Ruth hit more home runs than every team except one in 1920, please forgive the error(the common theme is all teams in his league).
The primary reasons why that occured is that the league was filled with dead ball style hitters(no explanation needed I hope), no minority players allowed(spare me the rare 'cuban'), and a major league drawn from a small populace of available white men from basically the eastern seaboard, with whom many were taken away due to family and social demands of work for survival(child labor), and/or sickness. Basically, he was a Man among boys and old styled hitters.
Think of it as Mike Schimdt competing against Reggie Jackson and Dale Murphy for HR's(those guys would be nonexistant for Ruth to compete against), but Ruth instead got the chance to compete against more guys like Freddie Patek.
Poor defensive play/equpment/field maintenance is another big factor in his overall hitting.
1. Poor fielding, inadaquete equipment, and field maintenance. This is one aspect that helped guys throughout that era, and the dead ball era(Wagner, Cobb). One might think, well this would help everybody, so how does that matter. That is a good question, and the answer is that it does not help everybody the same. Why?
I would apply this more to Wagner and Cobb, but Ruth too(lesser because he hit more over the fence). Who stands to benefit most when there are poor fielders?
1. Guys who make contact the most. Every player that didn't make as much contact did not stand the same chance of having a batted ball go in for a hit(a hit that would be an out in 1990). Your high contact guys, which were considered the best hitters back then, stood a greater chance for their in demand skill to shine.
2. But contact isn't enough. It is the guys who made the most solid or hard contact, and that is where your really good hitters would shine, like Cobb or Wagner. It goes without saying that guys who hit the ball the hardest and most often would stand a much better chance to take advantage of the poor fielding of that day.
This is analogus to 1993/94 when the live ball was introduced into baseball. A guy like Felix Fermin who rarely hit deep fly balls would not benefit to the same degree as Ken Griffy JR did(where a deep fly ball out would instead be a HR).
What occurs, is that the guys with that skill have a chance to distance themselves from their peers, compared to other era's where there wasn't as big a special circumstance that allowed the stars of that era to outdistance the peasants of the league(and league average) to the same degree.
+Another factor is that hitters got to face the same pitcher for basically every at bat in the game. Sure, when facing the Ace of a team this may not be a benefit, but when facing two through four, it is beef up the stat time in those 7th inning at bats! This factor is helpful to the pre war guys. The Live ball era guys get to face all those crummy middle relievers, since starters don't go long, and closers only pitch one inning!
These are all advantages that were there for Pre War guys, and Modern Live Ball guys, which players from the 60's though 80's didn't quite have that luxury. There are more(like Body armor for nowadays).
Jaxxr, all other facotors you mention like training, medicine, trains are all equal to everybody in the peer group. Both Wagner and the 25th man faced the same circumstances. If anything, the better medicine and training would probably be another reason why a Wagner could benefit over the average guy. Why? He made more money and could afford it!! SO those things you always bring up like that are actually going against what you are trying to prove(that the best players are without a doubt from pre war due to the gaudy numbers).
The reality is, the gaudy numbers of the pre war guys are somewhat of a mirage, when compared to a Mike Schmidt or Reggie Jackson, and guys from that era.
The other guys you mentioned also benefitted from these circumstances, though you took a pretty good liberty with gehrig and Klein being that they didn't play in the early 20's when Ruth was out homering teams at an inhuman pace...which by the way is quite a big liberty, compared to me leaving out one team. So no, they wouldn't benefit the same because they came later, and they weren't quite as good. That is your answer my friend.
A. "a major league drawn from a small populace of available white men from basically the eastern seaboard, with whom many were taken away due to family and social demands of work for survival(child labor), and/or sickness. Basically, he was a Man among boys and old styled hitters."
Also no competetion from the NFL, the NBA, pro golf, pro tennis and pro soccer among many other sport avenues opened due to TV and other post war factors. The amont of MLB postions added due to expansion has increased at a greater rate the population. Eastern seaboard ?, well the US was populated greater in the east back then, but, Harry Hooper, Tony Lazzeri, Frank Chance, Fred Snodgrass, Harry Heilman, Joe Cronin, Bill Lange, Duffy Lewis, and Hal Chase were among the many players from CA, I did not bother to look at the other 30 or so states not in the seaboard.
B. "the better medicine and training would probably be another reason why a Wagner could benefit over the average guy. Why? He made more money and could afford it!! "
While playing in a second game of a scheduled doubleheader, unlike today, a tired Wagner might injure his rotator cuff, he might be able to afford a Tommy John operation better than most , but it did not exist back then. The likelyhood of playing a full season was less than in 1985, players often injured themselves, and healed badly due to improper methods, not inability to afford treatment, and they did not have long term contracts to protect them, so played "hurt' more often than 1985 players for example, and should perhaps get additonal praise for the good stats.
C. "The reality is, the gaudy numbers of the pre war guys are somewhat of a mirage, when compared to a Mike Schmidt or Reggie Jackson, and guys from that era"
The actual reality is, the above statement is your opinion. A personal view based on whatever you, yourself, consider relevant. You are certainly entitled to your opinions, though I must disagree that Mike Schmidt and Reggie Jackson are comparable to Ruth and Wagner.
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
I went over the population figures with you in the past, and what I said is accurate, even taking into account the NLF etc..
You are wrong with your population look! I told you that before. No, comparing 1984 to 1910 there is NOT a greater number of positions available per population in 1984, compared to 1910. I showed you that before. You were looking at the wave of immigration in the early 1900's, and those people were not a factor for filling MLB positions. Their kids may have been, and that is why the number of births matter, not the total population. I am not going to go over that again. If you need convincing, then dig up the old thread. But please don't continue to put out misinformation.
The NBA, or pro golf, Tennis, or soccer or others were not taking away baseball players from the child population in the 1950's and early 60's, and those are the MLB players of the 70's and 80's. I laid all of that out before, turning a blind eye to it doesn't change it.
No, it isn't my opinion. The fact is that it was easier to outdistance one's peers in that time, and that is exactly what happened.
Unless of course you believe that of the top 23 starting pitchers of all time, 18 of them were from before WWI? Do you?
You like hard facts, and the hard facts say that 18 of the top 23 starting pitchers of all time were WWI era guys when measuring against the peers! Now either you believe that to be true, or you recognize that there is something majorly askew. I am pointing out why it is askew.
Jaxxr, all the things you say about playing hurt, etc... apply to all the peers in the league. It doesn't just apply to stars, so that has no merit. In fact, the stars have the better chance OVER THEIR PEERS of receiving the best treatments in those days.
If you want to say it is all my opinion, knock yourself out, but it is one well informed one.
While Cy Young was playing, Sitting Bull and Geronimo were still at large(still alive).
P.S. The hardest of all facts says that the best ERA pitchers of all time are almost all from the 1900 era. Unless you believe that they are, then the stuff I am saying must be true. You need to make a decision now. Either there are 35 guys from the 1900 era better than Tom Seaver, of there are circumstances that made them appear so...A MIRAGE!!
The population has not expanded as fast as baseball, The population has not expanded as fast, to an even greater degree, in relation to professional sport positions avialable.
You may state possible causes, implications, ethnic fascinations, or the Eastern Seaboard's climate, but that is true.
For whatever reason, perhaps no more opinions on 3B, or hitters in general, YOU, decided to interject pitchers into the thread, probably to augment your opinion of the lack of BB quality, pre-WW2.
"P.S. The hardest of all facts says that the best ERA pitchers of all time are almost all from the 1900 era."
Adjusted ERA +, is a pretty good stat, not the only viable one, but a very telling indicator, you do not say if your incorrect assumption was for career or single-season stats, regardless, both are presented below.
Career Rank, Player (age) Adjusted ERA+ Throws 1. Mariano Rivera (38) 199 R 2. Pedro Martinez (36) 154 R 3. Lefty Grove+* 148 L 4. Walter Johnson+ 147 R 5. Dan Quisenberry 146 R Ed Walsh+ 146 R Hoyt Wilhelm+ 146 R Joe Wood 146 R 9. Johan Santana* (29) 144 L 10. Roger Clemens 143 R Brandon Webb (29) 143 R 12.Addie Joss+ 142 R 13. Roy Oswalt (30) 139 R
( 62%, well over half are, IN FACT, post WW2 performers, Lefty Grove was really not a 1900 guy, so "Almost all are from the 1900 era" seems very incorrect )
Single Season, Adjusted ERA + ( Post 1900 ) 1. Pedro Martinez (28) 291 2000 R 2. Dutch Leonard* (22) 279 1914 L 3. Greg Maddux (28) 271 1994 R 4. Greg Maddux (29) 262 1995 R 5. Walter Johnson+ (25) 259 1913 R 6. Bob Gibson+ (32) 258 1968 R 7. Mordecai Brown+ (29) 253 1906 R 8.. Pedro Martinez (27) 243 1999 R 9. Walter Johnson+ (24) 242 1912 R 10. Christy Mathewson+ (24) 230 1905 R 11. Dwight Gooden (20) 228 1985 R 12. Roger Clemens (42) 226 2005 R
( 5 out of 12 does not, in reality, equate close to "Almost all " )
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
But jaxxr, even when you use ERA+ instead of ERA - as you should - you still get 5 out of 12 (42%) from a span of 10 years (9%) of the post-1900 period. What you just demonstrated is that a pitcher from that era was almost five times more likely to dominate his peers than a pitcher from all other eras. Hoopster's point is not disproved just because 12 out of 12 didn't come from that decade - 5 out of 12 provides very nice support.
The career list isn't as dramatic, but that's only because the modern list is full of relief pitchers. Make the lists apples to apples and you'll probably find again that pitchers from that time were about five times more likely to dominate their peers.
Which is to be expected, because everything Hoopster has posted about population effects is exactly right. And I don't think he's repeated it in this thread, but what percent of MLB players today were scouted and signed in a foreign country? US population statistics alone do not do justice to just how many more people are in the pool of potential players today than 100 years ago - the gap is enormous and has far outpaced MLB growth.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
So, " Almost all" means just what exactly, Dallas ???
Since you are apparently a surrogate for Hoop, you might be kind enough to show how "Almost all" was correct for a description of the portion of pitchers from the 1900s. I casually assumed "all" was 100%, and the modifier "almost" would suggest close to 100%. Please, if possible, try to use actual definitions, not opinions, for the actual words "all" and "almost", and how perhaps the comination of them might be used.
It is my view, that the use of extreme phrases, like "so much better", or "almost all", tend to show a very narrow, un-compromising opinion, in many cases.
The US population increase did not keep pace with baseball and total sports team expansion, that is a fact. The causes, implications, ages, geo-political factors aside, the raw numbers can show that.
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
Look at the top 15 starters in ERA+ since 1900: Pedro Martinez Lefty Grove Walter Johnson Ed Walsh Joe Wood Johan Santana Roger Clemens Brandon Webb Addie Joss Roy Oswalt Mordecai Brown Randy Johnson Pete Alexander Christy Mathewson Rube Waddell
You see five pitchers who pitched the majority of their career between 1900 and 1910; you see another three who starter their career between 1908 and 1911; then you see another five who were still active in 2008. The other two are Grove and Clements, between the end of one career and the start of the other, we see a 47 year gap. Finally between numbers 15 and 20 do we see Ford and Koufax representing the 50s and 60s (you have to go all the way to number 30 to see Seaver representing the 1970s). No matter how you rank players, the best pitcher over one 50 year period has to be seen as at least close to the best from another. Yet for a 50 year period no pitcher could reach an ERA+ that the top dozen from two 10 year periods
Feller, Spahn, Ford, Roberts, Koufax, Marichal, Gibson, Seaver, Palmer, Carlton -- that would be half of the top 20 pitchers in history, with some pretty mediocre adjusted ERAs compared to the above list
Still, no decade has any number remotely close to... "Almost all".. of the listed pitchers.
Could there be any possibility, there were a few super quality hurlers from one particular decade, and, that fact, in and of itself, may not be not a very good reason to somehow automatically discredit their performance ???
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
If we divide post 1900 baseball into eras, 10 year, 25 year, post WW2, or whatever one wishes to use for "era" designation.... ......unless there was a highly unlikey, absolutely perfectly equal distibution of talent per era,........ ......is it not very likely that, .......one era will have more "super quality" hurlers via whatever rate system we use, than one, or more, other eras ???
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
You did this exact same thing in the thread about a year ago. You completely discount the fact that whites only were allowed to play pre war(pleae spare me the rare 'Cuban').
You continue to discount the fact that the population of the early 1900's saw a rapid growth to a massive inlfux of immigrants. Those are people you are using in your calculations, yet they have zero impact on the available talent to be drawn from.
The facts you state, are facts (total population and number of pro sport spots) etc..,but that fact isn't anymore uselful that stating for a fact that a bee is an insect! Yeah, they are facts, but they don't do anything to support your position.
It is important to understand the society and population growths, and BIRTHS, and Sickness, and the number of available men to draw from.
It is fundamental to understand that the biggest competition for early 1900 baesball players was WORK!! This element dwarfs any competition the NBA had on a child in 1962.
It is also fundamental to know that in 1984, MLB were also able to draw from south of the border population. If indeed you want to ignore the underlying implications like I am laying out for you, THEN YOU MUST ADD THE POPULATION OF ALL RESIDENTS OF EVERY SOUTH OF THE BORDER COUNTRY into your supposed formula, and then see what you come up with! Is it not a fact that they had millions upon millions of people to draw from? You seem to like just facts, so USE THEM ALL THEN!
jaxxr, 18 of the top 23 STARTING PITCHERS of all time in ERA+ were from around the turn of the century era(one or two are just pre war). Don't put the closers on that list. You are trying to mislead as usual. The other five are from this live ball era.
There are 23 Pre War guys ahead of Tom Seaver, most of which are from around the turn of the century.
What does "Almost all" mean in your vocabulary Hoop ????
If you feel some deep need to discredit hurlers from a particular era, that's your choice. If the numbers are too complex to understand, perhaps a personal list will help; 1915 Active starters=W Johnson, E Walsh, C Marthewson, M Brown, GC Alexander, among others 1985 Active starters= R Clemens, T Seaver, S Carlton, R Guidry, B Blyleven, among others
Solid pitchers all, tough to better either group of peers, seems a fair task to get an adjusted ERA+, either single season or over a full career much better than the group. Also tough to throw 350 or even 400 innings, and complete such a high percent of games, as some did, but I suppose that is no reflection of a starter's worth. --------------
"The facts you state, are facts (total population and number of pro sport spots) etc..,but that fact isn't anymore uselful that stating for a fact that a bee is an insect! Yeah, they are facts, but they don't do anything to support your position."
Sorry Hoop, I'll try to keep facts away from discussions with you, as much as possible.
"Bee" is also a very popular name for US newspapers, Fresno CA, Suburban Buffalo NY, among many.
Supply and demand is a concept which may be helpful. The supply of humans in the US was X" in 1915, the demand for them via major professional sport teams was "Z". In 1985 'X' increased by about 2.4 times, in 1985 'Z" increased by about 4.1 times.
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
If a statistic favours one era so dramatically over another perhaps it is not the best stat to use.
By far and away the best system is James Win Shares and rankings. Is it perfect? Of course, not. But it is much better than just going on ERA+ or the over-rated OPS+.
Also, I do not think too many people, if any, actually believe the quality of baseball was better in 1910 than it was in 1950 or later.
What I take issue with is stating that the quality of baseball is higher in the 1980's than today.
<< <i>By far and away the best system is James Win Shares and rankings. Is it perfect? Of course, not. But it is much better than just going on ERA+ or the over-rated OPS+ >>
Of course James' rankings are really his subjective views. Kaline is slightly ahead of Brett on the win shares, Brett is 60 spots higher on the top 100 list. It certainly is a reasonable conclusion to put those two players at 30 and 90, but it would be faulty to believe the system is based more around this one stat, than James' opinion. The best systems takes everything into account. Hits and walks and outs can be quantified with a number. Segregation, steroids and overall evolution of a sport really cannot. Far and away the best system is nothing more than a well though out, well researched opinion. And that is all Bill James' rankings are
I will admit to not fully understanding exactly what win shares measures, nor exactly how it reaches its final numbers. The results match my subjective interpretations and the subjective analysis of most well thought out analysis pretty closely, so I have to agree it does most things right. On the times when we come to much different conclusions it always offers something new to look into to
Aro, I wouldn't say that the quality of play is any better than(80's), as opposed to now, what I am saying is that it is easier for the stars of the league to outdistance their peers in this current live ball era(93-present).
One of hte reasons I touched on earlier about the lively ball and the ease of hitting home runs in this era. This benefit is of much greater importance to Ken Griffey, as opposed to Felix Fermin. The added benefit is that this ease of hitting HR also made it easier for the stars to draw walks and plump up their OB%. This makes it easier for the stars to outdistance the league average.
They also had a double expansion in this era, adding four more teams as opposed to the 80's.
The 80's drew players from the pool of American's largest birth rates,(1950's/early 60's). The late 90's/2000's drew from much smaller birth rates in the 70's, AND THEY ADDED FOUR MORE TEAMS!!
Both had the opportunity to draw from south of the border. This current era draws more from there, but that is offset with a severe reduction in African American players.
THe point Jaxxr was making about other sports taking players away does come into factor for this current era, and not nearly as much as the 80's. MLB player of the 80's(when they were young in the 60's), still had MLB as the premier sport to choose from. Young players in the 80's/early 90's were taken in huge waves to other sports. All you have to do now(and the last 15 years) is look at baseball fields on summer afternoons and see them empty...just not the case in the 60's.
We have not evolved enough from 1984 to 1999 to say that the quality of play became better in 1999. That just isn't enough time. The quality of play isn't any different...the difference is what i stated above, adn that made it easier for players in this era to outdistance their peers.
tomgshotput - James system incorporates career win shares, top 3 seasons, best 5 consecutive seasons and win shares per 162 games.
Brett may trail Kaline 432 to 443 for total win shares but he is far better in his top three seasons 106 to 92 and his top 5 consecutive seasons 154 to 130. They are virtually the same for average 25.85 for Brett and 25.32 for Kaline. Throw in the timeline factor and the ranking of Brett at 30 and Kaline at 90 makes complete sense.
James does use a subjective element but he is very careful to not over rank his favourite players. He rates Catfish Hunter 64th among pitchers, and Dan Quisenberry 68th. He has Frank White 31st at secondbase.
In fact, although his numbers showed Mantle as being slightly better than Cobb and in his opinion he would rather have Mantle he still rated Cobb higher because, "My heart is not in it, but as I see it, the world believes that Cobb was a better player than Mantle, and I would be unable to sustain a logical argument to the contrary under rigorous attack. I have to give Cobb the edge."
His system showed Arky Vaughn as the second best shortstop of all-time, as surprised as he was that is where he ranked Vaughn with the note that, "The distance between the number one shortstop (Wagner) and the number two shortstop is about the same as the distance between the number two shortstop and the number 30 shortstop."
Hoopster - While I appreciate your view I cannot say I totally agree with it.
<< <i>James does use a subjective element but he is very careful to not over rank his favourite players. He rates Catfish Hunter 64th among pitchers, and Dan Quisenberry 68th. He has Frank White 31st at secondbase. >>
That's funny, because I had always thought that his rankings of KC players (Royals and especially his childhood team the A's) were all too high, some of them way too high.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
aro, it seems we are in completel agreement. Almost all of James' ranking make sense. But if someone else cannot repeat the results using the same information, it cannot be called anything other than his opinion. And that is what makes them so good
dallasactuary - Okay, I'll play. Who do you think James has over-rated from Kansas City? Porter, Mayberry, White, Patek, Brett, Wilson, Otis, Cowens, Hunter, Quisenberry, Gura, Leonard - which ones?
So now that Chipper has announced that this is his last season and ARod has spent three more full seasons at third base (giving him eight seasons at third base), how do we place them now in the grand scheme of things? Clearly, ARod is nowhere near the player he was in his prime, as injuries and age (and who knows what else) have slowed him down. Perhaps he has a resurgence. Who knows? Jones' story has pretty much been written. I still see Schmidt as the clear #1 on this list. Although I do not care for Alex Rodriguez even the least little bit, I reluctantly admit that I would have to place him at #2. I still have George Brett above Chipper, but not Ed Mathews. But I could be convinced otherwise. I have no feel for how Mathews was defensively. What about the rest of you?
I still remember the final week of the 85 regular season, when the Royals beat the California Angels for the division title. Brett had four homers(two inside the park) knocked in nine or ten runs, and hit around .500 during the last 5 or 6 games to lead the Royals to the playoffs. Then against the Blue Jays I believe the Royals were down two games to none and Brett had a phenomenal game three to lead the Royals to a victory and they went on to win that series.
In the pressure situations, when the Royals needed a big hit, everyone always wanted George at the plate and he knew there was a lot of pressure on him to perform and he still came through. In those situations, we had Brett, then we had Hal McRae, and basically not much after that.
<< <i>George Brett hit .337 in nine postseason series.
Mike Schmidt hit .236 in eight postseason series.
Brett had an OPS of 1.128 in six ALCS Brett had an OPS of .968 in two World Series
Schmidt had an OPS of .655 in five NLCS Schmidt had an OPS of .673 in two World Series
I'd have to go with George Brett because I would always want the guy who would come up big when it counted. >>
Unless you account for a) the pitchers each player faced in those starts and the parks they played in, and b) the standard deviation of these results, then you simply do not have anything to compare.
<< <i>George Brett hit .337 in nine postseason series.
Mike Schmidt hit .236 in eight postseason series.
Brett had an OPS of 1.128 in six ALCS Brett had an OPS of .968 in two World Series
Schmidt had an OPS of .655 in five NLCS Schmidt had an OPS of .673 in two World Series
I'd have to go with George Brett because I would always want the guy who would come up big when it counted. >>
Unless you account for a) the pitchers each player faced in those starts and the parks they played in, and b) the standard deviation of these results, then you simply do not have anything to compare. >>
Unless you account for a) the pitchers each player faced in those starts and the parks they played in, and b) the standard deviation of these results, then you simply do not have anything to compare. >>
I believe the Yankees paid the best pitchers the most amount of money to pitch in the late 70's, and I remember George Brett launching 3 homers against the Yankees in the playoffs, on the road, at Yankee stadium, the last one coming off Goose Gossage who was very tough to hit. It was an upper deck bomb that sucked the life out of the Yankees.
Unless you account for a) the pitchers each player faced in those starts and the parks they played in, and b) the standard deviation of these results, then you simply do not have anything to compare. >>
I believe the Yankees paid the best pitchers the most amount of money to pitch in the late 70's, and I remember George Brett launching 3 homers against the Yankees in the playoffs, on the road, at Yankee stadium, the last one coming off Goose Gossage who was very tough to hit. It was an upper deck bomb that sucked the life out of the Yankees. >>
Gossage said later he didn't know how hard he threw that pitch, but it went out a lot faster than it came in.
Unless you account for a) the pitchers each player faced in those starts and the parks they played in, and b) the standard deviation of these results, then you simply do not have anything to compare. >>
I believe the Yankees paid the best pitchers the most amount of money to pitch in the late 70's, and I remember George Brett launching 3 homers against the Yankees in the playoffs, on the road, at Yankee stadium, the last one coming off Goose Gossage who was very tough to hit. It was an upper deck bomb that sucked the life out of the Yankees. >>
Agreed.
Wonder what hoopster/sabre/skin thinks about Brett's post-season "clutch" performances, if he's still around....
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
Unless you account for a) the pitchers each player faced in those starts and the parks they played in, and b) the standard deviation of these results, then you simply do not have anything to compare. >>
I believe the Yankees paid the best pitchers the most amount of money to pitch in the late 70's, and I remember George Brett launching 3 homers against the Yankees in the playoffs, on the road, at Yankee stadium, the last one coming off Goose Gossage who was very tough to hit. It was an upper deck bomb that sucked the life out of the Yankees. >>
Unless you account for a) the pitchers each player faced in those starts and the parks they played in, and b) the standard deviation of these results, then you simply do not have anything to compare. >>
I believe the Yankees paid the best pitchers the most amount of money to pitch in the late 70's, and I remember George Brett launching 3 homers against the Yankees in the playoffs, on the road, at Yankee stadium, the last one coming off Goose Gossage who was very tough to hit. It was an upper deck bomb that sucked the life out of the Yankees. >>
Agreed.
Wonder what hoopster/sabre/skin thinks about Brett's post-season "clutch" performances, if he's still around.... >>
He'd tell you the exact same thing I'm about to tell you, which is that you can't draw conclusions of this sort until you control for all relevant variables and have appropriate sample size. You don't have to care about this, but you better be glad that the researchers looking for a cure for MS get it, otherwise the research you've helped sponsor with your bike rides wouldn't be worth the paper it's printed on.
<< <i>He'd tell you the exact same thing I'm about to tell you, which is that you can't draw conclusions of this sort until you control for all relevant variables and have appropriate sample size. You don't have to care about this, but you better be glad that the researchers looking for a cure for MS get it, otherwise the research you've helped sponsor with your bike rides wouldn't be worth the paper it's printed on. >>
Agreed as well.
Skin usually has all of the variables at his fingertips, so it would be interesting to see his perspective of how Brett performed during the playoffs from the late 70's to mid 80's.
I honestly don't know if he still posts or not. While I never agreed with his delivery, always respected his insight.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
The same people who believe that a MLB player with an already established baseline of ability in pressurized environments can all of a sudden just make himself better when needed, are usually the same people that believe that some players just 'know how to win, or are 'winners'.
In Brett's case, if one wants to ignore the variables that can explain his uptick in his batting percentages in his 184 career post season plate appearances, compared to that of his 11,625 MLB plate appearances, then it would be fair of me to ignore the variables if I were to decree that Brett doesn't 'know how to win', or that Brett is 'not a winner'...because his team won only one of those series against the Yankees and lost three!!
Furthermore, Brett's team lost head to head against Schmidt in the biggest stage of all, a series in which Schmidt won the MVP!
So if these post season batting results are to be taken at face value as proof that Brett hits better in meaningful games, then so should the fact that Brett's team's were only 3-6 in post season series and Mike Schmidt's beating of him head to head, be used as proof that Brett is NOT a 'winner', and he does not 'know how to win.'
Then you have the whole 1990 end of the season debacle where Brett sat out against some left handed pitchers in order to protect his batting average title...yeah, that fits the bill of 'clutch'
In Brett's case, if one wants to ignore the variables that can explain his uptick in his batting percentages in his 184 career post season plate appearances, compared to that of his 11,625 MLB plate appearances, then it would be fair of me to ignore the variables if I were to decree that Brett doesn't 'know how to win', or that Brett is 'not a winner'...because his team won only one of those series against the Yankees and lost three!!
Furthermore, Brett's team lost head to head against Schmidt in the biggest stage of all, a series in which Schmidt won the MVP!
>>
So an individual baseball player is responsible for his entire teams success or failure ? I don't think anyone buys into this way of thinking, and I think you're kidding.
Schmidt hit .381 in that world series. Brett hit .375
The fact remains that Brett came up huge in the playoffs even though his teams weren't good enough to win. Schmidt only did once. Brett was clearly better in the playoffs, and we can only go on the sample size given us. Baseball players simply do not play in enough playoff games. If they were on opposite teams, the results would have been the same.
I have never understood the reasoning behind rating players in team sports as winners or losers because of their teams winning championships,
There are certainly players like Reggie Jackson who have had some great games in the World Series, however, had the rest of the team performed poorly in those particular games, would we feel the same way?
When I see the question phrased the way the OP did, I primarily consider the players stats over his entire career. If two players are equal in my thinking. I might expand the consideration to other intangibles as success in the post season, but only if the player(s) have some meaningful numbers to look at.
After reading Mantle's book "All My Octobers" I realized he really never "led" his team to victory, other than once in the 1952 World Series. Does that detract from my opinion of him? Not at all. However the team performance is what got him his rings.
Joe
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
You really can't appreciate how valuable Brett was to his team unless you followed the Royals games back then. They weren't on T.V. much, but I listened to almost every game on the radio. Nobody always comes through in the clutch, but Brett was at his best during big games.
Again, take a look at the final week of the 85 regular season when the Royals and Angels were battling for the division. Brett just flat out won the division for the Royals in the last five or six games.
Maybe he wasn't the greatest third baseman ever, maybe he was, but I guarantee no Royals fan who followed the team back then would have traded Brett for Schmidt when both were in their prime.
Brett enjoyed a monster '85 season -- .335, 30 HR, 112 RBI, as well as Gold Glove -- and was equally as productive in the post-season. He was MVP of the American League Championship Series against Toronto and went on to hit .370 in the World Series, highlighted by a four-hit night in Game 7.
Darin above posted Brett's post season hitting totals compared to that of Schmidt, ignored the variables that explains those numbers, and then based on those post season numbers concluded Brett is better because he would come up big when it counted.
The most obvious variable is the small sample size, and you are ignoring it.
You are into ignoring variables and only count the sample sizes that are given, and therefore take those sample size results at face value, then when somebody ignores the variables of teammates and conclude that Brett was not a winner because his teams lost more than they won in the post season....you all of a sudden understand the role variables play because it suits your biased thinking.
If you are into ignoring variables like in the post season numbers, why stop there? May as well ignore them to when determining that Brett was not a winner because his team's got beat more than they won in the post season.
FINALLY, if Brett really did have an ability to make himself a better hitter simply because the game meant more, then he is stupid.
Because why on earth did he only hit like that in the post season?? A smart man would recognize that if he could morph himself into a better hitter in the post season, then if he did it all the time in the regular season, he would be in MORE post season series and would win more, then get even more accolades and money. So why didn't he have an OPS over 1.000 all the time if he were capable of it????????
Or is he lazy? Because if he knew he could morph himself into a 1.000 OPS hitter, and chose not to in the regular season because it took effort, then he is lazy. Or, again, stupid!
Also, answer me this: If Brett was hitting much better when it counted then how do you explain this:
In 3,775 career plate appearances when the game was tied, he had an ops of .847 In 1,369 career plate appearance when the score was greater than a 4 run margin either way, he had an OPS of .850
Obviously, hitting when the game is tied is FAR more important than when the margin is greater than four runs. Didn't Brett view that as an important time to become better or rise to the occasion? Isn't that game tied situation calling for Superman?
Why couldn't he replicated his 1.000+ OPS that he did in the Post Season? Did he not view those tie game situations as important enough to moprh? Certainly he had to view them more important than his at bats when he was up or down by five runs or more...yet he hit the same in them!
In addition to the above, if Brett were truly capable of having an ability to become a better hitter based on the level of importance of the game and situation like you guys profess based on his post season stats, then I am puzzled.
During Brett's career, here is what he did in these situations. It is counting the times where he actually had to perform, so it does not include Intentional walks.
Career Late/Close OPS .827
Career with run margin greater than 4 runs OPS .841
You guys go on and on how he hit a home run off of Gossage in the playoffs, and his 1.000+ post season OPS.
Why didn't he morph into that hitter in late/close situations during all his regular season at bats? Didn't he view those more important than the at bats when they were up by five runs? He sure has a funny way of showing what you guys are professing.
I also note how you guys ignored him taking himself out of the games at the end of the 1990 season because some good lefties were on the mound, and he wanted to protect his batting title. How convenient to ignore that...because it shows that he wasn't as 'clutch' as you believe.
Brett was a great player. No question about it. That's why I have him rated as the third best Third Baseman of all-time. That is no slight. I have him behind Schmidt and ARod. That is some lofty company.
All I can tell you is that Mike Schmidt and George Brett both faced quality pitching in their post season careers.
Brett was a much better postseason hitter then Schmidt. It isn't even close.
Neither are responsible for their teams wins or losses in the postseason. To think otherwise is foolish.
The simple fact is this. If you are a manager of a team, and you could go into a series with a lifetime .230 hitter in the playoffs, and a lifetime .330 hitter in the playoffs, and you had to choose one, then you're picking the .330 hitter.
I believe that Schmidt was a better career third baseman then Brett when you take everything into consideration. That isn't even questionable in my opinon. I just would take Brett for my team because of his late season and post season insanity.
PM collector, you are completely missing the point. Of course one individual isn't ultimately responsible for the team championships(although there are many on here who have argued otherwise) as that is foolish because there are too many variables involved. It is also just as foolish to take their post season small sample size numbers as proof that they are 'better post season players', because there are also too many variables involved to explain those upticks in percentages.
However, I guess you just labeled Brett stupid or lazy...as you still did not account for below:
If Brett really did have an ability to make himself a better hitter simply because the game meant more, then he is stupid.
Because why on earth did he only hit like that in the post season?? A smart man would recognize that if he could morph himself into a better hitter in the post season, then if he did it all the time in the regular season, he would be in MORE post season series and would win more, then get even more accolades and money. So why didn't he have an OPS over 1.000 all the time if he were capable of it????????
Or is he lazy? Because if he knew he could morph himself into a 1.000 OPS hitter, and chose not to in the regular season because it took effort, then he is lazy. Or, again, stupid!
Also, answer me this: If Brett was hitting much better when it counted then how do you explain this:
In 3,775 career plate appearances when the game was tied, he had an ops of .847 In 1,369 career plate appearance when the score was greater than a 4 run margin either way, he had an OPS of .850
Obviously, hitting when the game is tied is FAR more important than when the margin is greater than four runs. Didn't Brett view that as an important time to become better or rise to the occasion? Isn't that game tied situation calling for Superman?
Why couldn't he replicated his 1.000+ OPS that he did in the Post Season? Did he not view those tie game situations as important enough to moprh? Certainly he had to view them more important than his at bats when he was up or down by five runs or more...yet he hit the same in them!
In addition to the above, if Brett were truly capable of having an ability to become a better hitter based on the level of importance of the game and situation like you guys profess based on his post season stats, then I am puzzled.
During Brett's career, here is what he did in these situations. It is counting the times where he actually had to perform, so it does not include Intentional walks.
Career Late/Close OPS .827
Career with run margin greater than 4 runs OPS .841
You guys go on and on how he hit a home run off of Gossage in the playoffs, and his 1.000+ post season OPS.
Why didn't he morph into that hitter in late/close situations during all his regular season at bats? Didn't he view those more important than the at bats when they were up by five runs? He sure has a funny way of showing what you guys are professing.
I also note how you guys ignored him taking himself out of the games at the end of the 1990 season because some good lefties were on the mound, and he wanted to protect his batting title. How convenient to ignore that...because it shows that he wasn't as 'clutch' as you believe.
Darin above posted Brett's post season hitting totals compared to that of Schmidt, ignored the variables that explains those numbers, and then based on those post season numbers concluded Brett is better because he would come up big when it counted.
Uh, no I didn't.
I've hardly mentioned Schmidt. I did say I wouldn't have traded Brett for Schmidt back in their primes.
Comments
Ruth hit more home runs than every team except one in 1920, please forgive the error(the common theme is all teams in his league).
The primary reasons why that occured is that the league was filled with dead ball style hitters(no explanation needed I hope), no minority players allowed(spare me the rare 'cuban'), and a major league drawn from a small populace of available white men from basically the eastern seaboard, with whom many were taken away due to family and social demands of work for survival(child labor), and/or sickness. Basically, he was a Man among boys and old styled hitters.
Think of it as Mike Schimdt competing against Reggie Jackson and Dale Murphy for HR's(those guys would be nonexistant for Ruth to compete against), but Ruth instead got the chance to compete against more guys like Freddie Patek.
Poor defensive play/equpment/field maintenance is another big factor in his overall hitting.
1. Poor fielding, inadaquete equipment, and field maintenance. This is one aspect that helped guys throughout that era, and the dead ball era(Wagner, Cobb). One might think, well this would help everybody, so how does that matter. That is a good question, and the answer is that it does not help everybody the same. Why?
I would apply this more to Wagner and Cobb, but Ruth too(lesser because he hit more over the fence). Who stands to benefit most when there are poor fielders?
1. Guys who make contact the most. Every player that didn't make as much contact did not stand the same chance of having a batted ball go in for a hit(a hit that would be an out in 1990). Your high contact guys, which were considered the best hitters back then, stood a greater chance for their in demand skill to shine.
2. But contact isn't enough. It is the guys who made the most solid or hard contact, and that is where your really good hitters would shine, like Cobb or Wagner. It goes without saying that guys who hit the ball the hardest and most often would stand a much better chance to take advantage of the poor fielding of that day.
This is analogus to 1993/94 when the live ball was introduced into baseball. A guy like Felix Fermin who rarely hit deep fly balls would not benefit to the same degree as Ken Griffy JR did(where a deep fly ball out would instead be a HR).
What occurs, is that the guys with that skill have a chance to distance themselves from their peers, compared to other era's where there wasn't as big a special circumstance that allowed the stars of that era to outdistance the peasants of the league(and league average) to the same degree.
+Another factor is that hitters got to face the same pitcher for basically every at bat in the game. Sure, when facing the Ace of a team this may not be a benefit, but when facing two through four, it is beef up the stat time in those 7th inning at bats! This factor is helpful to the pre war guys. The Live ball era guys get to face all those crummy middle relievers, since starters don't go long, and closers only pitch one inning!
These are all advantages that were there for Pre War guys, and Modern Live Ball guys, which players from the 60's though 80's didn't quite have that luxury. There are more(like Body armor for nowadays).
Jaxxr, all other facotors you mention like training, medicine, trains are all equal to everybody in the peer group. Both Wagner and the 25th man faced the same circumstances. If anything, the better medicine and training would probably be another reason why a Wagner could benefit over the average guy. Why? He made more money and could afford it!! SO those things you always bring up like that are actually going against what you are trying to prove(that the best players are without a doubt from pre war due to the gaudy numbers).
The reality is, the gaudy numbers of the pre war guys are somewhat of a mirage, when compared to a Mike Schmidt or Reggie Jackson, and guys from that era.
The other guys you mentioned also benefitted from these circumstances, though you took a pretty good liberty with gehrig and Klein being that they didn't play in the early 20's when Ruth was out homering teams at an inhuman pace...which by the way is quite a big liberty, compared to me leaving out one team. So no, they wouldn't benefit the same because they came later, and they weren't quite as good. That is your answer my friend.
Steve
Also no competetion from the NFL, the NBA, pro golf, pro tennis and pro soccer among many other sport avenues opened due to TV and other post war factors. The amont of MLB postions added due to expansion has increased at a greater rate the population.
Eastern seaboard ?, well the US was populated greater in the east back then, but, Harry Hooper, Tony Lazzeri, Frank Chance, Fred Snodgrass, Harry Heilman, Joe Cronin, Bill Lange, Duffy Lewis, and Hal Chase were among the many players from CA, I did not bother to look at the other 30 or so states not in the seaboard.
B. "the better medicine and training would probably be another reason why a Wagner could benefit over the average guy. Why? He made more money and could afford it!! "
While playing in a second game of a scheduled doubleheader, unlike today, a tired Wagner might injure his rotator cuff, he might be able to afford a Tommy John operation better than most , but it did not exist back then. The likelyhood of playing a full season was less than in 1985, players often injured themselves, and healed badly due to improper methods, not inability to afford treatment, and they did not have long term contracts to protect them, so played "hurt' more often than 1985 players for example, and should perhaps get additonal praise for the good stats.
C. "The reality is, the gaudy numbers of the pre war guys are somewhat of a mirage, when compared to a Mike Schmidt or Reggie Jackson, and guys from that era"
The actual reality is, the above statement is your opinion. A personal view based on whatever you, yourself, consider relevant.
You are certainly entitled to your opinions, though I must disagree that Mike Schmidt and Reggie Jackson are comparable to Ruth and Wagner.
I went over the population figures with you in the past, and what I said is accurate, even taking into account the NLF etc..
You are wrong with your population look! I told you that before. No, comparing 1984 to 1910 there is NOT a greater number of positions available per population in 1984, compared to 1910. I showed you that before. You were looking at the wave of immigration in the early 1900's, and those people were not a factor for filling MLB positions. Their kids may have been, and that is why the number of births matter, not the total population. I am not going to go over that again. If you need convincing, then dig up the old thread. But please don't continue to put out misinformation.
The NBA, or pro golf, Tennis, or soccer or others were not taking away baseball players from the child population in the 1950's and early 60's, and those are the MLB players of the 70's and 80's. I laid all of that out before, turning a blind eye to it doesn't change it.
No, it isn't my opinion. The fact is that it was easier to outdistance one's peers in that time, and that is exactly what happened.
Unless of course you believe that of the top 23 starting pitchers of all time, 18 of them were from before WWI? Do you?
You like hard facts, and the hard facts say that 18 of the top 23 starting pitchers of all time were WWI era guys when measuring against the peers! Now either you believe that to be true, or you recognize that there is something majorly askew. I am pointing out why it is askew.
Jaxxr, all the things you say about playing hurt, etc... apply to all the peers in the league. It doesn't just apply to stars, so that has no merit. In fact, the stars have the better chance OVER THEIR PEERS of receiving the best treatments in those days.
If you want to say it is all my opinion, knock yourself out, but it is one well informed one.
While Cy Young was playing, Sitting Bull and Geronimo were still at large(still alive).
P.S. The hardest of all facts says that the best ERA pitchers of all time are almost all from the 1900 era. Unless you believe that they are, then the stuff I am saying must be true. You need to make a decision now. Either there are 35 guys from the 1900 era better than Tom Seaver, of there are circumstances that made them appear so...A MIRAGE!!
The population has not expanded as fast, to an even greater degree, in relation to professional sport positions avialable.
You may state possible causes, implications, ethnic fascinations, or the Eastern Seaboard's climate, but that is true.
For whatever reason, perhaps no more opinions on 3B, or hitters in general,
YOU, decided to interject pitchers into the thread, probably to augment your opinion of the lack of BB quality, pre-WW2.
"P.S. The hardest of all facts says that the best ERA pitchers of all time are almost all from the 1900 era."
Adjusted ERA +, is a pretty good stat, not the only viable one, but a very telling indicator, you do not say if your incorrect assumption was for career or single-season stats, regardless, both are presented below.
Career Rank, Player (age) Adjusted ERA+ Throws
1. Mariano Rivera (38) 199 R
2. Pedro Martinez (36) 154 R
3. Lefty Grove+* 148 L
4. Walter Johnson+ 147 R
5. Dan Quisenberry 146 R
Ed Walsh+ 146 R
Hoyt Wilhelm+ 146 R
Joe Wood 146 R
9. Johan Santana* (29) 144 L
10. Roger Clemens 143 R
Brandon Webb (29) 143 R
12.Addie Joss+ 142 R
13. Roy Oswalt (30) 139 R
( 62%, well over half are, IN FACT, post WW2 performers, Lefty Grove was really not a 1900 guy, so "Almost all are from the 1900 era" seems very incorrect )
Single Season, Adjusted ERA + ( Post 1900 )
1. Pedro Martinez (28) 291 2000 R
2. Dutch Leonard* (22) 279 1914 L
3. Greg Maddux (28) 271 1994 R
4. Greg Maddux (29) 262 1995 R
5. Walter Johnson+ (25) 259 1913 R
6. Bob Gibson+ (32) 258 1968 R
7. Mordecai Brown+ (29) 253 1906 R
8.. Pedro Martinez (27) 243 1999 R
9. Walter Johnson+ (24) 242 1912 R
10. Christy Mathewson+ (24) 230 1905 R
11. Dwight Gooden (20) 228 1985 R
12. Roger Clemens (42) 226 2005 R
( 5 out of 12 does not, in reality, equate close to "Almost all " )
The career list isn't as dramatic, but that's only because the modern list is full of relief pitchers. Make the lists apples to apples and you'll probably find again that pitchers from that time were about five times more likely to dominate their peers.
Which is to be expected, because everything Hoopster has posted about population effects is exactly right. And I don't think he's repeated it in this thread, but what percent of MLB players today were scouted and signed in a foreign country? US population statistics alone do not do justice to just how many more people are in the pool of potential players today than 100 years ago - the gap is enormous and has far outpaced MLB growth.
Since you are apparently a surrogate for Hoop, you might be kind enough to show how "Almost all" was correct for a description of the portion of pitchers from the 1900s. I casually assumed "all" was 100%, and the modifier "almost" would suggest close to 100%.
Please, if possible, try to use actual definitions, not opinions, for the actual words "all" and "almost", and how perhaps the comination of them might be used.
It is my view, that the use of extreme phrases, like "so much better", or "almost all", tend to show a very narrow, un-compromising opinion, in many cases.
The US population increase did not keep pace with baseball and total sports team expansion, that is a fact. The causes, implications, ages, geo-political factors aside, the raw numbers can show that.
Pedro Martinez
Lefty Grove
Walter Johnson
Ed Walsh
Joe Wood
Johan Santana
Roger Clemens
Brandon Webb
Addie Joss
Roy Oswalt
Mordecai Brown
Randy Johnson
Pete Alexander
Christy Mathewson
Rube Waddell
You see five pitchers who pitched the majority of their career between 1900 and 1910; you see another three who starter their career between 1908 and 1911; then you see another five who were still active in 2008. The other two are Grove and Clements, between the end of one career and the start of the other, we see a 47 year gap. Finally between numbers 15 and 20 do we see Ford and Koufax representing the 50s and 60s (you have to go all the way to number 30 to see Seaver representing the 1970s). No matter how you rank players, the best pitcher over one 50 year period has to be seen as at least close to the best from another. Yet for a 50 year period no pitcher could reach an ERA+ that the top dozen from two 10 year periods
Feller, Spahn, Ford, Roberts, Koufax, Marichal, Gibson, Seaver, Palmer, Carlton -- that would be half of the top 20 pitchers in history, with some pretty mediocre adjusted ERAs compared to the above list
OPS+ is much more balanced across eras
Could there be any possibility, there were a few super quality hurlers from one particular decade,
and, that fact, in and of itself, may not be not a very good reason to somehow automatically discredit their performance ???
If we divide post 1900 baseball into eras, 10 year, 25 year, post WW2, or whatever one wishes to use for "era" designation....
......unless there was a highly unlikey, absolutely perfectly equal distibution of talent per era,........
......is it not very likely that,
.......one era will have more "super quality" hurlers via whatever rate system we use, than one, or more, other eras ???
You did this exact same thing in the thread about a year ago. You completely discount the fact that whites only were allowed to play pre war(pleae spare me the rare 'Cuban').
You continue to discount the fact that the population of the early 1900's saw a rapid growth to a massive inlfux of immigrants. Those are people you are using in your calculations, yet they have zero impact on the available talent to be drawn from.
The facts you state, are facts (total population and number of pro sport spots) etc..,but that fact isn't anymore uselful that stating for a fact that a bee is an insect! Yeah, they are facts, but they don't do anything to support your position.
It is important to understand the society and population growths, and BIRTHS, and Sickness, and the number of available men to draw from.
It is fundamental to understand that the biggest competition for early 1900 baesball players was WORK!! This element dwarfs any competition the NBA had on a child in 1962.
It is also fundamental to know that in 1984, MLB were also able to draw from south of the border population. If indeed you want to ignore the underlying implications like I am laying out for you, THEN YOU MUST ADD THE POPULATION OF ALL RESIDENTS OF EVERY SOUTH OF THE BORDER COUNTRY into your supposed formula, and then see what you come up with! Is it not a fact that they had millions upon millions of people to draw from? You seem to like just facts, so USE THEM ALL THEN!
jaxxr, 18 of the top 23 STARTING PITCHERS of all time in ERA+ were from around the turn of the century era(one or two are just pre war). Don't put the closers on that list. You are trying to mislead as usual. The other five are from this live ball era.
There are 23 Pre War guys ahead of Tom Seaver, most of which are from around the turn of the century.
If you feel some deep need to discredit hurlers from a particular era, that's your choice.
If the numbers are too complex to understand, perhaps a personal list will help;
1915 Active starters=W Johnson, E Walsh, C Marthewson, M Brown, GC Alexander, among others
1985 Active starters= R Clemens, T Seaver, S Carlton, R Guidry, B Blyleven, among others
Solid pitchers all, tough to better either group of peers, seems a fair task to get an adjusted ERA+, either single season or over a full career much better than the group. Also tough to throw 350 or even 400 innings, and complete such a high percent of games, as some did, but I suppose that is no reflection of a starter's worth.
--------------
"The facts you state, are facts (total population and number of pro sport spots) etc..,but that fact isn't anymore uselful that stating for a fact that a bee is an insect! Yeah, they are facts, but they don't do anything to support your position."
Sorry Hoop,
I'll try to keep facts away from discussions with you, as much as possible.
"Bee" is also a very popular name for US newspapers, Fresno CA, Suburban Buffalo NY, among many.
Supply and demand is a concept which may be helpful.
The supply of humans in the US was X" in 1915, the demand for them via major professional sport teams was "Z".
In 1985 'X' increased by about 2.4 times, in 1985 'Z" increased by about 4.1 times.
By far and away the best system is James Win Shares and rankings. Is it perfect? Of course, not. But it is much better than just going on ERA+ or the over-rated OPS+.
Also, I do not think too many people, if any, actually believe the quality of baseball was better in 1910 than it was in 1950 or later.
What I take issue with is stating that the quality of baseball is higher in the 1980's than today.
Steve
<< <i>By far and away the best system is James Win Shares and rankings. Is it perfect? Of course, not. But it is much better than just going on ERA+ or the over-rated OPS+ >>
Of course James' rankings are really his subjective views. Kaline is slightly ahead of Brett on the win shares, Brett is 60 spots higher on the top 100 list. It certainly is a reasonable conclusion to put those two players at 30 and 90, but it would be faulty to believe the system is based more around this one stat, than James' opinion. The best systems takes everything into account. Hits and walks and outs can be quantified with a number. Segregation, steroids and overall evolution of a sport really cannot. Far and away the best system is nothing more than a well though out, well researched opinion. And that is all Bill James' rankings are
I will admit to not fully understanding exactly what win shares measures, nor exactly how it reaches its final numbers. The results match my subjective interpretations and the subjective analysis of most well thought out analysis pretty closely, so I have to agree it does most things right. On the times when we come to much different conclusions it always offers something new to look into to
One of hte reasons I touched on earlier about the lively ball and the ease of hitting home runs in this era. This benefit is of much greater importance to Ken Griffey, as opposed to Felix Fermin. The added benefit is that this ease of hitting HR also made it easier for the stars to draw walks and plump up their OB%. This makes it easier for the stars to outdistance the league average.
They also had a double expansion in this era, adding four more teams as opposed to the 80's.
The 80's drew players from the pool of American's largest birth rates,(1950's/early 60's). The late 90's/2000's drew from much smaller birth rates in the 70's, AND THEY ADDED FOUR MORE TEAMS!!
Both had the opportunity to draw from south of the border. This current era draws more from there, but that is offset with a severe reduction in African American players.
THe point Jaxxr was making about other sports taking players away does come into factor for this current era, and not nearly as much as the 80's. MLB player of the 80's(when they were young in the 60's), still had MLB as the premier sport to choose from. Young players in the 80's/early 90's were taken in huge waves to other sports. All you have to do now(and the last 15 years) is look at baseball fields on summer afternoons and see them empty...just not the case in the 60's.
We have not evolved enough from 1984 to 1999 to say that the quality of play became better in 1999. That just isn't enough time. The quality of play isn't any different...the difference is what i stated above, adn that made it easier for players in this era to outdistance their peers.
Brett may trail Kaline 432 to 443 for total win shares but he is far better in his top three seasons 106 to 92 and his top 5 consecutive seasons 154 to 130. They are virtually the same for average 25.85 for Brett and 25.32 for Kaline. Throw in the timeline factor and the ranking of Brett at 30 and Kaline at 90 makes complete sense.
James does use a subjective element but he is very careful to not over rank his favourite players. He rates Catfish Hunter 64th among pitchers, and Dan Quisenberry 68th. He has Frank White 31st at secondbase.
In fact, although his numbers showed Mantle as being slightly better than Cobb and in his opinion he would rather have Mantle he still rated Cobb higher because, "My heart is not in it, but as I see it, the world believes that Cobb was a better player than Mantle, and I would be unable to sustain a logical argument to the contrary under rigorous attack. I have to give Cobb the edge."
His system showed Arky Vaughn as the second best shortstop of all-time, as surprised as he was that is where he ranked Vaughn with the note that, "The distance between the number one shortstop (Wagner) and the number two shortstop is about the same as the distance between the number two shortstop and the number 30 shortstop."
Hoopster - While I appreciate your view I cannot say I totally agree with it.
<< <i>James does use a subjective element but he is very careful to not over rank his favourite players. He rates Catfish Hunter 64th among pitchers, and Dan Quisenberry 68th. He has Frank White 31st at secondbase. >>
That's funny, because I had always thought that his rankings of KC players (Royals and especially his childhood team the A's) were all too high, some of them way too high.
#1 Mike Schmidt
#2 George Brett
#3 Eddie Mathews
#4 Wade Boggs
#5 Chipper Jones
#6 Ron Santo
I will have to give the rest more thought.
Mike Schmidt hit .236 in eight postseason series.
Brett had an OPS of 1.128 in six ALCS
Brett had an OPS of .968 in two World Series
Schmidt had an OPS of .655 in five NLCS
Schmidt had an OPS of .673 in two World Series
I'd have to go with George Brett because I would always want the guy who would come up big when it counted.
<< <i>I'd rather Brett playing third on my team than Schmidt . . I seem to remember Brett playing better in the big games >>
You remember correctly !
Then against the Blue Jays I believe the Royals were down two games to none and Brett had a phenomenal game three to lead the Royals to a victory and they went on to win that series.
In the pressure situations, when the Royals needed a big hit, everyone always wanted George at the plate and he knew there was a lot of pressure on him to perform and he still came through. In those situations, we had Brett, then we had Hal McRae, and basically not much after that.
Joe
<< <i>George Brett hit .337 in nine postseason series.
Mike Schmidt hit .236 in eight postseason series.
Brett had an OPS of 1.128 in six ALCS
Brett had an OPS of .968 in two World Series
Schmidt had an OPS of .655 in five NLCS
Schmidt had an OPS of .673 in two World Series
I'd have to go with George Brett because I would always want the guy who would come up big when it counted. >>
Unless you account for a) the pitchers each player faced in those starts and the parks they played in, and b) the standard deviation of these results, then you simply do not have anything to compare.
<< <i>
<< <i>George Brett hit .337 in nine postseason series.
Mike Schmidt hit .236 in eight postseason series.
Brett had an OPS of 1.128 in six ALCS
Brett had an OPS of .968 in two World Series
Schmidt had an OPS of .655 in five NLCS
Schmidt had an OPS of .673 in two World Series
I'd have to go with George Brett because I would always want the guy who would come up big when it counted. >>
Unless you account for a) the pitchers each player faced in those starts and the parks they played in, and b) the standard deviation of these results, then you simply do not have anything to compare. >>
Are you the professor from Gilligan's island?
<< <i>
Unless you account for a) the pitchers each player faced in those starts and the parks they played in, and b) the standard deviation of these results, then you simply do not have anything to compare. >>
I believe the Yankees paid the best pitchers the most amount of money to pitch in the late 70's,
and I remember George Brett launching 3 homers against the Yankees in the playoffs, on the road, at Yankee stadium,
the last one coming off Goose Gossage who was very tough to hit. It was an upper deck bomb that sucked the life
out of the Yankees.
<< <i>
<< <i>
Unless you account for a) the pitchers each player faced in those starts and the parks they played in, and b) the standard deviation of these results, then you simply do not have anything to compare. >>
I believe the Yankees paid the best pitchers the most amount of money to pitch in the late 70's,
and I remember George Brett launching 3 homers against the Yankees in the playoffs, on the road, at Yankee stadium,
the last one coming off Goose Gossage who was very tough to hit. It was an upper deck bomb that sucked the life
out of the Yankees. >>
Gossage said later he didn't know how hard he threw that pitch, but it went out a lot faster than it came in.
<< <i>
<< <i>
Unless you account for a) the pitchers each player faced in those starts and the parks they played in, and b) the standard deviation of these results, then you simply do not have anything to compare. >>
I believe the Yankees paid the best pitchers the most amount of money to pitch in the late 70's,
and I remember George Brett launching 3 homers against the Yankees in the playoffs, on the road, at Yankee stadium,
the last one coming off Goose Gossage who was very tough to hit. It was an upper deck bomb that sucked the life
out of the Yankees. >>
Agreed.
Wonder what hoopster/sabre/skin thinks about Brett's post-season "clutch" performances, if he's still around....
<< <i>
<< <i>
Unless you account for a) the pitchers each player faced in those starts and the parks they played in, and b) the standard deviation of these results, then you simply do not have anything to compare. >>
I believe the Yankees paid the best pitchers the most amount of money to pitch in the late 70's,
and I remember George Brett launching 3 homers against the Yankees in the playoffs, on the road, at Yankee stadium,
the last one coming off Goose Gossage who was very tough to hit. It was an upper deck bomb that sucked the life
out of the Yankees. >>
Well then I guess that settles it.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
Unless you account for a) the pitchers each player faced in those starts and the parks they played in, and b) the standard deviation of these results, then you simply do not have anything to compare. >>
I believe the Yankees paid the best pitchers the most amount of money to pitch in the late 70's,
and I remember George Brett launching 3 homers against the Yankees in the playoffs, on the road, at Yankee stadium,
the last one coming off Goose Gossage who was very tough to hit. It was an upper deck bomb that sucked the life
out of the Yankees. >>
Agreed.
Wonder what hoopster/sabre/skin thinks about Brett's post-season "clutch" performances, if he's still around.... >>
He'd tell you the exact same thing I'm about to tell you, which is that you can't draw conclusions of this sort until you control for all relevant variables and have appropriate sample size. You don't have to care about this, but you better be glad that the researchers looking for a cure for MS get it, otherwise the research you've helped sponsor with your bike rides wouldn't be worth the paper it's printed on.
<< <i>He'd tell you the exact same thing I'm about to tell you, which is that you can't draw conclusions of this sort until you control for all relevant variables and have appropriate sample size. You don't have to care about this, but you better be glad that the researchers looking for a cure for MS get it, otherwise the research you've helped sponsor with your bike rides wouldn't be worth the paper it's printed on. >>
Agreed as well.
Skin usually has all of the variables at his fingertips, so it would be interesting to see his perspective of how Brett performed during the playoffs from the late 70's to mid 80's.
I honestly don't know if he still posts or not. While I never agreed with his delivery, always respected his insight.
In Brett's case, if one wants to ignore the variables that can explain his uptick in his batting percentages in his 184 career post season plate appearances, compared to that of his 11,625 MLB plate appearances, then it would be fair of me to ignore the variables if I were to decree that Brett doesn't 'know how to win', or that Brett is 'not a winner'...because his team won only one of those series against the Yankees and lost three!!
Furthermore, Brett's team lost head to head against Schmidt in the biggest stage of all, a series in which Schmidt won the MVP!
So if these post season batting results are to be taken at face value as proof that Brett hits better in meaningful games, then so should the fact that Brett's team's were only 3-6 in post season series and Mike Schmidt's beating of him head to head, be used as proof that Brett is NOT a 'winner', and he does not 'know how to win.'
Then you have the whole 1990 end of the season debacle where Brett sat out against some left handed pitchers in order to protect his batting average title...yeah, that fits the bill of 'clutch'
<< <i>
In Brett's case, if one wants to ignore the variables that can explain his uptick in his batting percentages in his 184 career post season plate appearances, compared to that of his 11,625 MLB plate appearances, then it would be fair of me to ignore the variables if I were to decree that Brett doesn't 'know how to win', or that Brett is 'not a winner'...because his team won only one of those series against the Yankees and lost three!!
Furthermore, Brett's team lost head to head against Schmidt in the biggest stage of all, a series in which Schmidt won the MVP!
So an individual baseball player is responsible for his entire teams success or failure ? I don't think anyone buys into this way of thinking, and
I think you're kidding.
Schmidt hit .381 in that world series. Brett hit .375
The fact remains that Brett came up huge in the playoffs even though his teams weren't good enough to win.
Schmidt only did once. Brett was clearly better in the playoffs, and we can only go on the sample size given us. Baseball
players simply do not play in enough playoff games.
If they were on opposite teams, the results would have been the same.
There are certainly players like Reggie Jackson who have had some great games in the World Series, however, had the rest of the team performed poorly in those particular games, would we feel the same way?
When I see the question phrased the way the OP did, I primarily consider the players stats over his entire career. If two players are equal in my thinking. I might expand the consideration to other intangibles as success in the post season, but only if the player(s) have some meaningful numbers to look at.
After reading Mantle's book "All My Octobers" I realized he really never "led" his team to victory, other than once in the 1952 World Series. Does that detract from my opinion of him? Not at all. However the team performance is what got him his rings.
Joe
Again, take a look at the final week of the 85 regular season when the Royals and Angels were battling for the division. Brett just flat out won the division for the Royals in the last five or six games.
Maybe he wasn't the greatest third baseman ever, maybe he was, but I guarantee no Royals fan who followed the team back then would have traded Brett for Schmidt when both were in their prime.
Darin above posted Brett's post season hitting totals compared to that of Schmidt, ignored the variables that explains those numbers, and then based on those post season numbers concluded Brett is better because he would come up big when it counted.
The most obvious variable is the small sample size, and you are ignoring it.
You are into ignoring variables and only count the sample sizes that are given, and therefore take those sample size results at face value, then when somebody ignores the variables of teammates and conclude that Brett was not a winner because his teams lost more than they won in the post season....you all of a sudden understand the role variables play because it suits your biased thinking.
If you are into ignoring variables like in the post season numbers, why stop there? May as well ignore them to when determining that Brett was not a winner because his team's got beat more than they won in the post season.
FINALLY, if Brett really did have an ability to make himself a better hitter simply because the game meant more, then he is stupid.
Because why on earth did he only hit like that in the post season?? A smart man would recognize that if he could morph himself into a better hitter in the post season, then if he did it all the time in the regular season, he would be in MORE post season series and would win more, then get even more accolades and money. So why didn't he have an OPS over 1.000 all the time if he were capable of it????????
Or is he lazy? Because if he knew he could morph himself into a 1.000 OPS hitter, and chose not to in the regular season because it took effort, then he is lazy. Or, again, stupid!
Also, answer me this: If Brett was hitting much better when it counted then how do you explain this:
In 3,775 career plate appearances when the game was tied, he had an ops of .847
In 1,369 career plate appearance when the score was greater than a 4 run margin either way, he had an OPS of .850
Obviously, hitting when the game is tied is FAR more important than when the margin is greater than four runs. Didn't Brett view that as an important time to become better or rise to the occasion? Isn't that game tied situation calling for Superman?
Why couldn't he replicated his 1.000+ OPS that he did in the Post Season? Did he not view those tie game situations as important enough to moprh? Certainly he had to view them more important than his at bats when he was up or down by five runs or more...yet he hit the same in them!
During Brett's career, here is what he did in these situations. It is counting the times where he actually had to perform, so it does not include Intentional walks.
Career Late/Close OPS .827
Career with run margin greater than 4 runs OPS .841
You guys go on and on how he hit a home run off of Gossage in the playoffs, and his 1.000+ post season OPS.
Why didn't he morph into that hitter in late/close situations during all his regular season at bats? Didn't he view those more important than the at bats when they were up by five runs? He sure has a funny way of showing what you guys are professing.
I also note how you guys ignored him taking himself out of the games at the end of the 1990 season because some good lefties were on the mound, and he wanted to protect his batting title. How convenient to ignore that...because it shows that he wasn't as 'clutch' as you believe.
Joe
Brett was a much better postseason hitter then Schmidt. It isn't even close.
Neither are responsible for their teams wins or losses in the postseason. To think otherwise is foolish.
The simple fact is this. If you are a manager of a team, and you could go into a series with a lifetime .230 hitter in the
playoffs, and a lifetime .330 hitter in the playoffs, and you had to choose one, then you're picking the .330 hitter.
I believe that Schmidt was a better career third baseman then Brett when you take everything into consideration.
That isn't even questionable in my opinon. I just would take Brett for my team because of his late season and post season insanity.
However, I guess you just labeled Brett stupid or lazy...as you still did not account for below:
If Brett really did have an ability to make himself a better hitter simply because the game meant more, then he is stupid.
Because why on earth did he only hit like that in the post season?? A smart man would recognize that if he could morph himself into a better hitter in the post season, then if he did it all the time in the regular season, he would be in MORE post season series and would win more, then get even more accolades and money. So why didn't he have an OPS over 1.000 all the time if he were capable of it????????
Or is he lazy? Because if he knew he could morph himself into a 1.000 OPS hitter, and chose not to in the regular season because it took effort, then he is lazy. Or, again, stupid!
Also, answer me this: If Brett was hitting much better when it counted then how do you explain this:
In 3,775 career plate appearances when the game was tied, he had an ops of .847
In 1,369 career plate appearance when the score was greater than a 4 run margin either way, he had an OPS of .850
Obviously, hitting when the game is tied is FAR more important than when the margin is greater than four runs. Didn't Brett view that as an important time to become better or rise to the occasion? Isn't that game tied situation calling for Superman?
Why couldn't he replicated his 1.000+ OPS that he did in the Post Season? Did he not view those tie game situations as important enough to moprh? Certainly he had to view them more important than his at bats when he was up or down by five runs or more...yet he hit the same in them!
In addition to the above, if Brett were truly capable of having an ability to become a better hitter based on the level of importance of the game and situation like you guys profess based on his post season stats, then I am puzzled.
During Brett's career, here is what he did in these situations. It is counting the times where he actually had to perform, so it does not include Intentional walks.
Career Late/Close OPS .827
Career with run margin greater than 4 runs OPS .841
You guys go on and on how he hit a home run off of Gossage in the playoffs, and his 1.000+ post season OPS.
Why didn't he morph into that hitter in late/close situations during all his regular season at bats? Didn't he view those more important than the at bats when they were up by five runs? He sure has a funny way of showing what you guys are professing.
I also note how you guys ignored him taking himself out of the games at the end of the 1990 season because some good lefties were on the mound, and he wanted to protect his batting title. How convenient to ignore that...because it shows that he wasn't as 'clutch' as you believe.
Uh, no I didn't.
I've hardly mentioned Schmidt. I did say I wouldn't have traded Brett for Schmidt back in their primes.