistics in this generation of baseball from a color-of-skin perspective. It truly means nothing in this era of baseball.
Schmidt = one of the best ballplayers of the last 30-40 years. Period. We don't need to inflate his legend up by suggesting he is one of the top five white ballplayers of the last 30 or 50 years. It simply adds no value to the overall argument.
~ms
Dallas,
You seem to be missing the point, and it isn't an easy one to explain nor get at first.
I am not at all guessing at what Schmidt might have done in 1925, or what Ruth might have done in 1980.
All of the meaningful stats measure a player vs. their peers, but in Ruth's case it is only measuring him vs. a percentage of viable candidates available....i.e no NON WHITE candidates are measured vs him. It is also measuring him vs. a smaller number of white players available, compared to what Schmidt was measured against.
What I am doing is simply measuring Schmidt vs. the same cross section of viable candidates as Ruth was meaured against. It isn't a guess how he would do, but rather a fact of how he measures up vs. the same number and type of candidates as Ruth is being measured against.
Case in point is how he measures up vs the WHITES only in his era for HR...just like Ruth was. WHen you do that, you start to see a far different picture painted, a MORE FAIR PICTURE!
20's/30's:
Ruth 714
Foxx 534
Ott 511
Gehrig 493
70's/80's:
Schmidt 548
Yaz 452
Kingman 442
D. Evans 414
Murphy 398
Nettles 390
Dallas, unless you think Jim Dwyer would have stepped in full time for Eddie Murray and come anywhere close to 500 HR, then you would have to agree with the above list as being more represntitive of Schmidt's skills....as being compared to the same set of players as RUth.
_________________________________________________________________________
STEP TWO the POPULATION!!
In the 4 years sandwiching RUth's and Schmidt's births, here are the birth totals. The totals account for the 10%+ infant mortality rate of Ruth's time, compared to the 3% of Schmidt's. It also accounts for age 1-4 deaths, and age 5-14 deaths. Some of the years are estimated population totals...but were talking a couple hundred thousand or two.
Ruth's = appx 8.9 million males born reaching age 15.
Schmidt's = appx 16.5 millions males born reaching age 15.
That is about 85% more players born that Schmidt had to compete with. We already eliminated the non Whites in the chart above, but what about the 85% more players?
First, I think it is logical to conclude that the 85% would fall across all types of players. It wouldn't be 85% of bench players. I also think it is logical to think that parents do not know that they will give birth to a MLB player, so it wouldn't outweigh the sociological/physical factors in determinig having children or more children.
Second, I see no reason to believe that a natural born athlete(elite baseball player) would come out at any higher or lower percentage in a given era. I alos think it logical that the more people born, the more people born that can hit the ball 450 feet.
So of those six white players behind Schmidt on the HR list, he is facing 85% more competition than Ruth did. In other words, Ruth is being compared to a cross section of players that are drawn from an 85% smaller pool.
What happens if we only compare Schmidt to a pool that is drawn from an 85% smaller pool?
70's/80's. Whites only, and a 85% smaller population pool
Schmidt 548
Kingman 442
Murphy 398
Bench 389
Dw. Evans 385
I'm not guessing at what Schmidt would have done, I am comparing him vs the same available population pool, just like Ruth is being compared against. When you start to wade through the variables you begin to see WHY those players from that era are viewed so high, and WHY it is nearly impossible to be viewed as high as them.
The third step is the batting style of the 1920's/30's and how a high proportion of players...like Cobb...never embraced or tried a HR type swing. That would be another step and reason why Ruth shines so bright among his 'partial' peers.
<< <i> All of the meaningful stats measure a player vs. their peers, but in Ruth's case it is only measuring him vs. a percentage of viable candidates available....i.e no NON WHITE candidates are measured vs him. It is also measuring him vs. a smaller number of white players available, compared to what Schmidt was measured against.
>>
If all the meaningful stas are measurements against peers and there is no factual way to level the peer playing field across eras (which is my belief), doesn't that makes these measurements across eras meaningless?
I tend to agree with you that things on the diamond can be measured and known, but I think that looking at the population and associated factors lumps in a whole lot of assumptions that can't be proven even when the "law of averages" is invoked. Just because there was a flu epidemic that wiped out tons of people doesn't necessarily mean that it wiped out anyone with Hank Aaron-like abilities. You could certainly make that argument and it seems highly plausible, but you'd never be able to prove it.
I don't think there is any assumption whatsoever in the minority exercise. Well, other than the fact I am assuming that any white replacement player availalbe wouldn't be anywhere near as good as Reggie Jackson or Eddie Murray.
What it boils down to is that Ruth and others from his era only look so much better than Schmidt etc... because they are only being compared to a smaller percentage of viable candidates, as opposed to Schmidt. It isn't because their ability is greater...it is the variables creating a false cloud.
<< <i>Dallas,
You seem to be missing the point, ... >>
Oh, if I had a nickle for every time that happened. But I think I get what you're saying now, and I don't have any serious disagreement with it. Of course, that obviously doesn't stop me from arguing as if I do.
I will say, in Ruth's defense, that your white player comparisons are understating his dominance; Ruth's best seasons occured many years before any of the other players on your 20's/30's list showed up. Ruth was already 30 by the time Gehrig cracked the lineup, and 33 when Foxx and Ott became regulars. His dominance over truly contemporary players is much more dramatic.
Looking at all the information above, isnt a league leading performance by Schmidt that much more impressive than one by Ruth?
Think about yourself. Would you feel more proud of being voted the most handsome of the city, or most handsome of the entire state?
<< <i>Looking at all the information above, isnt a league leading performance by Schmidt that much more impressive than one by Ruth? >>
Yes and no. Is Schmidt leading the league by 1 or 2 more impressive than Ruth leading by 20 or 30? Maybe it is, for all of the reasons you stated, but maybe it isn't. Like fielding in our Biggio/Carew imbroglio, we're talking about things that are awfully hard to place a value on. Ruth was so far to the right on the baseball talent bell curve that it is not obvious to me that adding millions more people to the total pool adds very many, if any at all, to points very close to Ruth. Still, it might have, and whether it would have or not your argument is convincing that comparing Ruth to Schmidt by OPS+ or any similar measure isn't really fair to Schmidt.
<< <i>Think about yourself. Would you feel more proud of being voted the most handsome of the city, or most handsome of the entire state? >>
Speaking as one who has been chosen for both honors, they were both special in their own ways.
Baseball, the reason why I used HR, is that it was far easier to use as an example to illustrate it. OPS+ has the same bias based on era, and when you do the same exercise with OPS+ as I did for HR, it closes the gap mightily.
In all of my steps...which I only used the race, and the population to level the playing field, Schmidt closed the gap considerably.
I never did the next step of the dead ball style hitters, which is also a big element.
And I didn't do the smaller steps that were more exclusive to Ruth and Ruth's era...being the fact that Ruth never really had to face the best pitching staff in the league(it was usually his team)...this is exclusive to Ruth and other Yankees of that era.
Then the factor of getting to face the same pitcher for the fourth time in the same game. This is a boon to a hitter.
When all those leveling factors are put into place, it closes the gap just as much on OPS+ as it does on HR. Ruth was a monster of monsters, and so was Schmidt(ACTUALLY SCHMIDT HAD MORE MONSTERS TO COMPETE AGAINST SO HE TRULY WAS A MOSNTER OF MONSTERS), and it is much closer than everybody thinks.
<< <i>MikeSchmidt...it has nothing to do with being the best of a race...nothing.
>>
How can you say that....all your posts say the same type of thing:
"looking at how Schmidt fared against the whites only players of his league, and compare it to Ruth's, aren't you just as impressed at Schmidt's performance as Ruth's??"
You are comparing apples versus oranges. Schmidt may have been one of the best white players of his era, but it doesn't matter. He didn't play in a white-only league, so you can't isolate his success (or lack thereof) and suddenly call him of Ruthian status. How did Schmidt hit against black pitchers? White pitchers? Latino pitchers? Who cares.
Schmidt was a legend, one of the best of a generation. Isolating his stats and comparing them against only other white player does not in any way make his performance(s) any more spectacular than they already are.
I don't want to rewrite the points, as they are there.
If you don't care about isolating his stats, and are fine about just calling him a legend, then that is fine. This thread isn't about that, and I'm not about that. I want more. If you don't, I'm not going to push it on you. That is your choice.