<< <i>3. Cobb did play in an era where it was easier for the elite to separate from the league average player, as the overall league ability(and the lower number of available MLB players in the US population) was worse in Cobb's time...but that advantage comes down to something like a 10% advantage...still not enough to chip away at that huge lead. I put some threads on this a while back...population studies etc.. >>
I think 10% is vastly understating the level of competition in the early 1900's.
Almost 40% of players today are minorities, meaning, if league integration happened yesterday 40% of the white players were sent down to the minor leagues. So yesterday, 40% of the league consisted of minor league caliber players when compared to today. The same can be said about 1910. It's not a coincidence that the majority of .350 hit seasons happened before 1940. I'm sure Cobb was great (he was one of the most dominant players of his era), but Rose was better.
I batted over .500 in my company softball league, it doesn't mean I'm better than Pete Rose. >>
10% is my current safe estimate...I agree that the overall talent availability back then could even be worse.
The same can be said against Ruth. He out-homered every team in the league one year, a feat that really wasn't possible in 1983. That doesn't mean Ruth was THAT much better than anyone in 1983 because they couldn't come close to accomplishing the feat in 1983, but rather that Ruth simply had the circumstances in place to allow him to look that much better than anyone in 1983 could look.
PS, but if you 'chain' the players through history, the talent level isn't as far off as you may think, and doubtful enough to erase a 168 to 118 gap in OPS+.
<< <i>My post was not about who had the better career. It's obviously Wayne.
Better scorer though? It's quite close... Wayne .60 goals/gm, 1.32 assists/gm, 1.92 total Mario .75 goals/gm, 1.13 assists/gm, 1.88 total When adjusted for era, Mario moves ahead. >>
My point was not at all about comparing careers. I am not explaining myself well enough if that's how I came across.
If you are going to adjust Mario's numbers for era to make the argument that he would have, should have, could have scored more points per game than Wayne, then you have used evidence that indicates (but does not prove) that he was a better point producer. Good use of statistical evidence.
My response is that evidence also indicates the more games a player plays in any sport, the harder it is to maintain a high average. When comparing any two players with large differences in career length if you start adjusting numbers, you can't just pick the ones you like to prove your theory (well, I guess we all do) without looking at other factors. My point is not that Wayne had a better career (that's obvious) it's that you need to adjust his numbers up and/or Mario's down to account for one players performance over a longer vs. a shorter time.
The exact same thing goes with their performance at ages 36 and 37! Mario did score significantly more points per game, but he played in 91 games compared to 162 for Wayne. Wayne scored 204 points and Mario scored 137, while your way of looking at it shows Mario as a better player because of points per game, the fact that he played in 67 less games during those two years means he was not as valuable to his team. Taking it to the extreme, if Mario played in 10 games in each of those years and scored an average of 4 points per game it wouldn't prove he was a better scorer.
You could easily claim Mario, if healthy would have performed just as well in a longer career, and I could say that Wayne would have scored at the same rate had he played in the same era. The problem with adjusting numbers in any sport in regards to elite players is that it's really just an educated guess, nothing more.
BTW sorry if our debate has derailed the thread.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
<< <i>If this can be proven, then George Brett's chase for .400 was off the charts.
Let me ask a question if you buy into this integration theory (which I'm not sure I do). What hurlers from the 50's, 60's, or 70's that were black or latin American would have held Ty Cobb down ? >>
Without looking it up I immediately think of two Hall of Fame NL pitchers Pete Rose had to face on several occasions, Jaun Marichal and Bob Gibson. >>
Also, Satchel Paige qualifies as having pitched in the 50's if you're just looking at the 3 decades you listed. Luis Tiant and Vida Blue threw some decent ball during the years you specified as well. Obviously Bob Gibson is best answer to the question as phrased, but there are several guys worth mentioning.
While I believe it is a certainty that the leagues that Cobb played in had a lower overall talent level, one cannot go overboard in regard to that. Here is an example of chaining elite players. Not an exact science, and aging patterns play a role, but it shows that the best players from the beginning era's would certainly hold their own against the best players from the subsequent era's.
Cobb 1907 OPS+ 167. This is pre-prime early career. Cobb 1908 OPS+ 169
Cobb 1921 OPS+ 166. This is mostly against a different era of pitchers and players from what he did early in his career. He is older, so age decline plays a factor compared to his peak years, but holds his own. Cobb 1922 OPS+ 166. So basically, in both sets of numbers he does just as well in really what are two different eras, the first one the dead ball, and here in the beginning of the live ball.
Ruth 1921 OPS+ 182. Ruth is a leaguemate of Cobb here, and this is how well he hit against the same pitchers Cobb faced in the beginning of the live ball era. Ruth 1922 OPS+ 238. Another year for Ruth as a league mate of Cobb
Ruth 1931 OPS+ 218 Here we see Ruth in a different era that Cobb never played in. As you see Ruth didn't change a whole lot from the same set of league mates he played when with Cobb Ruth 1932 OPS+ 201
Ott 1931 OPS+ 151. Here Ott is a leaguemate of Ruth, which connects Ott to Cobb Ott 1932 OPS+ 174
Ott 1941 OPS+ 150. Ott was still similar to what he was when he played with Ruth, whom Ruth was similar to what HE was when he played with Cobb...and Cobb was similar to when he played before Ruth. Ott 1942 OPS+ 165
Williams 1941 OPS+ 235. Ted Williams as a leaguemate with Ott. Williams 1942 OPS+ 216
Williams 1957 OPS+ 233 Williams in post war, still bashing similar to what he did pre war when he played with Ott, Ott held similar to when he played with Ruth, Ruth similar to when played with Cobb. Williams 1958 OPS+ 179
Hank Aaron 1957 OPS+ 177. Aaron was a leaguemate of Williams. Hank Aaron 1958 OPS+ 152
Hank Aaron 1971 OPS+ 194. This is a different era from earlier in Aaron's career when he played with Williams, whom Williams chains to Ott, Ott to Ruth, Ruth to Cobb, all showing how they maintained similar throughout the progression of different eras and different competition.
Hank Aaron 1973 OPS+ 177. Despite being old, he shows that he could still mash in the modern era, and it really doesn't give a lot of credence to believing that Cobb at the beginning of the chain would have been overmatched in this era.
As you see how these guys all chain together, the elite hitters do compare with each proceeding era. While peaks, valleys, and age in the respective seasons play a role, it most certainly shows that the game of 1908 was nothing similar to a softball league or crappy league, and that the stars of yesteryear certainly could hold their skill level well with the stars of tomorrow...the degree of which is debatable, but it doesn't seem there is any credence to take away the 168 to 118 lead Cobb has over Rose in OPS+. That is just too large a lead to ignore, despite the different eras.
obb 1907 OPS+ 167. This is pre-prime early career. Cobb 1908 OPS+ 169
Cobb 1921 OPS+ 166. This is mostly against a different era of pitchers and players from what he did early in his career. He is older, so age decline plays a factor compared to his peak years, but holds his own. Cobb 1922 OPS+ 166. So basically, in both sets of numbers he does just as well in really what are two different eras, the first one the dead ball, and here in the beginning of the live ball.
Ruth 1921 OPS+ 182. Ruth is a leaguemate of Cobb here, and this is how well he hit against the same pitchers Cobb faced in the beginning of the live ball era. Ruth 1922 OPS+ 238. Another year for Ruth as a league mate of Cobb
Ruth 1931 OPS+ 218 Here we see Ruth in a different era that Cobb never played in. As you see Ruth didn't change a whole lot from the same set of league mates he played when with Cobb Ruth 1932 OPS+ 201
Ott 1931 OPS+ 151. Here Ott is a leaguemate of Ruth, which connects Ott to Cobb Ott 1932 OPS+ 174
Ott 1941 OPS+ 150. Ott was still similar to what he was when he played with Ruth, whom Ruth was similar to what HE was when he played with Cobb...and Cobb was similar to when he played before Ruth. Ott 1942 OPS+ 165
Williams 1941 OPS+ 235. Ted Williams as a leaguemate with Ott. Williams 1942 OPS+ 216
Williams 1957 OPS+ 233 Williams in post war, still bashing similar to what he did pre war when he played with Ott, Ott held similar to when he played with Ruth, Ruth similar to when played with Cobb. Williams 1958 OPS+ 179
Hank Aaron 1957 OPS+ 177. Aaron was a leaguemate of Williams. Hank Aaron 1958 OPS+ 152
Hank Aaron 1971 OPS+ 194. This is a different era from earlier in Aaron's career when he played with Williams, whom Williams chains to Ott, Ott to Ruth, Ruth to Cobb, all showing how they maintained similar throughout the progression of different eras and different competition.
Hank Aaron 1973 OPS+ 177. Despite being old, he shows that he could still mash in the modern era, and it really doesn't give a lot of credence to believing that Cobb at the beginning of the chain would have been overmatched in this era.
As you see how these guys all chain together, the elite hitters do compare with each proceeding era. While peaks, valleys, and age in the respective seasons play a role, it most certainly shows that the game of 1908 was nothing similar to a softball league or crappy league, and that the stars of yesteryear certainly could hold their skill level well with the stars of tomorrow...the degree of which is debatable, but it doesn't seem there is any credence to take away the 168 to 118 lead Cobb has over Rose in OPS+. That is just too large a lead to ignore, despite the different eras.
It's not only the pitchers who would have made a difference in the numbers. The speed and agility of middle infielders and outfielders would have had a detrimental effect on the batting average of someone playing in the pre-integration era.
<< <i>Gretzky was an unbelievable assist and goal scorer, Lemieux most likely a better all around player than Wayne, but his injury problems reduces his ranking. I think if we only look at scoring (as some are reducing the baseball argument to hitting) Gretzky's numbers make him #1. >>
Even though Lemieux started his NHL career only 5 years after Gretzky, Gretzky still played in somewhat significantly higher-scoring era. When you adjust their point totals for the era, Lemieux scored more points per game than Gretzky. >>
Yes, well you if you want to start adjusting numbers, then you have to adjust the numbers in Wayne's favor as he had a MUCH longer career.
Gretzky played in 1487 games compared to Lemieux's playing in 915 (unless I am missing something) you really think using adjusted PPG makes any sense? Seems to me that it is harder to perform at a dominant level over a long period of time than a shorter period. In this case a very significant number of games.
The way I look at it with such a huge disparity in games played Mario should have a much higher PPG number than Wayne to be considered equal as a scorer.
I will stick with my opinion. Mario was a better hockey player, but with an injury/illness shortened career he simply doesn't measure up to Wayne as a point generator. Gretzky was the point leader in 10 out of 12 years, and assist leader an amazing 14 out of 15 years, most while Mario was active. In his last three years (old man years!) he was still able to lead the league in assists twice! Regardless of the era, Wayne was just a better scorer.
Very unfortunate Mario wasn't able to have a longer career, otherwise it might be a different story. >>
I have enjoyed the Wayne vs. Mario debate for many years and I can always see both sides of it. I'm not willing to pick one over the other here, but one thing worth mentioning is, who scores the goals from those assists? Who provides the assists for those goals? Players like Mark Messier, Jari Kurri and Paul Coffey would have racked up tons of points as individuals. It took Mario several more years into his career to get comparable teammates. Jagr was obviously going to score a lot w/o Mario. But what about Rob Brown in the late 80's? How about Kevin Stevens? I'd argue production years were the result of teammates, and in Stevens' case not that he was otherwise that good but the coke habit took him down. How many players on Gretzky's or Lemieux's teams scored 40 or 50+ goals due to winning the linemate lottery but after getting moved to a new line a year later had only a tiny fraction of the points? I agree with your other posts that there are a million ways to look at stats and select them to a presentation that can support almost any argument. It would take a lot of page space here to break down the year-by-year rosters and linemates for both Gretzky and Lemieux. I'm not trying to say that Gretzky's numbers are inflated due to teammates, just that you have to enter that concept into the equation if you actually want to spend time on a more in-depth analysis. You also have to give credit to a player for being able to transform an otherwise average teammate into big scorer though.
Similarly, does anyone really believe Chris Kunitz is as good as his stats show? Is Pascal Dupuis? There is a ton to be said for familiarity and gelling of hockey linemates, but theoretically put mid 80's Messier and mid 90's Jagr on a line with Crosby and see what happens statistically.
Overall, Mario vs. Gretzky is a great debate that will continue on for ages, as there probably is no good answer or correct way to determine one, both were truly incredible and I don't think you can go wrong with either one of them.
<< <i>Rose has only himself to blame for being on the permanently ineligible list. Rose voluntarily agreed to such a ban in exchange for baseball not pursuing its investigation and findings against him. Who knows what more baseball would have uncovered had they continued their investigation but it must have been rather embarrassing or damning for Rose to agree to be permanently banned in order for it to be stopped. >>
Thank you for posting this. Should (but of course won't) put an end to the debate. Pete's behavior and decisions are what's keeping him out of the HOF. >>
No one's saying Rose didn't screw up; he did, big time... but considering that HOF players committed indiscretions that make betting on baseball look rather tame by comparison, I've always thought that blackmailing Rose into "voluntarily" accepting the deal Giamatti offered seems, at a minimum, hypocritical. And I can't think of anything that could be more embarrassing for Rose's legacy than being the sport's all time hit leader-arguably the #2 most significant achievement behind the HR crown- and permanently being denied recognition for it.
By the way, I frankly consider both individuals to be poor human beings in general... and as I stated previously, I agree Cobb was the better player. I simply feel that Rose got, well...hosed; I'm sure his mouth and attitude didn't help much... but comparing him with Cobb I feel that denying Rose the HOF while a player like Cobb isn't being held to anywhere close to the same standard-the mere inference of which causes some fans to bristle-seems unfair if not hypocritical. Interesting story/comparison here.
<< <i>obb 1907 OPS+ 167. This is pre-prime early career. Cobb 1908 OPS+ 169
Cobb 1921 OPS+ 166. This is mostly against a different era of pitchers and players from what he did early in his career. He is older, so age decline plays a factor compared to his peak years, but holds his own. Cobb 1922 OPS+ 166. So basically, in both sets of numbers he does just as well in really what are two different eras, the first one the dead ball, and here in the beginning of the live ball.
Ruth 1921 OPS+ 182. Ruth is a leaguemate of Cobb here, and this is how well he hit against the same pitchers Cobb faced in the beginning of the live ball era. Ruth 1922 OPS+ 238. Another year for Ruth as a league mate of Cobb
Ruth 1931 OPS+ 218 Here we see Ruth in a different era that Cobb never played in. As you see Ruth didn't change a whole lot from the same set of league mates he played when with Cobb Ruth 1932 OPS+ 201
Ott 1931 OPS+ 151. Here Ott is a leaguemate of Ruth, which connects Ott to Cobb Ott 1932 OPS+ 174
Ott 1941 OPS+ 150. Ott was still similar to what he was when he played with Ruth, whom Ruth was similar to what HE was when he played with Cobb...and Cobb was similar to when he played before Ruth. Ott 1942 OPS+ 165
Williams 1941 OPS+ 235. Ted Williams as a leaguemate with Ott. Williams 1942 OPS+ 216
Williams 1957 OPS+ 233 Williams in post war, still bashing similar to what he did pre war when he played with Ott, Ott held similar to when he played with Ruth, Ruth similar to when played with Cobb. Williams 1958 OPS+ 179
Hank Aaron 1957 OPS+ 177. Aaron was a leaguemate of Williams. Hank Aaron 1958 OPS+ 152
Hank Aaron 1971 OPS+ 194. This is a different era from earlier in Aaron's career when he played with Williams, whom Williams chains to Ott, Ott to Ruth, Ruth to Cobb, all showing how they maintained similar throughout the progression of different eras and different competition.
Hank Aaron 1973 OPS+ 177. Despite being old, he shows that he could still mash in the modern era, and it really doesn't give a lot of credence to believing that Cobb at the beginning of the chain would have been overmatched in this era.
As you see how these guys all chain together, the elite hitters do compare with each proceeding era. While peaks, valleys, and age in the respective seasons play a role, it most certainly shows that the game of 1908 was nothing similar to a softball league or crappy league, and that the stars of yesteryear certainly could hold their skill level well with the stars of tomorrow...the degree of which is debatable, but it doesn't seem there is any credence to take away the 168 to 118 lead Cobb has over Rose in OPS+. That is just too large a lead to ignore, despite the different eras. >>
There is a HUGE flaw in using OPS+ when comparing different eras; OPS+ factors in league OBP and league SLG, and when almost half of the league is made up of minor league caliber players in 1907, it paints a very bizarre picture.
An example:
Ty Cobbs OPS+ in 1907 was 167. This is calculated out by 100*((SLG/*lgSLG)+(OBP/*lgOBP)-1)
The *lg stands for park adjusted league average, but for the purposes of comparing eras, it's okay to use league average without the park adjustment (it will skew the OPS+ figure down once adjusted).
So Ty Cobb's OPS+ in 1907 comes out to 176 when you do 100*((0.38/0.305)+(0.468/0.309)-1) - this number isn't park adjusted (brings it down to 167).
IF Ty Cobb had the same exact numbers he did in 1907 as he did in 1973 (Pete Rose's MVP year), his OPS+ would have been 140 or 100*((0.38/0.325)+(0.468/0.379)-1). This number isn't park adjusted, so it would've been closer to an OPS+ of 130, which is a bit lower than Rose's that year (he had 138 OPS+ that year).
So these are Ty Cobbs era adjusted OPS+ numbers and this is all still assuming that he hits in the high .300's each year! Which obviously he wouldn't.
When you adjust Cobb's OPS+ for the years Pete Rose played, his OPS+ drops about 20-40 points each year.
I vehemently disagree that Rose is a bad character. He may have made poor choices, but to put him on the same level as Cobb is just not right. Cobb, by all accounts, was a miserable human being, and his antisocial behavior is well documented. I have had the opportunity to meet Pete Rose on several occasions, and I have never met a player who was more friendly and willing to engage the fans in conversation. A couple of times that I saw him were in Vegas, so it could be argued that since he was getting paid, he should have been friendly. However, I also saw him at several charity softball games that were played at Evans Diamond on the Cal-Berkeley campus, and he was just as eager to sign items and talk to the fans. He also took the time to sign legibly and on the best location on the item. Say what you want about the gambling, but he is one of the good guys in the hobby world.
Another example. Arguably, Cobb's best year was 1917 when he lead the league in hits, doubles, triples and an OPS+ of 209. Very impressive. His OPS+ without the ballpark adjustment was 219.
IF Cobb had the same exact stats he did in 1917 as he did in 2000 his OPS+ without the ball park adjustment would have been 159 and then with the adjustment probably 149-153. Or, right about where Nomar Garciaparra was that year. I'm not saying Nomar was as good of a player, but I'm just showing how ridiculous OPS+ is when used to compare different eras.
So, when adjusted for eras, Ty Cobb's best year was right in line with Nomar Garciaparra's.
Again, and none of this is factoring in that Ty Cobb would not have had a .383 batting average in 2000.
Ty Cobb was great and certainly dominated his time, but the facts show he wouldn't have been nearly as good today.
<< <i>It's not only the pitchers who would have made a difference in the numbers. The speed and agility of middle infielders and outfielders would have had a detrimental effect on the batting average of someone playing in the pre-integration era. >>
Also, lets look at the pre/post integration question from a different angle. If you were a hitter today what advantage would you rather have. Being the only player that could legally use steroids or the only player to only face white pitchers? What is the biggest advantage? What does that say about the pre-integration competition level?
<< <i>obb 1907 OPS+ 167. This is pre-prime early career. Cobb 1908 OPS+ 169
Cobb 1921 OPS+ 166. This is mostly against a different era of pitchers and players from what he did early in his career. He is older, so age decline plays a factor compared to his peak years, but holds his own. Cobb 1922 OPS+ 166. So basically, in both sets of numbers he does just as well in really what are two different eras, the first one the dead ball, and here in the beginning of the live ball.
Ruth 1921 OPS+ 182. Ruth is a leaguemate of Cobb here, and this is how well he hit against the same pitchers Cobb faced in the beginning of the live ball era. Ruth 1922 OPS+ 238. Another year for Ruth as a league mate of Cobb
Ruth 1931 OPS+ 218 Here we see Ruth in a different era that Cobb never played in. As you see Ruth didn't change a whole lot from the same set of league mates he played when with Cobb Ruth 1932 OPS+ 201
Ott 1931 OPS+ 151. Here Ott is a leaguemate of Ruth, which connects Ott to Cobb Ott 1932 OPS+ 174
Ott 1941 OPS+ 150. Ott was still similar to what he was when he played with Ruth, whom Ruth was similar to what HE was when he played with Cobb...and Cobb was similar to when he played before Ruth. Ott 1942 OPS+ 165
Williams 1941 OPS+ 235. Ted Williams as a leaguemate with Ott. Williams 1942 OPS+ 216
Williams 1957 OPS+ 233 Williams in post war, still bashing similar to what he did pre war when he played with Ott, Ott held similar to when he played with Ruth, Ruth similar to when played with Cobb. Williams 1958 OPS+ 179
Hank Aaron 1957 OPS+ 177. Aaron was a leaguemate of Williams. Hank Aaron 1958 OPS+ 152
Hank Aaron 1971 OPS+ 194. This is a different era from earlier in Aaron's career when he played with Williams, whom Williams chains to Ott, Ott to Ruth, Ruth to Cobb, all showing how they maintained similar throughout the progression of different eras and different competition.
Hank Aaron 1973 OPS+ 177. Despite being old, he shows that he could still mash in the modern era, and it really doesn't give a lot of credence to believing that Cobb at the beginning of the chain would have been overmatched in this era.
As you see how these guys all chain together, the elite hitters do compare with each proceeding era. While peaks, valleys, and age in the respective seasons play a role, it most certainly shows that the game of 1908 was nothing similar to a softball league or crappy league, and that the stars of yesteryear certainly could hold their skill level well with the stars of tomorrow...the degree of which is debatable, but it doesn't seem there is any credence to take away the 168 to 118 lead Cobb has over Rose in OPS+. That is just too large a lead to ignore, despite the different eras. >>
There is a HUGE flaw in using OPS+ when comparing different eras; OPS+ factors in league OBP and league SLG, and when almost half of the league is made up of minor league caliber players in 1907, it paints a very bizarre picture.
An example:
Ty Cobbs OPS+ in 1907 was 167. This is calculated out by 100*((SLG/*lgSLG)+(OBP/*lgOBP)-1)
The *lg stands for park adjusted league average, but for the purposes of comparing eras, it's okay to use league average without the park adjustment (it will skew the OPS+ figure down once adjusted).
So Ty Cobb's OPS+ in 1907 comes out to 176 when you do 100*((0.38/0.305)+(0.468/0.309)-1) - this number isn't park adjusted (brings it down to 167).
IF Ty Cobb had the same exact numbers he did in 1907 as he did in 1973 (Pete Rose's MVP year), his OPS+ would have been 140 or 100*((0.38/0.325)+(0.468/0.379)-1). This number isn't park adjusted, so it would've been closer to an OPS+ of 130, which is a bit lower than Rose's that year (he had 138 OPS+ that year).
So these are Ty Cobbs era adjusted OPS+ numbers and this is all still assuming that he hits in the high .300's each year! Which obviously he wouldn't.
When you adjust Cobb's OPS+ for the years Pete Rose played, his OPS+ drops about 20-40 points each year.
It's clear to me Rose was the better player. >>
You missed the whole point. Cobb's contemporaries were not minor league caliber compared to 1973. That is a stretch. As you see in the chaining, Cobb played in RUth's era, and when he did, he still retained his star hitting ability. Ruth played in Ott's era, and still retained his star hitting ability. Ott played in Ted Williams era and still retained his star hitting ability. Williams played in Aaron's era and still retained his star hitting ability. Aaron played through the modern era and still retained his star hitting ability.
It is easy to just throw away the guys from Cobb's era and say they were just minor league caliber. It is also easy to look at the gaudy numbers from Pre War and think those guys will always be the best ever.
Neither of those are true.
The guys from the Pre-War era were inferior league-wise, but not nearly to the degree you are saying.
After taking all that into consideration, if you are going to say Cobb's 168 OPS+ is inferior to Rose's 118 OPS+....then you must also be willing to say that Manny Ramirez and his lifetime 154 OPS+ makes him a better hitter than Babe Ruth and his 206 OPS+. If you are not, then no point even going further. If you are, then I wish you well in your delusions.
OPS+ is just fine for comparisons like this. You are probably knocking that down because I showed you before how vastly overrated Ichiro truly is as a hitter, and you started using other methods that are about as valuable as judging a player as how well he knots his tie.
Or you are just trying to vault Ichiro up higher than he really belongs....even though he is one of hte most overrated hitters in the history fo baseball(as pointed out clearly in another thread).
<< <i>There is a HUGE flaw in using OPS+ when comparing different eras; OPS+ factors in league OBP and league SLG, and when almost half of the league is made up of minor league caliber players in 1907, it paints a very bizarre picture.
An example:
Ty Cobbs OPS+ in 1907 was 167. This is calculated out by 100*((SLG/*lgSLG)+(OBP/*lgOBP)-1)
The *lg stands for park adjusted league average, but for the purposes of comparing eras, it's okay to use league average without the park adjustment (it will skew the OPS+ figure down once adjusted).
So Ty Cobb's OPS+ in 1907 comes out to 176 when you do 100*((0.38/0.305)+(0.468/0.309)-1) - this number isn't park adjusted (brings it down to 167).
IF Ty Cobb had the same exact numbers he did in 1907 as he did in 1973 (Pete Rose's MVP year), his OPS+ would have been 140 or 100*((0.38/0.325)+(0.468/0.379)-1). This number isn't park adjusted, so it would've been closer to an OPS+ of 130, which is a bit lower than Rose's that year (he had 138 OPS+ that year).
So these are Ty Cobbs era adjusted OPS+ numbers and this is all still assuming that he hits in the high .300's each year! Which obviously he wouldn't.
When you adjust Cobb's OPS+ for the years Pete Rose played, his OPS+ drops about 20-40 points each year.
It's clear to me Rose was the better player. >>
I love how you used 1907 for Cobb and compare it to Rose's MVP season!!! 1907 was Cobb's WORST season (by OPS+) from 1907-1918!
I could spend an hour pointing out the other flaws in your argument, but why bother? It's obvious that your opinion will never change. Let me guess, Pete Rose is your favorite player?
<< <i>There is a HUGE flaw in using OPS+ when comparing different eras; OPS+ factors in league OBP and league SLG, and when almost half of the league is made up of minor league caliber players in 1907, it paints a very bizarre picture.
An example:
Ty Cobbs OPS+ in 1907 was 167. This is calculated out by 100*((SLG/*lgSLG)+(OBP/*lgOBP)-1)
The *lg stands for park adjusted league average, but for the purposes of comparing eras, it's okay to use league average without the park adjustment (it will skew the OPS+ figure down once adjusted).
So Ty Cobb's OPS+ in 1907 comes out to 176 when you do 100*((0.38/0.305)+(0.468/0.309)-1) - this number isn't park adjusted (brings it down to 167).
IF Ty Cobb had the same exact numbers he did in 1907 as he did in 1973 (Pete Rose's MVP year), his OPS+ would have been 140 or 100*((0.38/0.325)+(0.468/0.379)-1). This number isn't park adjusted, so it would've been closer to an OPS+ of 130, which is a bit lower than Rose's that year (he had 138 OPS+ that year).
So these are Ty Cobbs era adjusted OPS+ numbers and this is all still assuming that he hits in the high .300's each year! Which obviously he wouldn't.
When you adjust Cobb's OPS+ for the years Pete Rose played, his OPS+ drops about 20-40 points each year.
It's clear to me Rose was the better player. >>
I love how you used 1907 for Cobb and compare it to Rose's MVP season!!! 1907 was Cobb's WORST season (by OPS+) from 1907-1918!
I could spend an hour pointing out the other flaws in your argument, but why bother? It's obvious that your opinion will never change. Let me guess, Pete Rose is your favorite player?
MLBfan, Rose is not his favorite player....Ichiro is. In fact, he claimed Ichiro was as good or better hitter than Rose, so his motive is to try and get Ichiro to be viewed as better than Cobb, hence him making these foolish comparisons to Cobb.
I just bumped up one of the Ichiro overrated threads on the sports talk board. He makes all sort of goofy statistical comparisons...using meaningless stuff, to try and vault Ichiro.
For the record, Rose's best 5 year prime OPS+ is 139. Ichiro's is 120. In fact, previously, this JSH guy discounted Rose's longevity when he compared Ichiro and Rose's lifetime OPS+ numbers(discounting Rose played so many more games)...so now he is doing the opposite? Oh, and I tackled the Japan issue in the other thread, so no need to elaborate on that.
<< <i>You missed the whole point. Cobb's contemporaries were not minor league caliber compared to 1973. That is a stretch. As you see in the chaining, Cobb played in RUth's era, and when he did, he still retained his star hitting ability. Ruth played in Ott's era, and still retained his star hitting ability. Ott played in Ted Williams era and still retained his star hitting ability. Williams played in Aaron's era and still retained his star hitting ability. Aaron played through the modern era and still retained his star hitting ability.
It is easy to just throw away the guys from Cobb's era and say they were just minor league caliber. It is also easy to look at the gaudy numbers from Pre War and think those guys will always be the best ever.
Neither of those are true.
The guys from the Pre-War era were inferior league-wise, but not nearly to the degree you are saying.
After taking all that into consideration, if you are going to say Cobb's 168 OPS+ is inferior to Rose's 118 OPS+....then you must also be willing to say that Manny Ramirez and his lifetime 154 OPS+ makes him a better hitter than Babe Ruth and his 206 OPS+. If you are not, then no point even going further. If you are, then I wish you well in your delusions. >>
I'm sure Manny would've been very successful in Ruth's era, but without his steroid fix, his numbers might have suffered
I fully understood the point you were trying to make, but, as I outlined perfectly above, the argument is obviously flawed. With the Cobb's same exact career numbers, his OPS+ would have been closer to 125-130 if he played during Rose's time. That's a fact. But, obviously, Cobb would not have had the same numbers if he played in Rose's era. So, if you further adjust his numbers down say 10% (as you previously thought appropriate), Cobb's career OPS+ would be closer to 115, right with Rose.
Also, just for fun, I calculated Manny's OPS+ if he had his 2000 season in 1920, his OPS+ would've been 224 before ball park adjustment. So most likely around 213-216.
<< <i>I love how you used 1907 for Cobb and compare it to Rose's MVP season!!! 1907 was Cobb's WORST season (by OPS+) from 1907-1918!
I could spend an hour pointing out the other flaws in your argument, but why bother? It's obvious that your opinion will never change. Let me guess, Pete Rose is your favorite player?
I also compared Cobb's BEST OPS+ year. If there is a flaw in my era adjusted stats please point it out. I'm just recalculating OPS+ to show how drastically the numbers decline when they're compared to more competitive years in baseball.
No, you didn't understand the point, and how you come up with Cobb having a 125 OPS+ in Rose's era is funny. You did NOTHING to show that to be true...or remotely close to it. You just provided jibberish with no scientific evidence to support it.
You are the same guy that said Ichiro was better than Rose. Your whole premise is to try and vault Ichiro to the top, lol.
You previously used lifetime OPS+ to compare Ichiro and Rose, and discounted longevity, to proclaim Ichiro better.
Ichiro's five year prime OPS+ years were 120, compared to 139 for Rose.
Again, if you are saying Rose is better than Cobb, then you must also say Manny was better than Ruth. You can't say he would have been "successful" so don't dance around it by dong that. Either Rose is better than Cobb, and Manny Better than Ruth.....or neither. You can't pick and choose your goofy methodology just because you are bias and want Ichiro to be viewed higher than he really is(which is the most overrated hitter in the history of MLB).
The lead Cobb has over Rose is so big, that it would take an alien invasion to alter it....or a homer bias fan trying to vault Ichiro higher than he really is!
I suppose JHS also believes that Ichiro was better than Honus Wagner. Ichiro has a 110 OPS+, Wagner 151...within one point of the spread between Rose and Cobb.
I have been one of the few guys in the baseball world to not get overly excited about the exploits of the pre-war guys, as they do tend to be rated higher than reality. But you are taking it the extreme opposite way and using all sort of goofy methodology with no evidence.
So with your premise, which is 100% unfounded and with zero scientific evidence...you have Rose being a better hitter than Cobb, despite such a large gap in their hitting ability.
I have historically stated that the pre-war guys tend to get overrated a bit too much when compared to their peers, however, you have taken that to some extreme level, and have very little evidence. Heck, the evidence I have on saying they are 10% overrated isn't even strong.
Based on your method, you would also have Ichiro as good as Cobb. No? Since Ichiro is at 110 and Rose at 118...and you say Rose is better than Cobb, then Ichiro has to be as good in your eyes? No?
Surely then, Ichiro 110 OPS+ would be better than Honus Wagner 151 OPS+ based on your methods.
I would say, if all else were the same, Manny would've crushed the crap out of the ball during Ruth's time, but I think Ruth was a far better player. Rose and Cobb are close, but I think Rose gets the edge. If you adjust Cobb's OPS+ for the higher slugging percentages during Rose's playing years, his OPS+ suffers about a 20-30 point drop. OPS+ isn't some magical number that tells you which player is better than another; it's a calculation and it's very easy to recalculate (as I showed you previously in this thread).
1) I don't think this topic is worth much of a debate because Cobb is OBVIOUSLY the choice IMO. Anyone who would pick Rose is just stating that baseball wasn't at all refined back then and I don't agree with that assessment. Considering the time, diet, equipment, exercise regimen, etc. of the respective eras, I'm EXTREMELY confident that Cobb would walk all over Pete Rose whether they played in his era or Rose's era or in ancient Roman times. Pete Rose wasn't THAT good for his own era let alone to be some valid argument against Cobb. We're not talking about comparing Hank Aaron or Mike Schmidt to Cobb, we're talking about a slap singles hitter who's numbers aren't that impressive to begin with.
2) skin2, I like your chain linking analysis. It's original and very well articulated and does a lot to tie in different eras. >>
Baseball, you are correct, it is such a lopsided victory in Cobb's favor that it really isn't worth digging in to...I'm just having fun with a homer.
Thanks for the chaining compliment. While there are difference in era's, the game hasn't really changed that much, to do what JHS is doing, and just discounting Cobb's performance.
JHS, those calculations you did are worthless, and define nothing.
I ask again, since you are making this absurd claim, then wouldn't Ichiro and his 110 OPS+ be better than Wagner and his 151 OPS+?? If not, then you can't continue with what you are saying with Cobb.
Also, same with Manny...he would be as good as Ruth in your method. You can't just pick and choose one element of the offense and make your statments(like you are doing with SLG%). You have to look at all elements of hitting, like OPS+ does. If you want to go better than OPS+, then Linear Weights does the trick. SO that is two excellent offensive measures that have an extremely high validity.
If you are only looking at non adjusted numbers, then Cobb's lifetime OPS is .945. Rose is .784. The only way you get those to be equal is by using a method that ignores key elements(like you are doing).
OPS+ does take the environment and league context into account, so that does a pretty good job...maybe about 10% short due to the era's. You will have to come up with some strong evidence to make that 50%. Just because you 'think' it is, doesn't mean it is true. You will have a lot of work to show it. Heck, I have some work to do to show that 10% is even correct!
You would also have to put that same methodology to ALL players. You can't just use it on CObb and Rose, and then throw Manny and Ruth, or Ichiro and Wagner out the window.
Another example! Let's compare Ty Cobb's best OPS+ year (1917 at 209) and Pete Rose's best OPS+ year (1969 at 158). They seem miles a part, granted, but when you look at the league OBP and SLG in 1917 (.311 and .324) compared to 1969 (.320 and .369) it becomes a much smaller gap.
To compare Rose's OPS+ number to Cobb you need to adjust it for the year. If you recalculate Pete Rose's 1969 OPS+ using league average numbers from 1917, his OPS shoots to 196. After adjusting for the ball park, it goes down to around 188-190 (compared to Cobb's OPS+ of 209). There are no assumptions made here! This is just a simple recalculation of facts.
Now, the assumptions come. You said it yourself skin2 that there is a 10% competitive advantage during Cobb's time compared to Rose. Personally, I think it's closer to 25-30%, but to be conservative we will use 10%. If you adjust Cobb's OPS+ 10% it drops to 188, which is perfectly in line with Rose's OPS+.
While there is much to be debated, it's clear that this isn't an issue that's "miles" a part, obviously it's closer than people realize.
<< <i>I ask again, since you are making this absurd claim, then wouldn't Ichiro and his 110 OPS+ be better than Wagner and his 151 OPS+?? If not, then you can't continue with what you are saying with Cobb. >>
Ichiro's OPS+ comes very close to Wagner when you adjust it for the era, but as I said in the previous thread and as I have been saying here, OPS+ is a useless stat in comparing eras.
<< <i>Also, same with Manny...he would be as good as Ruth in your method. You can't just pick and choose one element of the offense and make your statments(like you are doing with SLG%). You have to look at all elements of hitting, like OPS+ does. If you want to go better than OPS+, then Linear Weights does the trick. SO that is two excellent offensive measures that have an extremely high validity. >>
What have I been doing with SLG%? OPS+ looks at two stats, On Base Percentage and Slugging Percentage and compares it to the league average that year. So if I had a .250 OBP and .300SLG (a terrible season) and the entire league had a .100 OBP and .150 SLG, my OPS+ would be 220 or something. It doesn't mean I had a better year than Ty Cobb ever did, it just means I did better than the competition THAT YEAR.
<< <i>OPS+ does take the environment and league context into account, so that does a pretty good job... >>
I just showed you the OPS+ calculation, there is no "environment and league context" stat that encompasses every era in baseball that OPS+ magically takes into account. It's just an equation.
but as I said in the previous thread and as I have been saying here, OPS+ is a useless stat in comparing eras.
If you feel that way, why are you using this metric (albeit after twisting the stats to suit your contention) to compare Cobb and Rose?
I never knew Ichiro was better than Honus Wagner, or that Manny Ramirez was on the same level as Babe Ruth, LOL! Wow! That is some use of the OPS+ metric!!
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>If you feel that way, why are you using this metric (albeit after twisting the stats to suit your contention) to compare Cobb and Rose?
I never knew Ichiro was better than Honus Wagner, or that Manny Ramirez was on the same level as Babe Ruth, LOL! Wow! That is some use of the OPS+ metric!! >>
I'm showing how pointless it is to say "xxx has an OPS+ of 170 and xxx has an OPS+ of 230 obviously, this person is better!" It should be adjusted for the time you played and even after adjusted there are further considerations to make.
I never said Ichiro was as good as Honus Wagner, nor Ramirez as good as Ruth.
<< <i>If you feel that way, why are you using this metric (albeit after twisting the stats to suit your contention) to compare Cobb and Rose?
I never knew Ichiro was better than Honus Wagner, or that Manny Ramirez was on the same level as Babe Ruth, LOL! Wow! That is some use of the OPS+ metric!! >>
I'm showing how pointless it is to say "xxx has an OPS+ of 170 and xxx has an OPS+ of 230" obviously, this person is better! It should be adjusted for the time you played.
I never said Ichiro was as good as Honus Wagner, nor Ramirez as good as Ruth. >>
But if you are using adjusting OPS+ over different eras to demonstrate your contention that Rose is better than Cobb, then to be consistent, you must be using that same method to say that Ichiro is better than Wagner and Manny is as good as Ruth. You can't compare Cobb and Ruth in a vacuum and not have it extended to other examples. If the methodology is going to be valid, it should be valid for other examples and comparisons, too.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>But if you are using adjusting OPS+ over different eras to demonstrate your contention that Rose is better than Cobb, then to be consistent, you must be using that same method to say that Ichiro is better than Wagner and Manny is as good as Ruth. You can't compare Cobb and Ruth in a vacuum and not have it extended to other examples. If the methodology is going to be valid, it should be valid for other examples and comparisons, too. >>
This is the point I'm trying to make: If I had a .250 OBP and .300 SLG (a terrible season by any measure), but the entire league had a .100 OBP and .150 SLG, my OPS+ would be 220 or something.
Since my OPS+ was 220 that year (even though I had only a .250 OBP and .300 SLG) does that mean that season was better than ANY of Ty Cobb's seasons? No.
<< <i>But if you are using adjusting OPS+ over different eras to demonstrate your contention that Rose is better than Cobb, then to be consistent, you must be using that same method to say that Ichiro is better than Wagner and Manny is as good as Ruth. You can't compare Cobb and Ruth in a vacuum and not have it extended to other examples. If the methodology is going to be valid, it should be valid for other examples and comparisons, too. >>
This is the point I'm trying to make: If I had a .250 OBP and .300 SLG (a terrible season by any measure), but the entire league had a .100 OBP and .150 SLG, my OPS+ would be 220 or something.
Since my OPS+ was 220 that year (even though I had only a .250 OBP and .300 SLG) does that mean that season was better than ANY of Ty Cobb's seasons? No. >>
So, essentially, you are contending, based on your methodology, that Ichiro is better than Honus Wagner and that Manny Ramirez is, in fact, on equal footing with Babe Ruth.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>So, essentially, you are contending, based on your methodology, that Ichiro is better than Honus Wagner and that Manny Ramirez is, in fact, on equal footing with Babe Ruth. >>
Wagner vs. Ichiro isn't a crazy comparison. There OPS+ is near identical when adjusted for the period played (with a slight edge to Wagner) and there 162 game average stat line is near identical, since Ichiro played during a more difficult era and entered the league at the age of 27, it's possible he would be better than Wagner under similar circumstances. The only thing against Ichiro is that he started to decline at a much earlier age than Wagner did.
For Ruth vs. Manny, I don't think Manny would have been nearly as good without steroids. I don't give an opinion on Bonds or Sosa, so I really don't have one on Manny.
Edited to add: I ran some of Manny's numbers comparing them to league averages when Ruth played. Ruth was better.
Your method is assuming that Rose would overcome the environment in hitting in 1917 that caused the league averages to be so low(including lack of HR's), and him still being able to hit 16 home runs and walk 88 times.
You do realize that Rose hitting 16 home runs in 1917 would have led all of MLB by four. His 88 walks would have put him third...and he never finished that high in walks. He obviously never finished that high in HR's.
The chaining shows that the elite hitters carried similar to the other elite hitters all the way through Rose's era, and it was only mainly the league environment that made the numbers fluctuate.
The league environment causes all sorts of jumps in stats where your method just falls flat on its face, as the evidence shows that the hitters rise and fall with that environment.
A player hitting 20 HR's in 1982 is much better than a player hitting 20 HR's in 2001. It was easier to hit HR's in 2001, and easier to accumulate offense in 2001.
Pete Rose's OPS is .784. Cobb's OPS is .954
That same methodology you did for one season, now do that for each and everyone of Cobb's and Rose's season...
Next, do that for other players too, and see what you come up with.
So you have Rose a better hitter than Cobb, and Ichiro comparable to Wagner.
I have to ask, if Rose and Ichiro are that highly rated, then Schmidt and Brett must be somewhere on MT Olympus, and Miguel Cabrera and Pujols in some other universe.
You have some crazy thoughts that make no sense and are backed up by nothing. You need to run that exercise for all players, and you will see how foolish you really are, lol.
The "chaining" shows nothing. You're arguing that since Babe Ruth had a similar OPS+ in year x as in year y, the level of competition was the same, and then Mel Ott had a similar OPS+ in year y as he did in year z, so the level of competition must be the same for year z as in year x.
The biggest flaw in this is that OPS+ fluctuations aren't solely the result of the level of competition. Honus Wagner's OPS+ went from 177 in 1909 to 133 in 1910. Was the level of competition 25% harder in 1910? No.
Let me ask you something, please answer honestly. If Major League Baseball TODAY decided to reinstate integration and 38% of the league is no longer eligible to play the sport. Every team now needs to promote all their white AAA and AA players to make up for the lost players. Would the competition go down 10%? I would guess it would go down a lot more.
<< <i>The "chaining" shows nothing. You're arguing that since Babe Ruth had a similar OPS+ in year x as in year y, the level of competition was the same, and then Mel Ott had a similar OPS+ in year y as he did in year z, so the level of competition must be the same for year z as in year x.
The biggest flaw in this is that OPS+ fluctuations aren't solely the result of the level of competition. Honus Wagner's OPS+ went from 177 in 1909 to 133 in 1910. Was the level of competition 25% harder in 1910? No.
Let me ask you something, please answer honestly. If Major League Baseball TODAY decided to reinstate integration and 38% of the league is no longer eligible to play the sport. Every team now needs to promote all their white AAA and AA players to make up for the lost players. Would the competition go down 10%? I would guess it would go down a lot more. >>
In 1920, there were roughly half the number of teams there are today (16 vs 31), so you wouldn't need nearly as many callups from the minors as you think, as expansion between then and now created 375 additional roster spots. In fact, you wouldn't need to call up anyone from AAA.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>Great question, but I want to answer that with a question.
How many great non-white players were there back in Cobb's day ? Life was very hard back then. Most guys couldn't afford playing ball. They had to work their whole lives. Only whites were getting paid to play, along with some latin American players who weren't getting paid much either. I just don't the lack of leisure time during the week (outside of work) allowed non-whites to get great at their craft.
Colleges weren't taking blacks back in Cobb's day, and the negro leagues weren't paying much, so why should a black ballplayer pursue his skills in a game that wasn't going to put food on the table ? Outside of Satchel Paige, I just don't think there were too many great non-white pitchers back then. Juan Marichal and Bob Gibson came along in the 60's, but Luis Tiant and Vida Blue were the only others really. Just not enough to really convince anyone that the non-white factor applies to Cobb. >>
I'll answer your question if you answer mine.
In the early 1900's the negro leagues and Cuban leagues were thriving. The early 1900's is considered the "Golden Age" of Cuban Baseball. Most people have never heard of Joe Williams, John Henry Lloyd, Pete Hill, and Home Run Johnson, but they are all Baseball Hall of Famers, inducted in the same building as Ruth, Cobb and Wagner. None of them have ever seen a big league pitch, but they very well could've been better than Ruth, Cobb or Wagner. Just because they were never in the big leagues doesn't mean the players were any worse than their white counterparts.
Just because there were fewer talented minority baseball players in the early 1900's doesn't defeat the fact that Major League Baseball was less talented too. Actually, it strengthens that argument.
<< <i>In 1920, there were roughly half the number of teams there are today (16 vs 30), so you wouldn't need nearly as many callups from the minors as you think, as expansion between then and now created 350 additional roster spots. In fact, you wouldn't need to call up anyone from AAA. >>
In 1920 the US population was 106 million people with no players coming from other countries. Today the US population is 316 million people with access to other countries for players. So I would argue that the league would have an easier time filling in those roster spots today than 100 years ago.
<< <i>In 1920, there were roughly half the number of teams there are today (16 vs 30), so you wouldn't need nearly as many callups from the minors as you think, as expansion between then and now created 350 additional roster spots. In fact, you wouldn't need to call up anyone from AAA. >>
In 1920 the US population was 106 million people with no players coming from other countries. Today the US population is 316 million people with access to other countries for players. So I would argue that the league would have an easier time filling in those roster spots today than 100 years ago. >>
That is true but if you are going to utilize statistics like that, you must also view stats from the modern era when trying to apply them to 1920. Would Pete Rose,, about him even his most avid fan would never consider a power hitter, have led the league in home runs like his modern stats would indicate had we applied them in sum total vs the league back in that era? ? If we're going to use statistical measures like population against players like Cobb, why are we taking modern stats and applying them at face value to that era?
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
JHS, Wagner's OPS+ went down because he didn't have as good a year...happens all the time.
You need to put your method to the test across all eras to see how foolish it is. Where exactly are you drawing the competition line? Ted Williams played a good part of his career pre-integration...so yes, the chaining does show that the elite players carried over the same across era's, with only the raw numbers changing due to league environment...while OPS+ does a decent job accounting for the environment change.
I ask again, based on YOUR method that has Rose a better hitter than Cobb, and Ichiro as good as Wagner...then what about all the players from Rose's era that were better than Rose, and the tons of players from Ichriro's era that were better than him?
For quick sake, there are probably 75 hitters that played at least one year the last 15 years that are better hitters than Ichiro.
There are probably 35 hitters that played at least one year in the 1970's that are better hitters than Rose.
That would make all those hitters better than Cobb and Wagner. Since many of them will dwarf Cobb(since they are so far better than Rose and Ichiro), that means many of those guys were also better hitters than Ruth and Ted Williams based on your method...as both those guys played pre-integration as well.
Ted Williams played with many players who played with Ruth and are from the same pre integration era.
Also, if all those players are better hitters than Ruth and Williams, then that makes them better than MIckey Mantle, because when Ted Williams played with Mantle, he hit as well as Mantle did.
Since they are better than Mickey Mantle...well shoot, we are back to the era of Rose
You have a lot of work to do buddy...all because in your own distorted way you are trying to make Ichiro look better than he really was. Nice try though. You just made yourself look really bad.
Generally, when I look up "The Best Hitters of All Time" lists they come out as follows:
1 Babe Ruth 2 Ty Cobb 3 Barry Bonds 4 Willie Mays 5 Hank Aaron 6 Ted Williams 7 Stan Musial 8 Tris Speaker 9 Honus Wagner 10 Rogers Hornsby 11 Eddie Collins 12 Mickey Mantle 13 Alex Rodriguez 14 Lou Gehrig 15 Frank Robinson 16 Rickey Henderson 17 Joe Morgan 18 Mel Ott 19 Nap Lajoie 20 Jimmie Foxx
Why are half of these players from pre-integration? Was there just some sort of baseball golden age of talent with all of our best players that happened to come in the early 1900's? It makes no sense. There were thousands of fewer baseball players in the early 1900's, but half of our best players came from this period. We should theoretically see more players of today on this list because the talent pool is so much larger, but that's not we see at all. Why are the majority of our best players from before most of us were born?
Also, of the 10 post-integration players on this list, 7 of them are minorities.
<< <i>As of now, David Price is the only black pitcher who rates high in Major League Baseball. >>
I hope you don't mind if I use ESPN Fantasy Player Rater to determine the best pitchers this season:
1 Clayton Kershaw 2 Johnny Cueto 3 Adam Wainwright 4 Masahiro Tanaka 5 Felix Hernandez 6 Julio Teheran 7 Chris Sale 8 Corey Kluber 9 David Price 10 Garrett Richards 11 Dallas Keuchel 12 Sonny Gray 13 Yu Darvish 14 Scott Kazmir 15 Henderson Alvarez 16 Rick Porcello 17 Max Scherzer 18 Madison Bumgarner 19 Jordan Zimmermann 20 Tyson Ross
Of the 20, 8 of them would be ineligible to play (or 40%). If the league lost 40% of it's pitchers and replaced them with minor league players, the league would be affected.
<< <i>That is true but if you are going to utilize statistics like that, you must also view stats from the modern era when trying to apply them to 1920. Would Pete Rose,, about him even his most avid fan would never consider a power hitter, have led the league in home runs like his modern stats would indicate had we applied them in sum total vs the league back in that era? ? If we're going to use statistical measures like population against players like Cobb, why are we taking modern stats and applying them at face value to that era? >>
Honest question, why wouldn't Pete Rose continue to hit 15-20 home runs a season? Assuming he's just as big as he was when he played in the 60's and 70's, he could've led the league in home runs. That's how bad the competition was then. I'm assuming the pitchers in 1920 didn't have some magical pitch that prevented home runs? Perhaps it was lost in to the ages? Is there any valid argument to assume Pete Rose couldn't hit home runs in the 1920's?
Comments
<< <i>
<< <i>3. Cobb did play in an era where it was easier for the elite to separate from the league average player, as the overall league ability(and the lower number of available MLB players in the US population) was worse in Cobb's time...but that advantage comes down to something like a 10% advantage...still not enough to chip away at that huge lead. I put some threads on this a while back...population studies etc.. >>
I think 10% is vastly understating the level of competition in the early 1900's.
Almost 40% of players today are minorities, meaning, if league integration happened yesterday 40% of the white players were sent down to the minor leagues. So yesterday, 40% of the league consisted of minor league caliber players when compared to today. The same can be said about 1910. It's not a coincidence that the majority of .350 hit seasons happened before 1940. I'm sure Cobb was great (he was one of the most dominant players of his era), but Rose was better.
I batted over .500 in my company softball league, it doesn't mean I'm better than Pete Rose. >>
10% is my current safe estimate...I agree that the overall talent availability back then could even be worse.
The same can be said against Ruth. He out-homered every team in the league one year, a feat that really wasn't possible in 1983. That doesn't mean Ruth was THAT much better than anyone in 1983 because they couldn't come close to accomplishing the feat in 1983, but rather that Ruth simply had the circumstances in place to allow him to look that much better than anyone in 1983 could look.
PS, but if you 'chain' the players through history, the talent level isn't as far off as you may think, and doubtful enough to erase a 168 to 118 gap in OPS+.
<< <i>I'm sure Cobb was great (he was one of the most dominant players of his era), but Rose was better.
>>
What are some stats that tell you that Rose was better? Saying "Rose was better" is like saying nothing at all.
Cobb led his league in OPS+ 12 times. Rose - zero. Cobb had 13 seasons with 6+ WAR. Rose - 4.
<< <i>My post was not about who had the better career. It's obviously Wayne.
Better scorer though? It's quite close...
Wayne .60 goals/gm, 1.32 assists/gm, 1.92 total
Mario .75 goals/gm, 1.13 assists/gm, 1.88 total
When adjusted for era, Mario moves ahead. >>
My point was not at all about comparing careers. I am not explaining myself well enough if that's how I came across.
If you are going to adjust Mario's numbers for era to make the argument that he would have, should have, could have scored more points per game than Wayne, then you have used evidence that indicates (but does not prove) that he was a better point producer. Good use of statistical evidence.
My response is that evidence also indicates the more games a player plays in any sport, the harder it is to maintain a high average. When comparing any two players with large differences in career length if you start adjusting numbers, you can't just pick the ones you like to prove your theory (well, I guess we all do) without looking at other factors. My point is not that Wayne had a better career (that's obvious) it's that you need to adjust his numbers up and/or Mario's down to account for one players performance over a longer vs. a shorter time.
The exact same thing goes with their performance at ages 36 and 37! Mario did score significantly more points per game, but he played in 91 games compared to 162 for Wayne. Wayne scored 204 points and Mario scored 137, while your way of looking at it shows Mario as a better player because of points per game, the fact that he played in 67 less games during those two years means he was not as valuable to his team. Taking it to the extreme, if Mario played in 10 games in each of those years and scored an average of 4 points per game it wouldn't prove he was a better scorer.
You could easily claim Mario, if healthy would have performed just as well in a longer career, and I could say that Wayne would have scored at the same rate had he played in the same era. The problem with adjusting numbers in any sport in regards to elite players is that it's really just an educated guess, nothing more.
BTW sorry if our debate has derailed the thread.
<< <i>
<< <i>If this can be proven, then George Brett's chase for .400 was off the charts.
Let me ask a question if you buy into this integration theory (which I'm not sure I do).
What hurlers from the 50's, 60's, or 70's that were black or latin American would have held Ty Cobb down ? >>
Without looking it up I immediately think of two Hall of Fame NL pitchers Pete Rose had to face on several occasions, Jaun Marichal and Bob Gibson. >>
Also, Satchel Paige qualifies as having pitched in the 50's if you're just looking at the 3 decades you listed. Luis Tiant and Vida Blue threw some decent ball during the years you specified as well. Obviously Bob Gibson is best answer to the question as phrased, but there are several guys worth mentioning.
Cobb 1907 OPS+ 167. This is pre-prime early career.
Cobb 1908 OPS+ 169
Cobb 1921 OPS+ 166. This is mostly against a different era of pitchers and players from what he did early in his career. He is older, so age decline plays a factor compared to his peak years, but holds his own.
Cobb 1922 OPS+ 166. So basically, in both sets of numbers he does just as well in really what are two different eras, the first one the dead ball, and here in the beginning of the live ball.
Ruth 1921 OPS+ 182. Ruth is a leaguemate of Cobb here, and this is how well he hit against the same pitchers Cobb faced in the beginning of the live ball era.
Ruth 1922 OPS+ 238. Another year for Ruth as a league mate of Cobb
Ruth 1931 OPS+ 218 Here we see Ruth in a different era that Cobb never played in. As you see Ruth didn't change a whole lot from the same set of league mates he played when with Cobb
Ruth 1932 OPS+ 201
Ott 1931 OPS+ 151. Here Ott is a leaguemate of Ruth, which connects Ott to Cobb
Ott 1932 OPS+ 174
Ott 1941 OPS+ 150. Ott was still similar to what he was when he played with Ruth, whom Ruth was similar to what HE was when he played with Cobb...and Cobb was similar to when he played before Ruth.
Ott 1942 OPS+ 165
Williams 1941 OPS+ 235. Ted Williams as a leaguemate with Ott.
Williams 1942 OPS+ 216
Williams 1957 OPS+ 233 Williams in post war, still bashing similar to what he did pre war when he played with Ott, Ott held similar to when he played with Ruth, Ruth similar to when played with Cobb.
Williams 1958 OPS+ 179
Hank Aaron 1957 OPS+ 177. Aaron was a leaguemate of Williams.
Hank Aaron 1958 OPS+ 152
Hank Aaron 1971 OPS+ 194. This is a different era from earlier in Aaron's career when he played with Williams, whom Williams chains to Ott, Ott to Ruth, Ruth to Cobb, all showing how they maintained similar throughout the progression of different eras and different competition.
Hank Aaron 1973 OPS+ 177. Despite being old, he shows that he could still mash in the modern era, and it really doesn't give a lot of credence to believing that Cobb at the beginning of the chain would have been overmatched in this era.
As you see how these guys all chain together, the elite hitters do compare with each proceeding era. While peaks, valleys, and age in the respective seasons play a role, it most certainly shows that the game of 1908 was nothing similar to a softball league or crappy league, and that the stars of yesteryear certainly could hold their skill level well with the stars of tomorrow...the degree of which is debatable, but it doesn't seem there is any credence to take away the 168 to 118 lead Cobb has over Rose in OPS+. That is just too large a lead to ignore, despite the different eras.
Cobb 1908 OPS+ 169
Cobb 1921 OPS+ 166. This is mostly against a different era of pitchers and players from what he did early in his career. He is older, so age decline plays a factor compared to his peak years, but holds his own.
Cobb 1922 OPS+ 166. So basically, in both sets of numbers he does just as well in really what are two different eras, the first one the dead ball, and here in the beginning of the live ball.
Ruth 1921 OPS+ 182. Ruth is a leaguemate of Cobb here, and this is how well he hit against the same pitchers Cobb faced in the beginning of the live ball era.
Ruth 1922 OPS+ 238. Another year for Ruth as a league mate of Cobb
Ruth 1931 OPS+ 218 Here we see Ruth in a different era that Cobb never played in. As you see Ruth didn't change a whole lot from the same set of league mates he played when with Cobb
Ruth 1932 OPS+ 201
Ott 1931 OPS+ 151. Here Ott is a leaguemate of Ruth, which connects Ott to Cobb
Ott 1932 OPS+ 174
Ott 1941 OPS+ 150. Ott was still similar to what he was when he played with Ruth, whom Ruth was similar to what HE was when he played with Cobb...and Cobb was similar to when he played before Ruth.
Ott 1942 OPS+ 165
Williams 1941 OPS+ 235. Ted Williams as a leaguemate with Ott.
Williams 1942 OPS+ 216
Williams 1957 OPS+ 233 Williams in post war, still bashing similar to what he did pre war when he played with Ott, Ott held similar to when he played with Ruth, Ruth similar to when played with Cobb.
Williams 1958 OPS+ 179
Hank Aaron 1957 OPS+ 177. Aaron was a leaguemate of Williams.
Hank Aaron 1958 OPS+ 152
Hank Aaron 1971 OPS+ 194. This is a different era from earlier in Aaron's career when he played with Williams, whom Williams chains to Ott, Ott to Ruth, Ruth to Cobb, all showing how they maintained similar throughout the progression of different eras and different competition.
Hank Aaron 1973 OPS+ 177. Despite being old, he shows that he could still mash in the modern era, and it really doesn't give a lot of credence to believing that Cobb at the beginning of the chain would have been overmatched in this era.
As you see how these guys all chain together, the elite hitters do compare with each proceeding era. While peaks, valleys, and age in the respective seasons play a role, it most certainly shows that the game of 1908 was nothing similar to a softball league or crappy league, and that the stars of yesteryear certainly could hold their skill level well with the stars of tomorrow...the degree of which is debatable, but it doesn't seem there is any credence to take away the 168 to 118 lead Cobb has over Rose in OPS+. That is just too large a lead to ignore, despite the different eras.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Gretzky was an unbelievable assist and goal scorer, Lemieux most likely a better all around player than Wayne, but his injury problems reduces his ranking. I think if we only look at scoring (as some are reducing the baseball argument to hitting) Gretzky's numbers make him #1. >>
Even though Lemieux started his NHL career only 5 years after Gretzky, Gretzky still played in somewhat significantly higher-scoring era. When you adjust their point totals for the era, Lemieux scored more points per game than Gretzky. >>
Yes, well you if you want to start adjusting numbers, then you have to adjust the numbers in Wayne's favor as he had a MUCH longer career.
Gretzky played in 1487 games compared to Lemieux's playing in 915 (unless I am missing something) you really think using adjusted PPG makes any sense? Seems to me that it is harder to perform at a dominant level over a long period of time than a shorter period. In this case a very significant number of games.
The way I look at it with such a huge disparity in games played Mario should have a much higher PPG number than Wayne to be considered equal as a scorer.
I will stick with my opinion. Mario was a better hockey player, but with an injury/illness shortened career he simply doesn't measure up to Wayne as a point generator. Gretzky was the point leader in 10 out of 12 years, and assist leader an amazing 14 out of 15 years, most while Mario was active. In his last three years (old man years!) he was still able to lead the league in assists twice! Regardless of the era, Wayne was just a better scorer.
Very unfortunate Mario wasn't able to have a longer career, otherwise it might be a different story. >>
I have enjoyed the Wayne vs. Mario debate for many years and I can always see both sides of it. I'm not willing to pick one over the other here, but one thing worth mentioning is, who scores the goals from those assists? Who provides the assists for those goals? Players like Mark Messier, Jari Kurri and Paul Coffey would have racked up tons of points as individuals. It took Mario several more years into his career to get comparable teammates. Jagr was obviously going to score a lot w/o Mario. But what about Rob Brown in the late 80's? How about Kevin Stevens? I'd argue production years were the result of teammates, and in Stevens' case not that he was otherwise that good but the coke habit took him down. How many players on Gretzky's or Lemieux's teams scored 40 or 50+ goals due to winning the linemate lottery but after getting moved to a new line a year later had only a tiny fraction of the points? I agree with your other posts that there are a million ways to look at stats and select them to a presentation that can support almost any argument. It would take a lot of page space here to break down the year-by-year rosters and linemates for both Gretzky and Lemieux. I'm not trying to say that Gretzky's numbers are inflated due to teammates, just that you have to enter that concept into the equation if you actually want to spend time on a more in-depth analysis. You also have to give credit to a player for being able to transform an otherwise average teammate into big scorer though.
Similarly, does anyone really believe Chris Kunitz is as good as his stats show? Is Pascal Dupuis? There is a ton to be said for familiarity and gelling of hockey linemates, but theoretically put mid 80's Messier and mid 90's Jagr on a line with Crosby and see what happens statistically.
Overall, Mario vs. Gretzky is a great debate that will continue on for ages, as there probably is no good answer or correct way to determine one, both were truly incredible and I don't think you can go wrong with either one of them.
<< <i>What this does is make one think about how they played in all ends of the ice.
Now here's another question.
Who wins 5 on 5 with Orr versus either of those guys ? >>
The answer is Pavel Datsyuk
<< <i>
<< <i>Rose has only himself to blame for being on the permanently ineligible list. Rose voluntarily agreed to such a ban in exchange for baseball not pursuing its investigation and findings against him. Who knows what more baseball would have uncovered had they continued their investigation but it must have been rather embarrassing or damning for Rose to agree to be permanently banned in order for it to be stopped. >>
Thank you for posting this. Should (but of course won't) put an end to the debate. Pete's behavior and decisions are what's keeping him out of the HOF. >>
No one's saying Rose didn't screw up; he did, big time... but considering that HOF players committed indiscretions that make betting on baseball look rather tame by comparison, I've always thought that blackmailing Rose into "voluntarily" accepting the deal Giamatti offered seems, at a minimum, hypocritical. And I can't think of anything that could be more embarrassing for Rose's legacy than being the sport's all time hit leader-arguably the #2 most significant achievement behind the HR crown- and permanently being denied recognition for it.
By the way, I frankly consider both individuals to be poor human beings in general... and as I stated previously, I agree Cobb was the better player. I simply feel that Rose got, well...hosed; I'm sure his mouth and attitude didn't help much... but comparing him with Cobb I feel that denying Rose the HOF while a player like Cobb isn't being held to anywhere close to the same standard-the mere inference of which causes some fans to bristle-seems unfair if not hypocritical. Interesting story/comparison here.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
Ty Cobb vs. Tris Speaker would be an interesting comparison
<< <i>obb 1907 OPS+ 167. This is pre-prime early career.
Cobb 1908 OPS+ 169
Cobb 1921 OPS+ 166. This is mostly against a different era of pitchers and players from what he did early in his career. He is older, so age decline plays a factor compared to his peak years, but holds his own.
Cobb 1922 OPS+ 166. So basically, in both sets of numbers he does just as well in really what are two different eras, the first one the dead ball, and here in the beginning of the live ball.
Ruth 1921 OPS+ 182. Ruth is a leaguemate of Cobb here, and this is how well he hit against the same pitchers Cobb faced in the beginning of the live ball era.
Ruth 1922 OPS+ 238. Another year for Ruth as a league mate of Cobb
Ruth 1931 OPS+ 218 Here we see Ruth in a different era that Cobb never played in. As you see Ruth didn't change a whole lot from the same set of league mates he played when with Cobb
Ruth 1932 OPS+ 201
Ott 1931 OPS+ 151. Here Ott is a leaguemate of Ruth, which connects Ott to Cobb
Ott 1932 OPS+ 174
Ott 1941 OPS+ 150. Ott was still similar to what he was when he played with Ruth, whom Ruth was similar to what HE was when he played with Cobb...and Cobb was similar to when he played before Ruth.
Ott 1942 OPS+ 165
Williams 1941 OPS+ 235. Ted Williams as a leaguemate with Ott.
Williams 1942 OPS+ 216
Williams 1957 OPS+ 233 Williams in post war, still bashing similar to what he did pre war when he played with Ott, Ott held similar to when he played with Ruth, Ruth similar to when played with Cobb.
Williams 1958 OPS+ 179
Hank Aaron 1957 OPS+ 177. Aaron was a leaguemate of Williams.
Hank Aaron 1958 OPS+ 152
Hank Aaron 1971 OPS+ 194. This is a different era from earlier in Aaron's career when he played with Williams, whom Williams chains to Ott, Ott to Ruth, Ruth to Cobb, all showing how they maintained similar throughout the progression of different eras and different competition.
Hank Aaron 1973 OPS+ 177. Despite being old, he shows that he could still mash in the modern era, and it really doesn't give a lot of credence to believing that Cobb at the beginning of the chain would have been overmatched in this era.
As you see how these guys all chain together, the elite hitters do compare with each proceeding era. While peaks, valleys, and age in the respective seasons play a role, it most certainly shows that the game of 1908 was nothing similar to a softball league or crappy league, and that the stars of yesteryear certainly could hold their skill level well with the stars of tomorrow...the degree of which is debatable, but it doesn't seem there is any credence to take away the 168 to 118 lead Cobb has over Rose in OPS+. That is just too large a lead to ignore, despite the different eras. >>
There is a HUGE flaw in using OPS+ when comparing different eras; OPS+ factors in league OBP and league SLG, and when almost half of the league is made up of minor league caliber players in 1907, it paints a very bizarre picture.
An example:
Ty Cobbs OPS+ in 1907 was 167. This is calculated out by 100*((SLG/*lgSLG)+(OBP/*lgOBP)-1)
The *lg stands for park adjusted league average, but for the purposes of comparing eras, it's okay to use league average without the park adjustment (it will skew the OPS+ figure down once adjusted).
So Ty Cobb's OPS+ in 1907 comes out to 176 when you do 100*((0.38/0.305)+(0.468/0.309)-1) - this number isn't park adjusted (brings it down to 167).
IF Ty Cobb had the same exact numbers he did in 1907 as he did in 1973 (Pete Rose's MVP year), his OPS+ would have been 140 or 100*((0.38/0.325)+(0.468/0.379)-1). This number isn't park adjusted, so it would've been closer to an OPS+ of 130, which is a bit lower than Rose's that year (he had 138 OPS+ that year).
So these are Ty Cobbs era adjusted OPS+ numbers and this is all still assuming that he hits in the high .300's each year! Which obviously he wouldn't.
When you adjust Cobb's OPS+ for the years Pete Rose played, his OPS+ drops about 20-40 points each year.
It's clear to me Rose was the better player.
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." Dr. Seuss
IF Cobb had the same exact stats he did in 1917 as he did in 2000 his OPS+ without the ball park adjustment would have been 159 and then with the adjustment probably 149-153. Or, right about where Nomar Garciaparra was that year. I'm not saying Nomar was as good of a player, but I'm just showing how ridiculous OPS+ is when used to compare different eras.
So, when adjusted for eras, Ty Cobb's best year was right in line with Nomar Garciaparra's.
Again, and none of this is factoring in that Ty Cobb would not have had a .383 batting average in 2000.
Ty Cobb was great and certainly dominated his time, but the facts show he wouldn't have been nearly as good today.
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." Dr. Seuss
<< <i>It's not only the pitchers who would have made a difference in the numbers. The speed and agility of middle infielders and outfielders would have had a detrimental effect on the batting average of someone playing in the pre-integration era. >>
Also, lets look at the pre/post integration question from a different angle. If you were a hitter today what advantage would you rather have. Being the only player that could legally use steroids or the only player to only face white pitchers? What is the biggest advantage? What does that say about the pre-integration competition level?
<< <i>
<< <i>obb 1907 OPS+ 167. This is pre-prime early career.
Cobb 1908 OPS+ 169
Cobb 1921 OPS+ 166. This is mostly against a different era of pitchers and players from what he did early in his career. He is older, so age decline plays a factor compared to his peak years, but holds his own.
Cobb 1922 OPS+ 166. So basically, in both sets of numbers he does just as well in really what are two different eras, the first one the dead ball, and here in the beginning of the live ball.
Ruth 1921 OPS+ 182. Ruth is a leaguemate of Cobb here, and this is how well he hit against the same pitchers Cobb faced in the beginning of the live ball era.
Ruth 1922 OPS+ 238. Another year for Ruth as a league mate of Cobb
Ruth 1931 OPS+ 218 Here we see Ruth in a different era that Cobb never played in. As you see Ruth didn't change a whole lot from the same set of league mates he played when with Cobb
Ruth 1932 OPS+ 201
Ott 1931 OPS+ 151. Here Ott is a leaguemate of Ruth, which connects Ott to Cobb
Ott 1932 OPS+ 174
Ott 1941 OPS+ 150. Ott was still similar to what he was when he played with Ruth, whom Ruth was similar to what HE was when he played with Cobb...and Cobb was similar to when he played before Ruth.
Ott 1942 OPS+ 165
Williams 1941 OPS+ 235. Ted Williams as a leaguemate with Ott.
Williams 1942 OPS+ 216
Williams 1957 OPS+ 233 Williams in post war, still bashing similar to what he did pre war when he played with Ott, Ott held similar to when he played with Ruth, Ruth similar to when played with Cobb.
Williams 1958 OPS+ 179
Hank Aaron 1957 OPS+ 177. Aaron was a leaguemate of Williams.
Hank Aaron 1958 OPS+ 152
Hank Aaron 1971 OPS+ 194. This is a different era from earlier in Aaron's career when he played with Williams, whom Williams chains to Ott, Ott to Ruth, Ruth to Cobb, all showing how they maintained similar throughout the progression of different eras and different competition.
Hank Aaron 1973 OPS+ 177. Despite being old, he shows that he could still mash in the modern era, and it really doesn't give a lot of credence to believing that Cobb at the beginning of the chain would have been overmatched in this era.
As you see how these guys all chain together, the elite hitters do compare with each proceeding era. While peaks, valleys, and age in the respective seasons play a role, it most certainly shows that the game of 1908 was nothing similar to a softball league or crappy league, and that the stars of yesteryear certainly could hold their skill level well with the stars of tomorrow...the degree of which is debatable, but it doesn't seem there is any credence to take away the 168 to 118 lead Cobb has over Rose in OPS+. That is just too large a lead to ignore, despite the different eras. >>
There is a HUGE flaw in using OPS+ when comparing different eras; OPS+ factors in league OBP and league SLG, and when almost half of the league is made up of minor league caliber players in 1907, it paints a very bizarre picture.
An example:
Ty Cobbs OPS+ in 1907 was 167. This is calculated out by 100*((SLG/*lgSLG)+(OBP/*lgOBP)-1)
The *lg stands for park adjusted league average, but for the purposes of comparing eras, it's okay to use league average without the park adjustment (it will skew the OPS+ figure down once adjusted).
So Ty Cobb's OPS+ in 1907 comes out to 176 when you do 100*((0.38/0.305)+(0.468/0.309)-1) - this number isn't park adjusted (brings it down to 167).
IF Ty Cobb had the same exact numbers he did in 1907 as he did in 1973 (Pete Rose's MVP year), his OPS+ would have been 140 or 100*((0.38/0.325)+(0.468/0.379)-1). This number isn't park adjusted, so it would've been closer to an OPS+ of 130, which is a bit lower than Rose's that year (he had 138 OPS+ that year).
So these are Ty Cobbs era adjusted OPS+ numbers and this is all still assuming that he hits in the high .300's each year! Which obviously he wouldn't.
When you adjust Cobb's OPS+ for the years Pete Rose played, his OPS+ drops about 20-40 points each year.
It's clear to me Rose was the better player. >>
You missed the whole point. Cobb's contemporaries were not minor league caliber compared to 1973. That is a stretch. As you see in the chaining, Cobb played in RUth's era, and when he did, he still retained his star hitting ability. Ruth played in Ott's era, and still retained his star hitting ability. Ott played in Ted Williams era and still retained his star hitting ability. Williams played in Aaron's era and still retained his star hitting ability. Aaron played through the modern era and still retained his star hitting ability.
It is easy to just throw away the guys from Cobb's era and say they were just minor league caliber. It is also easy to look at the gaudy numbers from Pre War and think those guys will always be the best ever.
Neither of those are true.
The guys from the Pre-War era were inferior league-wise, but not nearly to the degree you are saying.
After taking all that into consideration, if you are going to say Cobb's 168 OPS+ is inferior to Rose's 118 OPS+....then you must also be willing to say that Manny Ramirez and his lifetime 154 OPS+ makes him a better hitter than Babe Ruth and his 206 OPS+. If you are not, then no point even going further. If you are, then I wish you well in your delusions.
OPS+ is just fine for comparisons like this. You are probably knocking that down because I showed you before how vastly overrated Ichiro truly is as a hitter, and you started using other methods that are about as valuable as judging a player as how well he knots his tie.
Or you are just trying to vault Ichiro up higher than he really belongs....even though he is one of hte most overrated hitters in the history fo baseball(as pointed out clearly in another thread).
<< <i>There is a HUGE flaw in using OPS+ when comparing different eras; OPS+ factors in league OBP and league SLG, and when almost half of the league is made up of minor league caliber players in 1907, it paints a very bizarre picture.
An example:
Ty Cobbs OPS+ in 1907 was 167. This is calculated out by 100*((SLG/*lgSLG)+(OBP/*lgOBP)-1)
The *lg stands for park adjusted league average, but for the purposes of comparing eras, it's okay to use league average without the park adjustment (it will skew the OPS+ figure down once adjusted).
So Ty Cobb's OPS+ in 1907 comes out to 176 when you do 100*((0.38/0.305)+(0.468/0.309)-1) - this number isn't park adjusted (brings it down to 167).
IF Ty Cobb had the same exact numbers he did in 1907 as he did in 1973 (Pete Rose's MVP year), his OPS+ would have been 140 or 100*((0.38/0.325)+(0.468/0.379)-1). This number isn't park adjusted, so it would've been closer to an OPS+ of 130, which is a bit lower than Rose's that year (he had 138 OPS+ that year).
So these are Ty Cobbs era adjusted OPS+ numbers and this is all still assuming that he hits in the high .300's each year! Which obviously he wouldn't.
When you adjust Cobb's OPS+ for the years Pete Rose played, his OPS+ drops about 20-40 points each year.
It's clear to me Rose was the better player. >>
I love how you used 1907 for Cobb and compare it to Rose's MVP season!!! 1907 was Cobb's WORST season (by OPS+) from 1907-1918!
I could spend an hour pointing out the other flaws in your argument, but why bother? It's obvious that your opinion will never change.
Let me guess, Pete Rose is your favorite player?
Maybe you can check out this to see what how baseball-reference.com users have Rose and Cobb ranked...
http://www.baseball-reference.com/friv/ratings.cgi
<< <i>
<< <i>There is a HUGE flaw in using OPS+ when comparing different eras; OPS+ factors in league OBP and league SLG, and when almost half of the league is made up of minor league caliber players in 1907, it paints a very bizarre picture.
An example:
Ty Cobbs OPS+ in 1907 was 167. This is calculated out by 100*((SLG/*lgSLG)+(OBP/*lgOBP)-1)
The *lg stands for park adjusted league average, but for the purposes of comparing eras, it's okay to use league average without the park adjustment (it will skew the OPS+ figure down once adjusted).
So Ty Cobb's OPS+ in 1907 comes out to 176 when you do 100*((0.38/0.305)+(0.468/0.309)-1) - this number isn't park adjusted (brings it down to 167).
IF Ty Cobb had the same exact numbers he did in 1907 as he did in 1973 (Pete Rose's MVP year), his OPS+ would have been 140 or 100*((0.38/0.325)+(0.468/0.379)-1). This number isn't park adjusted, so it would've been closer to an OPS+ of 130, which is a bit lower than Rose's that year (he had 138 OPS+ that year).
So these are Ty Cobbs era adjusted OPS+ numbers and this is all still assuming that he hits in the high .300's each year! Which obviously he wouldn't.
When you adjust Cobb's OPS+ for the years Pete Rose played, his OPS+ drops about 20-40 points each year.
It's clear to me Rose was the better player. >>
I love how you used 1907 for Cobb and compare it to Rose's MVP season!!! 1907 was Cobb's WORST season (by OPS+) from 1907-1918!
I could spend an hour pointing out the other flaws in your argument, but why bother? It's obvious that your opinion will never change.
Let me guess, Pete Rose is your favorite player?
Maybe you can check out this to see what how baseball-reference.com users have Rose and Cobb ranked...
http://www.baseball-reference.com/friv/ratings.cgi >>
MLBfan, Rose is not his favorite player....Ichiro is. In fact, he claimed Ichiro was as good or better hitter than Rose, so his motive is to try and get Ichiro to be viewed as better than Cobb, hence him making these foolish comparisons to Cobb.
I just bumped up one of the Ichiro overrated threads on the sports talk board. He makes all sort of goofy statistical comparisons...using meaningless stuff, to try and vault Ichiro.
For the record, Rose's best 5 year prime OPS+ is 139. Ichiro's is 120. In fact, previously, this JSH guy discounted Rose's longevity when he compared Ichiro and Rose's lifetime OPS+ numbers(discounting Rose played so many more games)...so now he is doing the opposite? Oh, and I tackled the Japan issue in the other thread, so no need to elaborate on that.
<< <i>You missed the whole point. Cobb's contemporaries were not minor league caliber compared to 1973. That is a stretch. As you see in the chaining, Cobb played in RUth's era, and when he did, he still retained his star hitting ability. Ruth played in Ott's era, and still retained his star hitting ability. Ott played in Ted Williams era and still retained his star hitting ability. Williams played in Aaron's era and still retained his star hitting ability. Aaron played through the modern era and still retained his star hitting ability.
It is easy to just throw away the guys from Cobb's era and say they were just minor league caliber. It is also easy to look at the gaudy numbers from Pre War and think those guys will always be the best ever.
Neither of those are true.
The guys from the Pre-War era were inferior league-wise, but not nearly to the degree you are saying.
After taking all that into consideration, if you are going to say Cobb's 168 OPS+ is inferior to Rose's 118 OPS+....then you must also be willing to say that Manny Ramirez and his lifetime 154 OPS+ makes him a better hitter than Babe Ruth and his 206 OPS+. If you are not, then no point even going further. If you are, then I wish you well in your delusions. >>
I'm sure Manny would've been very successful in Ruth's era, but without his steroid fix, his numbers might have suffered
I fully understood the point you were trying to make, but, as I outlined perfectly above, the argument is obviously flawed. With the Cobb's same exact career numbers, his OPS+ would have been closer to 125-130 if he played during Rose's time. That's a fact. But, obviously, Cobb would not have had the same numbers if he played in Rose's era. So, if you further adjust his numbers down say 10% (as you previously thought appropriate), Cobb's career OPS+ would be closer to 115, right with Rose.
Also, just for fun, I calculated Manny's OPS+ if he had his 2000 season in 1920, his OPS+ would've been 224 before ball park adjustment. So most likely around 213-216.
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." Dr. Seuss
<< <i>I love how you used 1907 for Cobb and compare it to Rose's MVP season!!! 1907 was Cobb's WORST season (by OPS+) from 1907-1918!
I could spend an hour pointing out the other flaws in your argument, but why bother? It's obvious that your opinion will never change.
Let me guess, Pete Rose is your favorite player?
Maybe you can check out this to see what how baseball-reference.com users have Rose and Cobb ranked...
http://www.baseball-reference.com/friv/ratings.cgi >>
I also compared Cobb's BEST OPS+ year. If there is a flaw in my era adjusted stats please point it out. I'm just recalculating OPS+ to show how drastically the numbers decline when they're compared to more competitive years in baseball.
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." Dr. Seuss
You are the same guy that said Ichiro was better than Rose. Your whole premise is to try and vault Ichiro to the top, lol.
You previously used lifetime OPS+ to compare Ichiro and Rose, and discounted longevity, to proclaim Ichiro better.
Ichiro's five year prime OPS+ years were 120, compared to 139 for Rose.
Again, if you are saying Rose is better than Cobb, then you must also say Manny was better than Ruth. You can't say he would have been "successful" so don't dance around it by dong that. Either Rose is better than Cobb, and Manny Better than Ruth.....or neither. You can't pick and choose your goofy methodology just because you are bias and want Ichiro to be viewed higher than he really is(which is the most overrated hitter in the history of MLB).
I suppose JHS also believes that Ichiro was better than Honus Wagner. Ichiro has a 110 OPS+, Wagner 151...within one point of the spread between Rose and Cobb.
I have been one of the few guys in the baseball world to not get overly excited about the exploits of the pre-war guys, as they do tend to be rated higher than reality. But you are taking it the extreme opposite way and using all sort of goofy methodology with no evidence.
So is Ichiro a better hitter than Honus Wagner?
I have historically stated that the pre-war guys tend to get overrated a bit too much when compared to their peers, however, you have taken that to some extreme level, and have very little evidence. Heck, the evidence I have on saying they are 10% overrated isn't even strong.
Based on your method, you would also have Ichiro as good as Cobb. No? Since Ichiro is at 110 and Rose at 118...and you say Rose is better than Cobb, then Ichiro has to be as good in your eyes? No?
Surely then, Ichiro 110 OPS+ would be better than Honus Wagner 151 OPS+ based on your methods.
I would say, if all else were the same, Manny would've crushed the crap out of the ball during Ruth's time, but I think Ruth was a far better player. Rose and Cobb are close, but I think Rose gets the edge. If you adjust Cobb's OPS+ for the higher slugging percentages during Rose's playing years, his OPS+ suffers about a 20-30 point drop. OPS+ isn't some magical number that tells you which player is better than another; it's a calculation and it's very easy to recalculate (as I showed you previously in this thread).
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." Dr. Seuss
<< <i>Couple of random comments:
1) I don't think this topic is worth much of a debate because Cobb is OBVIOUSLY the choice IMO. Anyone who would pick Rose is just stating that baseball wasn't at all refined back then and I don't agree with that assessment. Considering the time, diet, equipment, exercise regimen, etc. of the respective eras, I'm EXTREMELY confident that Cobb would walk all over Pete Rose whether they played in his era or Rose's era or in ancient Roman times. Pete Rose wasn't THAT good for his own era let alone to be some valid argument against Cobb. We're not talking about comparing Hank Aaron or Mike Schmidt to Cobb, we're talking about a slap singles hitter who's numbers aren't that impressive to begin with.
2) skin2, I like your chain linking analysis. It's original and very well articulated and does a lot to tie in different eras. >>
Baseball, you are correct, it is such a lopsided victory in Cobb's favor that it really isn't worth digging in to...I'm just having fun with a homer.
Thanks for the chaining compliment. While there are difference in era's, the game hasn't really changed that much, to do what JHS is doing, and just discounting Cobb's performance.
JHS, those calculations you did are worthless, and define nothing.
I ask again, since you are making this absurd claim, then wouldn't Ichiro and his 110 OPS+ be better than Wagner and his 151 OPS+?? If not, then you can't continue with what you are saying with Cobb.
Also, same with Manny...he would be as good as Ruth in your method. You can't just pick and choose one element of the offense and make your statments(like you are doing with SLG%). You have to look at all elements of hitting, like OPS+ does. If you want to go better than OPS+, then Linear Weights does the trick. SO that is two excellent offensive measures that have an extremely high validity.
If you are only looking at non adjusted numbers, then Cobb's lifetime OPS is .945. Rose is .784. The only way you get those to be equal is by using a method that ignores key elements(like you are doing).
OPS+ does take the environment and league context into account, so that does a pretty good job...maybe about 10% short due to the era's. You will have to come up with some strong evidence to make that 50%. Just because you 'think' it is, doesn't mean it is true. You will have a lot of work to show it. Heck, I have some work to do to show that 10% is even correct!
You would also have to put that same methodology to ALL players. You can't just use it on CObb and Rose, and then throw Manny and Ruth, or Ichiro and Wagner out the window.
To compare Rose's OPS+ number to Cobb you need to adjust it for the year. If you recalculate Pete Rose's 1969 OPS+ using league average numbers from 1917, his OPS shoots to 196. After adjusting for the ball park, it goes down to around 188-190 (compared to Cobb's OPS+ of 209). There are no assumptions made here! This is just a simple recalculation of facts.
Now, the assumptions come. You said it yourself skin2 that there is a 10% competitive advantage during Cobb's time compared to Rose. Personally, I think it's closer to 25-30%, but to be conservative we will use 10%. If you adjust Cobb's OPS+ 10% it drops to 188, which is perfectly in line with Rose's OPS+.
While there is much to be debated, it's clear that this isn't an issue that's "miles" a part, obviously it's closer than people realize.
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." Dr. Seuss
<< <i>I ask again, since you are making this absurd claim, then wouldn't Ichiro and his 110 OPS+ be better than Wagner and his 151 OPS+?? If not, then you can't continue with what you are saying with Cobb. >>
Ichiro's OPS+ comes very close to Wagner when you adjust it for the era, but as I said in the previous thread and as I have been saying here, OPS+ is a useless stat in comparing eras.
<< <i>Also, same with Manny...he would be as good as Ruth in your method. You can't just pick and choose one element of the offense and make your statments(like you are doing with SLG%). You have to look at all elements of hitting, like OPS+ does. If you want to go better than OPS+, then Linear Weights does the trick. SO that is two excellent offensive measures that have an extremely high validity. >>
What have I been doing with SLG%? OPS+ looks at two stats, On Base Percentage and Slugging Percentage and compares it to the league average that year. So if I had a .250 OBP and .300SLG (a terrible season) and the entire league had a .100 OBP and .150 SLG, my OPS+ would be 220 or something. It doesn't mean I had a better year than Ty Cobb ever did, it just means I did better than the competition THAT YEAR.
<< <i>OPS+ does take the environment and league context into account, so that does a pretty good job... >>
I just showed you the OPS+ calculation, there is no "environment and league context" stat that encompasses every era in baseball that OPS+ magically takes into account. It's just an equation.
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." Dr. Seuss
If you feel that way, why are you using this metric (albeit after twisting the stats to suit your contention) to compare Cobb and Rose?
I never knew Ichiro was better than Honus Wagner, or that Manny Ramirez was on the same level as Babe Ruth, LOL! Wow! That is some use of the OPS+ metric!!
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>If you feel that way, why are you using this metric (albeit after twisting the stats to suit your contention) to compare Cobb and Rose?
I never knew Ichiro was better than Honus Wagner, or that Manny Ramirez was on the same level as Babe Ruth, LOL! Wow! That is some use of the OPS+ metric!! >>
I'm showing how pointless it is to say "xxx has an OPS+ of 170 and xxx has an OPS+ of 230 obviously, this person is better!" It should be adjusted for the time you played and even after adjusted there are further considerations to make.
I never said Ichiro was as good as Honus Wagner, nor Ramirez as good as Ruth.
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." Dr. Seuss
<< <i>
<< <i>If you feel that way, why are you using this metric (albeit after twisting the stats to suit your contention) to compare Cobb and Rose?
I never knew Ichiro was better than Honus Wagner, or that Manny Ramirez was on the same level as Babe Ruth, LOL! Wow! That is some use of the OPS+ metric!! >>
I'm showing how pointless it is to say "xxx has an OPS+ of 170 and xxx has an OPS+ of 230" obviously, this person is better! It should be adjusted for the time you played.
I never said Ichiro was as good as Honus Wagner, nor Ramirez as good as Ruth. >>
But if you are using adjusting OPS+ over different eras to demonstrate your contention that Rose is better than Cobb, then to be consistent, you must be using that same method to say that Ichiro is better than Wagner and Manny is as good as Ruth. You can't compare Cobb and Ruth in a vacuum and not have it extended to other examples. If the methodology is going to be valid, it should be valid for other examples and comparisons, too.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>But if you are using adjusting OPS+ over different eras to demonstrate your contention that Rose is better than Cobb, then to be consistent, you must be using that same method to say that Ichiro is better than Wagner and Manny is as good as Ruth. You can't compare Cobb and Ruth in a vacuum and not have it extended to other examples. If the methodology is going to be valid, it should be valid for other examples and comparisons, too. >>
This is the point I'm trying to make: If I had a .250 OBP and .300 SLG (a terrible season by any measure), but the entire league had a .100 OBP and .150 SLG, my OPS+ would be 220 or something.
Since my OPS+ was 220 that year (even though I had only a .250 OBP and .300 SLG) does that mean that season was better than ANY of Ty Cobb's seasons? No.
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." Dr. Seuss
<< <i>
<< <i>But if you are using adjusting OPS+ over different eras to demonstrate your contention that Rose is better than Cobb, then to be consistent, you must be using that same method to say that Ichiro is better than Wagner and Manny is as good as Ruth. You can't compare Cobb and Ruth in a vacuum and not have it extended to other examples. If the methodology is going to be valid, it should be valid for other examples and comparisons, too. >>
This is the point I'm trying to make: If I had a .250 OBP and .300 SLG (a terrible season by any measure), but the entire league had a .100 OBP and .150 SLG, my OPS+ would be 220 or something.
Since my OPS+ was 220 that year (even though I had only a .250 OBP and .300 SLG) does that mean that season was better than ANY of Ty Cobb's seasons? No. >>
So, essentially, you are contending, based on your methodology, that Ichiro is better than Honus Wagner and that Manny Ramirez is, in fact, on equal footing with Babe Ruth.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>So, essentially, you are contending, based on your methodology, that Ichiro is better than Honus Wagner and that Manny Ramirez is, in fact, on equal footing with Babe Ruth. >>
Wagner vs. Ichiro isn't a crazy comparison. There OPS+ is near identical when adjusted for the period played (with a slight edge to Wagner) and there 162 game average stat line is near identical, since Ichiro played during a more difficult era and entered the league at the age of 27, it's possible he would be better than Wagner under similar circumstances. The only thing against Ichiro is that he started to decline at a much earlier age than Wagner did.
For Ruth vs. Manny, I don't think Manny would have been nearly as good without steroids. I don't give an opinion on Bonds or Sosa, so I really don't have one on Manny.
Edited to add: I ran some of Manny's numbers comparing them to league averages when Ruth played. Ruth was better.
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." Dr. Seuss
Your method is assuming that Rose would overcome the environment in hitting in 1917 that caused the league averages to be so low(including lack of HR's), and him still being able to hit 16 home runs and walk 88 times.
You do realize that Rose hitting 16 home runs in 1917 would have led all of MLB by four. His 88 walks would have put him third...and he never finished that high in walks. He obviously never finished that high in HR's.
The chaining shows that the elite hitters carried similar to the other elite hitters all the way through Rose's era, and it was only mainly the league environment that made the numbers fluctuate.
The league environment causes all sorts of jumps in stats where your method just falls flat on its face, as the evidence shows that the hitters rise and fall with that environment.
A player hitting 20 HR's in 1982 is much better than a player hitting 20 HR's in 2001. It was easier to hit HR's in 2001, and easier to accumulate offense in 2001.
Pete Rose's OPS is .784.
Cobb's OPS is .954
That same methodology you did for one season, now do that for each and everyone of Cobb's and Rose's season...
Next, do that for other players too, and see what you come up with.
So you have Rose a better hitter than Cobb, and Ichiro comparable to Wagner.
I have to ask, if Rose and Ichiro are that highly rated, then Schmidt and Brett must be somewhere on MT Olympus, and Miguel Cabrera and Pujols in some other universe.
You have some crazy thoughts that make no sense and are backed up by nothing. You need to run that exercise for all players, and you will see how foolish you really are, lol.
The biggest flaw in this is that OPS+ fluctuations aren't solely the result of the level of competition. Honus Wagner's OPS+ went from 177 in 1909 to 133 in 1910. Was the level of competition 25% harder in 1910? No.
Let me ask you something, please answer honestly. If Major League Baseball TODAY decided to reinstate integration and 38% of the league is no longer eligible to play the sport. Every team now needs to promote all their white AAA and AA players to make up for the lost players. Would the competition go down 10%? I would guess it would go down a lot more.
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." Dr. Seuss
<< <i>The "chaining" shows nothing. You're arguing that since Babe Ruth had a similar OPS+ in year x as in year y, the level of competition was the same, and then Mel Ott had a similar OPS+ in year y as he did in year z, so the level of competition must be the same for year z as in year x.
The biggest flaw in this is that OPS+ fluctuations aren't solely the result of the level of competition. Honus Wagner's OPS+ went from 177 in 1909 to 133 in 1910. Was the level of competition 25% harder in 1910? No.
Let me ask you something, please answer honestly. If Major League Baseball TODAY decided to reinstate integration and 38% of the league is no longer eligible to play the sport. Every team now needs to promote all their white AAA and AA players to make up for the lost players. Would the competition go down 10%? I would guess it would go down a lot more. >>
In 1920, there were roughly half the number of teams there are today (16 vs 31), so you wouldn't need nearly as many callups from the minors as you think, as expansion between then and now created 375 additional roster spots. In fact, you wouldn't need to call up anyone from AAA.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>Great question, but I want to answer that with a question.
How many great non-white players were there back in Cobb's day ? Life was very hard back then. Most guys couldn't afford playing
ball. They had to work their whole lives. Only whites were getting paid to play, along with some latin American players who weren't getting
paid much either. I just don't the lack of leisure time during the week (outside of work) allowed non-whites to get great at their craft.
Colleges weren't taking blacks back in Cobb's day, and the negro leagues weren't paying much, so why should a black ballplayer pursue his skills in a game that wasn't going to put food on the table ? Outside of Satchel Paige, I just don't think there were too many great non-white pitchers back then. Juan Marichal and Bob Gibson came along in the 60's, but Luis Tiant and Vida Blue were the only others really. Just not enough to really convince anyone that the non-white factor applies to Cobb. >>
I'll answer your question if you answer mine.
In the early 1900's the negro leagues and Cuban leagues were thriving. The early 1900's is considered the "Golden Age" of Cuban Baseball. Most people have never heard of Joe Williams, John Henry Lloyd, Pete Hill, and Home Run Johnson, but they are all Baseball Hall of Famers, inducted in the same building as Ruth, Cobb and Wagner. None of them have ever seen a big league pitch, but they very well could've been better than Ruth, Cobb or Wagner. Just because they were never in the big leagues doesn't mean the players were any worse than their white counterparts.
Just because there were fewer talented minority baseball players in the early 1900's doesn't defeat the fact that Major League Baseball was less talented too. Actually, it strengthens that argument.
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." Dr. Seuss
<< <i>In 1920, there were roughly half the number of teams there are today (16 vs 30), so you wouldn't need nearly as many callups from the minors as you think, as expansion between then and now created 350 additional roster spots. In fact, you wouldn't need to call up anyone from AAA. >>
In 1920 the US population was 106 million people with no players coming from other countries. Today the US population is 316 million people with access to other countries for players. So I would argue that the league would have an easier time filling in those roster spots today than 100 years ago.
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." Dr. Seuss
<< <i>
<< <i>In 1920, there were roughly half the number of teams there are today (16 vs 30), so you wouldn't need nearly as many callups from the minors as you think, as expansion between then and now created 350 additional roster spots. In fact, you wouldn't need to call up anyone from AAA. >>
In 1920 the US population was 106 million people with no players coming from other countries. Today the US population is 316 million people with access to other countries for players. So I would argue that the league would have an easier time filling in those roster spots today than 100 years ago. >>
That is true but if you are going to utilize statistics like that, you must also view stats from the modern era when trying to apply them to 1920. Would Pete Rose,, about him even his most avid fan would never consider a power hitter, have led the league in home runs like his modern stats would indicate had we applied them in sum total vs the league back in that era? ? If we're going to use statistical measures like population against players like Cobb, why are we taking modern stats and applying them at face value to that era?
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
You need to put your method to the test across all eras to see how foolish it is. Where exactly are you drawing the competition line? Ted Williams played a good part of his career pre-integration...so yes, the chaining does show that the elite players carried over the same across era's, with only the raw numbers changing due to league environment...while OPS+ does a decent job accounting for the environment change.
I ask again, based on YOUR method that has Rose a better hitter than Cobb, and Ichiro as good as Wagner...then what about all the players from Rose's era that were better than Rose, and the tons of players from Ichriro's era that were better than him?
For quick sake, there are probably 75 hitters that played at least one year the last 15 years that are better hitters than Ichiro.
There are probably 35 hitters that played at least one year in the 1970's that are better hitters than Rose.
That would make all those hitters better than Cobb and Wagner. Since many of them will dwarf Cobb(since they are so far better than Rose and Ichiro), that means many of those guys were also better hitters than Ruth and Ted Williams based on your method...as both those guys played pre-integration as well.
Ted Williams played with many players who played with Ruth and are from the same pre integration era.
Also, if all those players are better hitters than Ruth and Williams, then that makes them better than MIckey Mantle, because when Ted Williams played with Mantle, he hit as well as Mantle did.
Since they are better than Mickey Mantle...well shoot, we are back to the era of Rose
You have a lot of work to do buddy...all because in your own distorted way you are trying to make Ichiro look better than he really was. Nice try though. You just made yourself look really bad.
1 Babe Ruth
2 Ty Cobb
3 Barry Bonds
4 Willie Mays
5 Hank Aaron
6 Ted Williams
7 Stan Musial
8 Tris Speaker
9 Honus Wagner
10 Rogers Hornsby
11 Eddie Collins
12 Mickey Mantle
13 Alex Rodriguez
14 Lou Gehrig
15 Frank Robinson
16 Rickey Henderson
17 Joe Morgan
18 Mel Ott
19 Nap Lajoie
20 Jimmie Foxx
Why are half of these players from pre-integration? Was there just some sort of baseball golden age of talent with all of our best players that happened to come in the early 1900's? It makes no sense. There were thousands of fewer baseball players in the early 1900's, but half of our best players came from this period. We should theoretically see more players of today on this list because the talent pool is so much larger, but that's not we see at all. Why are the majority of our best players from before most of us were born?
Also, of the 10 post-integration players on this list, 7 of them are minorities.
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." Dr. Seuss
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." Dr. Seuss
<< <i>As of now, David Price is the only black pitcher who rates high in Major League Baseball. >>
I hope you don't mind if I use ESPN Fantasy Player Rater to determine the best pitchers this season:
1 Clayton Kershaw
2 Johnny Cueto
3 Adam Wainwright
4 Masahiro Tanaka
5 Felix Hernandez
6 Julio Teheran
7 Chris Sale
8 Corey Kluber
9 David Price
10 Garrett Richards
11 Dallas Keuchel
12 Sonny Gray
13 Yu Darvish
14 Scott Kazmir
15 Henderson Alvarez
16 Rick Porcello
17 Max Scherzer
18 Madison Bumgarner
19 Jordan Zimmermann
20 Tyson Ross
Of the 20, 8 of them would be ineligible to play (or 40%). If the league lost 40% of it's pitchers and replaced them with minor league players, the league would be affected.
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." Dr. Seuss
<< <i>That is true but if you are going to utilize statistics like that, you must also view stats from the modern era when trying to apply them to 1920. Would Pete Rose,, about him even his most avid fan would never consider a power hitter, have led the league in home runs like his modern stats would indicate had we applied them in sum total vs the league back in that era? ? If we're going to use statistical measures like population against players like Cobb, why are we taking modern stats and applying them at face value to that era? >>
Honest question, why wouldn't Pete Rose continue to hit 15-20 home runs a season? Assuming he's just as big as he was when he played in the 60's and 70's, he could've led the league in home runs. That's how bad the competition was then. I'm assuming the pitchers in 1920 didn't have some magical pitch that prevented home runs? Perhaps it was lost in to the ages? Is there any valid argument to assume Pete Rose couldn't hit home runs in the 1920's?
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." Dr. Seuss