<< <i>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. >>
Skin2, you're not understanding my argument. I'm not saying Pete Rose deserves a top 5 spot on the all-time hitters list (or even top 10). I'm saying he's better than Ty Cobb. Look at the top 20 hitters list I provided above. Most people wouldn't argue too much with the 20 names on the list. Of the 20 names, 10 of them are pre-integration, 6 are post integration, 3 played in the 70's and 80's while only 1 is a hitter of today. We clearly see a downward trend in "great" hitters. Does that make sense? No. There are more players today; bigger, faster and stronger players. We should see a LOT more great players, but we don't. The reason? The competition today is so much more difficult.
<< <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? >>
I know that kind of assumption (that Pete Rose would have been a power hitting slugging, even leading the league in HRs had he played back in Cobb's era) is significant to your argument, but that kind of assumption is misguided speculation at best and is based on no credible evidence. If you truly believe that, then no amount of factual evidence and believable extrapolation (like that Skin has provided linking players from different eras) will change your mind. Suffice to say that HRs were MUCH TOUGHER to hit back in Cobb's era than in the 1960s-1980s (which is why hitting 25 HRs in 1920 is much more impressive than hitting 25 HRs in 1970, which is even a much more impressive feat than hitting 25 HRs in 2010) and that if Rose were transported back to Cobb's era, I'd surmise that he'd have difficulty hitting more than a handful of home runs in any given season, which of course skews your entire argument, so I understand why you believe Rose would have led the league in homers and be in top 3 in walks, etc..
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.
No. If we cut the number of teams today to 16, would we release all the black and Hispanic players? No. 40% of the league would still be made up of minorities. The number of teams play no part in this.
<< <i>I know that kind of assumption (that Pete Rose would have been a power hitting slugging, even leading the league in HRs he played back in Cobb's era) is significant to your argument, but that kind of assumption is misguided speculation at best and is based on no credible evidence. If you truly believe that, then no amount of factual evidence and believable extrapolation (like that Skin has provided linking players from different eras) will change your mind. Suffice to say that HRs were MUCH TOUGHER to hit back in Cobb's era than in the 1960s-1980s (which is why hitting 25 HRs in 1970 is a much more impressive feat than hitting 25 HRs than even in 2010) and that if Rose were transported back to Cobb's era, I'd surmise that he's have difficulty hitting more than a handful of home runs in any given season, which of course skews your entire argument, so I understand why you believe Rose would have led the league in homers and be in top 3 in walks, etc.. >>
Pete Rose's OPS+ was not held together by his "power hitting." I think we can all agree on that. If 15 home runs turned into 15 doubles, it would do little to affect his overall OPS+. Especially when you consider the amount of additional hits he would have accumulated from the weaker pitching.
On a side note. Why were home runs so much harder to hit in the 1920's? Does it speak to the conditions or the level of hitting? Or is it attributed to style of play. Obviously it wasn't the ball since Ruth was able to accomplish it, it couldn't have been the field dimensions or pitching. So what was it?
Also, I guess we're assuming Rose's eye sight will decline when hitting in the 1920's, because he clearly will not draw as many walks? What type of evidence do you have to support any of these claims?
So let's flip it around. Since Cobb led the league with 9 homeruns in 1909, would he have led the league in 2014? No. He wouldn't have hit 40 or 50 home runs. Probably 4 or 5 (if that).
So Rose's stats are transferrable to Cobb's era but Cobb's aren't transferrable to Rose's era? Simply put, the gap in their OPS+ is too much for Rose to overcome. Using your methodology to put Ichiro on the level of Honus Wagner or Manny Ramirez to Babe Ruth is too bizarre to lend any credence to, imo.
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 Rose's stats are transferrable to Cobb's era but Cobb's aren't transferrable to Rose's era? Simply put, the gap in their OPS+ is too much for Rose to overcome. Using your methodology to put Ichiro on the level of Honus Wagner or Manny Ramirez to Babe Ruth is too bizarre to lend any credence to, imo. >>
Both stats are transferrable. If Cobb usually hits 5-10 home runs a year, he'll probably do that today (maybe less with the stronger pitching of today) and if Rose hits 10-15 home runs a year he'll probably be able to do that back then too (probably a bit more with weaken pitching). There's absolutely no evidence to suggest players will have a harder time hitting home runs other than "players back then just weren't good enough to."
The gap between Rose's and Cobb's OPS+ is minimal once adjust for their respective eras played.
<< <i>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 actually agree with this. Not so much from today, but more from the 70's/80's/early 90's as well.
I also agree that Rose's size could put him at being a good power hitter in 1908. However, due to the ball and the park size, even the bigger stronger guys back then couldn't more than 16 home runs...and I doubt rose would have. You say he would have...but with the mush ball and big ballparks, he may have also ended up being a .275 hitter who just flew out a lot too.
The problem lies in your assertion that Rose's 118 OPS+is better than Cobb's 168. If that is true, then where on earth would Schmidt's 147 OPS+ put him? Or if Ichiro's 110 is better than Wagner's 150, where on earth does Pujols 163 put him? If you are going to use that method you used, then you have to use it on all the guys, and not just pick and choose.
Secondly, where are you drawing the line? Ted Williams played basically in the same era as Ruth, Gehrig, Ott, Foxx, Hornsby, Dimaggio, and his OPS+ 200 seasons are the same as Ruth's...so they carry over well. Cobb carried over well with those guys previous to that!
We had the luxury of seeing Ted Williams play Post War and Post integration, and he was STILL the best hitter in MLB. He bettered Mantle, Mays, Aaron...and he was an old man doing it!
Mantle, Mays, Aaron better Schmidt, Brett, Reggie, who all bettered Roses. So that throws a lot of what you are saying out the window.
In the end, what ends up happening is that based on your methodology, you would be doing the complete opposite and having all the best players playing now, and just relegating previous generations to nothings...and the chaining proves that they most certainly moved well with the elite players to the next generations.
If Rose's 118 OPS+ puts him better than Cobb'S 168....then Julio Franco with a 111 OPS+ who played in a generation AFTER Rose, would also be of Cobb's equal. If you are not ready to say that, then your whole notion is completely thrown out the window.
We have two players, Player A and Player B. Both players played during different times.
In the year xxxx Player A has a OBP and SLG of .250 and .300 respectively. The league he plays in is filled with minor league caliber hitters and the league average OBP and SLG was .100 and .150 respectively, giving Player A an OPS+ of 220 (estimate).
In the year yyyy Player B has a OBP and SLG of .350 and .500 respectively. The league he plays in is filled with major league caliber hitters and the league average OBP and SLG was .300 and .400 respectively, giving Player B an OPS+ of 165 (estimate).
Which player is better?
You would say Player A because the magical OPS+ stat is bigger. I say it's difficult to tell, because if Player B was playing in Player A's league, Player B would've had a better OPS+.
None of what you just posed has merit, as pre war/pre integration did not have minor league talent compared to 1950's and on, and the fact that you think that shows your ignorance on the subject. You have a loooong way to prove that pre integration was minor league talen compared to post integration.
Cobb did as well as Hornsby/Ruth when they played together. Hornsby did as well as Gehrig when they played together. Gherig did as well as Foxx when they played together. Ted Williams did as well as Foxx when they played togeter. Williams pre integration era was the same as Ruth's era. Williams dominated his era.
If Williams and Ruth dominated 'minor league' talent pre integration...then how on earth did Ted Williams lead a league in OPS+ in 1957 filled with Mays, Aaron, Mantle, etc...when he was an old man, and they were supposedly leap years better in talent than the Pre integration years?
You keep dodging the pertinent question....
The problem lies in your assertion that Rose's 118 OPS+is better than Cobb's 168. If that is true, then where on earth would Schmidt's 147 OPS+ put him? Or if Ichiro's 110 is better than Wagner's 150, where on earth does Pujols 163 put him? If you are going to use that method you used, then you have to use it on all the guys, and not just pick and choose.
If Rose's 118 OPS+ puts him better than Cobb'S 168....then Julio Franco with a 111 OPS+ who played in a generation AFTER Rose, would also be of Cobb's equal. If you are not ready to say that, then your whole notion is completely thrown out the window.
<< <i>I also agree that Rose's size could put him at being a good power hitter in 1908. However, due to the ball and the park size, even the bigger stronger guys back then couldn't more than 16 home runs...and I doubt rose would have. You say he would have...but with the mush ball and big ballparks, he may have also ended up being a .275 hitter who just flew out a lot too. >>
I'm not sure I get the logic of a career .303 playing in a league with weaker pitching and weaker defense hitting .275, but I guess the mushy ball is too hard for people to hit. Makes sense.
<< <i>The problem lies in your assertion that Rose's 118 OPS+is better than Cobb's 168. If that is true, then where on earth would Schmidt's 147 OPS+ put him? Or if Ichiro's 110 is better than Wagner's 150, where on earth does Pujols 163 put him? If you are going to use that method you used, then you have to use it on all the guys, and not just pick and choose. >>
I never said anyone's OPS+ was "better" than anyone else's. I simply adjusted the stat for the era and showed that they are more comparable than people may think. I think the "20 Best Hitters of All-Time" list needs to change drastically. The more recent generations should always occupy the majority of the list and then decline with older generations. Right now we see the opposite. The era adjusted OPS+ stat should be applied to everyone and I'm sure you'll see names like Schmidt and Brett on the list over players like Nap Lajoie and Mel Ott.
<< <i>Secondly, where are you drawing the line? Ted Williams played basically in the same era as Ruth, Gehrig, Ott, Foxx, Hornsby, Dimaggio, and his OPS+ 200 seasons are the same as Ruth's...so they carry over well. Cobb carried over well with those guys previous to that! >>
When Williams retired there were less than a handful of minorities in the league. No where near the 38% today. There is no "cut-off," baseball has progressively become more and more competitive. It's impossible to see the change when comparing 1947 with 1949, but when comparing 1947 with 2014 it's pretty plain to see.
<< <i>We had the luxury of seeing Ted Williams play Post War and Post integration, and he was STILL the best hitter in MLB. He bettered Mantle, Mays, Aaron...and he was an old man doing it! >>
This just goes to show Ted was one of the best hitters ever. Something I won't argue!
<< <i>Mantle, Mays, Aaron better Schmidt, Brett, Reggie, who all bettered Roses. So that throws a lot of what you are saying out the window. >>
How so? I never said Rose was better than Mantle, Mays, Aaron, Schmidt, Brett or Reggie. I said Pete Rose was better than Ty Cobb. The six players you just named were all better than Cobb too in my opinion.
<< <i>In the end, what ends up happening is that based on your methodology, you would be doing the complete opposite and having all the best players playing now, and just relegating previous generations to nothings...and the chaining proves that they most certainly moved well with the elite players to the next generations. >>
I wouldn't say "nothings" they were all great players. But YES YES YES! This is exactly what I'm arguing and it makes sense! There are more players playing now then in 1930 so shouldn't there be more "All-Time Greats?" Yes. But for some reason there aren't. Why were there more "great" players per person in 1930 than in 2014? Are players today worse? No. Most people would agree they're better overall. So why on earth would there be more great players per person in 1930?!?!?!?! It makes absolutely no sense!
I wouldn't say "nothings" they were all great players. But YES YES YES! This is exactly what I'm arguing and it makes sense! There are more players playing now then in 1930 so shouldn't there be more "All-Time Greats?" Yes. But for some reason there aren't. Why were there more "great" players per person in 1930 than in 2014? Are players today worse? No. Most people would agree they're better overall. So why on earth would there be more great players per person in 1930?!?!?!?! It makes absolutely no sense! >>
I've been saying the same thing for years....but you are taking it way too far.
Like I said, if Rose's 118 OPS+ is better than Cobb's 168 due to the era...then that puts Julio Franco's 111(who played in an even later era) as about as good as Cobb. You really believe that?
You aren't understanding the chaining, and I'm not going to write a book on here to explain it in greater detail...but that pretty much shows that the OPS+ that Cobb put up, and compared to his league mates, and comparing them to their league mates through the years, you see that they chained pretty much the same.
I actually did the population study, compared the available viable MLB players from 1908 to 1980, used birth rates, took into account immigration(of adults mostly), and I also took into account the number of teams. You can't discount the 16 teams. You also can't discount that baseball was the prominent sport back then drawing the best athletes, while the last 20 years the best athletes have gone to other sports.
You are also overestimating the foreign impact. Players from south of the border have been around. The pacific rim players that have been better than league average for more than five years can be counted on two hands, so don't overestimate them.
Also have to include the lifestyle of children that has been more sedentary the last 25 years compared to the 25 previous years.
An argument can be made that the players from the 70's/80's had the highest level of competition taking all that into account...and with expansion and all the above, better than now. Probably easily better than now.
<< <i>You keep dodging the pertinent question.... >>
I've answered just about every question you have posed, but you haven't answered my last eight......
It would make sense that Cobb played as well as Ruth and Ruth played as well as Gehrig etc. etc. etc.
Pitchers and hitters have been progressing at a very similar rate (hitters have been progressing through the years a bit quicker). So when Cobb played, he was facing less challenging pitchers than Ruth and then Ruth faced less challenging pitchers than Gehrig and so on. So when we reach say Ted Williams, the OPS+ may stay the same, because the league is getting better as whole! Pitchers are getting better as well as hitters. Just because Ted Williams could get a 200 OPS+ one year and Ty Cobb did it in another does not mean the two face similar levels of competition.
If hitters and pitchers progress at an even pace OPS+ won't change from one era to another, but it doesn't mean hitters aren't getting better and pitchers are getting better. The whole "chaining" thing is absolutely pointless.
What makes no sense though is any methodology that argues that Julio Franco is as as good as Ty Cobb (yours does) or that ichiro is better than Honus Wagner or that Manny Ramirez is as good as Babe Ruth in any era, with any rational interpretation of statistics.
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>Like I said, if Rose's 118 OPS+ is better than Cobb's 168 due to the era...then that puts Julio Franco's 111(who played in an even later era) as about as good as Cobb. You really believe that? >>
No, because even adjusted for the era Julio Franco's OPS+ isn't greater than Cobb's. But I obviously discount it for other reasons as well.
<< <i>You aren't understanding the chaining, and I'm not going to write a book on here to explain it in greater detail...but that pretty much shows that the OPS+ that Cobb put up, and compared to his league mates, and comparing them to their league mates through the years, you see that they chained pretty much the same. >>
I think you're not understanding why the chaining is pointless.
>>
I actually did the population study, compared the available viable MLB players from 1908 to 1980, used birth rates, took into account immigration(of adults mostly), and I also took into account the number of teams. You can't discount the 16 teams. You also can't discount that baseball was the prominent sport back then drawing the best athletes, while the last 20 years the best athletes have gone to other sports.
You are also overestimating the foreign impact. Players from south of the border have been around. The pacific rim players that have been better than league average for more than five years can be counted on two hands, so don't overestimate them. >>
The impact of "our best athletes no longer play baseball" is greatly overstated in my opinion. While a small percentage of white athletes go to football, the percentage of those athletes who would have been viable baseball players is immaterial. The number of African American players has significantly decreased (as an overall percentage) over the past 40 years or so, but the number has been more than covered by Latino players and Asian players.
<< <i>An argument can be made that the players from the 70's/80's had the highest level of competition taking all that into account...and with expansion and all the above, better than now. Probably easily better than now. >>
I think the height of the steroid era is universally accepted as the period with the "highest level of competition" for obvious reasons. I think competition had steadily rose and peaked there only to decline a bit to today (which I believe is still at a higher level than before the steroid era).
<< <i>What makes no sense though is any methodology that argues that Julio Franco is as as good as Ty Cobb (yours does) or that ichiro is better than Honus Wagner or that Manny Ramirez is as good as Babe Ruth in any era, with any rational interpretation of statistics. >>
<< <i>What makes no sense though is any methodology that argues that Julio Franco is as as good as Ty Cobb (yours does) or that ichiro is better than Honus Wagner or that Manny Ramirez is as good as Babe Ruth in any era, with any rational interpretation of statistics. >>
I literally said none of this. >>
You didn't have to. Your fundamentally flawed methodology does for you. You can't pick and choose to whom you apply it.
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>What makes no sense though is any methodology that argues that Julio Franco is as as good as Ty Cobb (yours does) or that ichiro is better than Honus Wagner or that Manny Ramirez is as good as Babe Ruth in any era, with any rational interpretation of statistics. >>
I literally said none of this. >>
You didn't have to. Your fundamentally flawed methodology does for you. You can't pick and choose to whom you apply it. >>
Sorry, I should have specified. I literally said the none of this and my methodology backs it up.
<< <i>What makes no sense though is any methodology that argues that Julio Franco is as as good as Ty Cobb (yours does) or that ichiro is better than Honus Wagner or that Manny Ramirez is as good as Babe Ruth in any era, with any rational interpretation of statistics. >>
I literally said none of this. >>
You kind of did.
Based on your premise, Rose's 118 OPs+ is better than Cobb's 168 due to tougher era. You claim that this current era is even tougher than Rose's, then that means Paul Konerko's 119 OPS+, and Luis Gonzalez 119 OPS+ are better than both Rose and Cobb.
So if Ichiro is as good as Wagner, and almost as good as Cobb in your methodology, and both Konerko and Luis Gonzalez(among many others) are better than Ichiro, Wagner, and Cobb...then who from the Pre War era IS better than Konerko or Luis Gonzalez if Cobb is not??
...and no, it is not overstated that the best athletes have gone to other sports...they simply have. The decade of the 2000's, with league expansion, less talented kids, less baseball players to draw from, more elite players going to other sports, is worse than 1980's when all those were better than now.
<< <i>Based on your premise, Rose's 118 OPs+ is better than Cobb's 168 due to tougher era. You claim that this current era is even tougher than Rose's, then that means Paul Konerko's 119 OPS+, and Luis Gonzalez 119 OPS+ are better than both Rose and Cobb. >>
No. I said that Rose's OPS+ is much closer to Cobb's than people believe. I never said it was "better." Like I have said for I think 6 times now, OPS+ isn't a magical stat that tells you who is "better" or worse. It's a good measure to determine how dominant a player was a single point in time. If you adjust Konerko's and Gonzalez's OPS+ to when Cobb played, they would obviously be a bit higher, and at a comparable level to Cobb. But does that mean they are better than Cobb? No. Does that mean they are comparable players even? Not necessarily. Hopefully people put in a little more effort in comparing which player is "better" than one arbitrary number. I know I do.
<< <i>...and no, it is not overstated that the best athletes have gone to other sports...they simply have. The decade of the 2000's, with league expansion, less talented kids, less baseball players to draw from, more elite players going to other sports, is worse than 1980's when all those were better than now. >>
No. I said that Rose's OPS+ is much closer to Cobb's than people believe. I never said it was "better."
No, actually you did. From one of your previous posts:
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.
118>115
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>Based on your premise, Rose's 118 OPs+ is better than Cobb's 168 due to tougher era. You claim that this current era is even tougher than Rose's, then that means Paul Konerko's 119 OPS+, and Luis Gonzalez 119 OPS+ are better than both Rose and Cobb. >>
No. I said that Rose's OPS+ is much closer to Cobb's than people believe. I never said it was "better." Like I have said for I think 6 times now, OPS+ isn't a magical stat that tells you who is "better" or worse. It's a good measure to determine how dominant a player was a single point in time. If you adjust Konerko's and Gonzalez's OPS+ to when Cobb played, they would obviously be a bit higher, and at a comparable level to Cobb. But does that mean they are better than Cobb? No. Does that mean they are comparable players even? Not necessarily. Hopefully people put in a little more effort in comparing which player is "better" than one arbitrary number. I know I do.
<< <i>...and no, it is not overstated that the best athletes have gone to other sports...they simply have. The decade of the 2000's, with league expansion, less talented kids, less baseball players to draw from, more elite players going to other sports, is worse than 1980's when all those were better than now. >>
It absolutely is. >>
Your methodology puts them as better than Cobb. By all means, tell us the number you use? Is it that same useless stuff you used to try and make Ichiro look better than the accurate measurements show? You do realize that any 'number' you use is already valued properly in OPS+.
If you want to use another measure, then use Adjusted Batter Runs from Linear weights, which weighs each offensive event properly.
Cobb 1,038 Rose 394 L. Gonzalez 274 Konerko 227 Ichiro 125
So here, Rose's long career helps him(as it should). This measurement isn't as good as Win Probability Added, but they don't have such detailed information for pre war years. They do have it for all years after...and it says the same thing, that OPS+ and Adjusted Batter runs correlates extremely well to the play by play info...and it shows that Ichiro is the most overrated hitter in the history of the game.
Based on your premise that the generations keep getting better and better, then with this even more accurate measurement, if Rose is indeed better than Cobb, then considering your theory on better talent, then that puts Luis Gonzalez and Konerko in the ballpark as Cobb as well(since they played two generations after Rose).
PS. You claimed in another thread a while back that Ichiro was as good a hitter as Rose. Here you claim Rose better than Cobb, which means you belive Ichiro is better than Cobb...and the whole reason why you are saying Rose is, because you are an Ichiro homer.
So, no back tracking. Based on YOUR premise that would make Konerko and Luis Gonzalez(among others) better than Cobb, because both were better hitters than Ichiro.
<< <i>What are you talking about Skin? You do realize Ichiro only had averaged 7 points less in OPS+ than Pete Rose in a 162 game season? Pete Rose is arguably one of the greatest hitters in the history in the game and Ichiro is nearly IDENTICAL in every regard in hitting. How can someone who is neck-and-neck with the greatest hitter ever be considered "overrated"?
I honestly cannot see how Ichiro is overrated. >>
The above is your quote, jhs5120 claiming Ichiro was a good a hitter as Rose. Folks, this is the ENTIRE reason why this guy is saying all this nonsense, such as Rose being better than Cobb....because in his mind, that would also put Ichiro as being better than Cobb...which would be a neat trick because Ichiro isn't even as good as Luis Gonzalez or Konerko. Would that then make those two the best hitters ever? lol.
<< <i>No, actually you did. From one of your previous posts:
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.
118>115 >>
Geez Tim, I said it would be "closer to 115, right with Rose." I never said it was better. As I already stated, era adjusted OPS+ is an estimate (which is why I said "close"). If we're nitpicking over three OPS+ points in an adjusted total then there really is no point in this.
<< <i>No, actually you did. From one of your previous posts:
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.
118>115 >>
Geez Tim, I said it would be "closer to 115, right with Rose." I never said it was better. As I already stated, era adjusted OPS+ is an estimate (which is why I said "close"). If we're nitpicking over three OPS+ points in an adjusted total then there really is no point in this. >>
Why worry about nitpicking on "three" adjusted OPS+ points, when you just erased 50 out of thin air?
Your 'adjusted' total would put Konerko and Luis Gonzalez as better than Cobb based on your premise.
Oh, and above is another measurement that is used to say the same thing, so no more "just OPS+" defense from you...even though OPS+ does the trick just fine...and it would be just nitpicking between the best measurements
And again, your whole point is trying to get Ichiro higher than he really is. You claimed Ichiro was as good as Rose.
<< <i>Why worry about nitpicking on "three" adjusted OPS+ points, when you just erased 50 out of thin air?
Your 'adjusted' total would put Konerko and Luis Gonzalez as better than Cobb based on your premise.
Oh, and above is another measurement that is used to say the same thing, so no more "just OPS+" defense from you...even though OPS+ does the trick just fine...and it would be just nitpicking between the best measurements
And again, your whole point is trying to get Ichiro higher than he really is. You claimed Ichiro was as good as Rose. >>
I honestly have no idea what you're talking about any more. You made some ridiculous claim regarding OPS+ and "chaining" on page 9. I explained why your chaining was ridiculous and why OPS+ is a terrible stat to compare eras and now that somehow turned into me trying to make Ichiro look better than he does? I don't get it.
If you are one to believe OPS+ is the only stat worth measuring, Luis Gonzalez and Paul Konerko were very similar than Ty Cobb. If you look at any other stat you will understand that OPS+ should not be the only stat to use. I honestly I don't know what's difficult about that to understand.
OPS+ stat works fine here. The only thing better would be adjusted batter runs(as pointed out above).
The chaining was waay over your head, so no need to even go back there.
What is fascinating is how you used some formula to claim that Rose was better than Cobb. However, unless you are willing to say that Konerko and Luis Gonzalez are also better(based on YOUR premise), then you are the one not making sense.
Actually, if you do say that those guys were better than Cobb, then you aren't making sense there either.
f you want to use another measure, then use Adjusted Batter Runs from Linear weights, which weighs each offensive event properly.
Cobb 1,038 Rose 394 L. Gonzalez 274 Konerko 227 Ichiro 125
So here, Rose's long career helps him(as it should). This measurement isn't as good as Win Probability Added, but they don't have such detailed information for pre war years. They do have it for all years after...and it says the same thing, that OPS+ and Adjusted Batter runs correlates extremely well to the play by play info...and it shows that Ichiro is the most overrated hitter in the history of the game.
Based on your premise that the generations keep getting better and better, then with this even more accurate measurement, if Rose is indeed better than Cobb, then considering your theory on better talent, then that puts Luis Gonzalez and Konerko in the ballpark as Cobb as well(since they played two generations after Rose).
PS. You claimed in another thread a while back that Ichiro was as good a hitter as Rose. Here you claim Rose better than Cobb, which means you belive Ichiro is better than Cobb...and the whole reason why you are saying Rose is, because you are an Ichiro homer.
So, no back tracking. Based on YOUR premise that would make Konerko and Luis Gonzalez(among others) better than Cobb, because both were better hitters than Ichiro.
<< <i>No, actually you did. From one of your previous posts:
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.
118>115 >>
Geez Tim, I said it would be "closer to 115, right with Rose." I never said it was better. As I already stated, era adjusted OPS+ is an estimate (which is why I said "close"). If we're nitpicking over three OPS+ points in an adjusted total then there really is no point in this. >>
3 points? You subtracted off 53 points, LOL! (And in contrast to your claim, put Rose at a better career OPS+)
Your statement comparing Rose and Ichiro blows up your entire argument, really--no matter what methodology you utilize, any formula or fuzzy math upon which Paul Konerko is a peer to Ty Cobb is ludicrous. And you cannot support your assessment above without ackowledging that comparison, too. The fancy footwork has painted you into the proverbial corner..
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.
Comments
<< <i>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. >>
Skin2, you're not understanding my argument. I'm not saying Pete Rose deserves a top 5 spot on the all-time hitters list (or even top 10). I'm saying he's better than Ty Cobb. Look at the top 20 hitters list I provided above. Most people wouldn't argue too much with the 20 names on the list. Of the 20 names, 10 of them are pre-integration, 6 are post integration, 3 played in the 70's and 80's while only 1 is a hitter of today. We clearly see a downward trend in "great" hitters. Does that make sense? No. There are more players today; bigger, faster and stronger players. We should see a LOT more great players, but we don't. The reason? The competition today is so much more difficult.
"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>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? >>
I know that kind of assumption (that Pete Rose would have been a power hitting slugging, even leading the league in HRs had he played back in Cobb's era) is significant to your argument, but that kind of assumption is misguided speculation at best and is based on no credible evidence. If you truly believe that, then no amount of factual evidence and believable extrapolation (like that Skin has provided linking players from different eras) will change your mind. Suffice to say that HRs were MUCH TOUGHER to hit back in Cobb's era than in the 1960s-1980s (which is why hitting 25 HRs in 1920 is much more impressive than hitting 25 HRs in 1970, which is even a much more impressive feat than hitting 25 HRs in 2010) and that if Rose were transported back to Cobb's era, I'd surmise that he'd have difficulty hitting more than a handful of home runs in any given season, which of course skews your entire argument, so I understand why you believe Rose would have led the league in homers and be in top 3 in walks, etc..
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>40% of pitchers are gone in Cobb's time.
45% of the teams are gone in Cobb's time.
Over 50% of the great pitchers today are white.
Thus no difference. >>
No. If we cut the number of teams today to 16, would we release all the black and Hispanic players? No. 40% of the league would still be made up of minorities. The number of teams play no part in this.
"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 know that kind of assumption (that Pete Rose would have been a power hitting slugging, even leading the league in HRs he played back in Cobb's era) is significant to your argument, but that kind of assumption is misguided speculation at best and is based on no credible evidence. If you truly believe that, then no amount of factual evidence and believable extrapolation (like that Skin has provided linking players from different eras) will change your mind. Suffice to say that HRs were MUCH TOUGHER to hit back in Cobb's era than in the 1960s-1980s (which is why hitting 25 HRs in 1970 is a much more impressive feat than hitting 25 HRs than even in 2010) and that if Rose were transported back to Cobb's era, I'd surmise that he's have difficulty hitting more than a handful of home runs in any given season, which of course skews your entire argument, so I understand why you believe Rose would have led the league in homers and be in top 3 in walks, etc.. >>
Pete Rose's OPS+ was not held together by his "power hitting." I think we can all agree on that. If 15 home runs turned into 15 doubles, it would do little to affect his overall OPS+. Especially when you consider the amount of additional hits he would have accumulated from the weaker pitching.
On a side note. Why were home runs so much harder to hit in the 1920's? Does it speak to the conditions or the level of hitting? Or is it attributed to style of play. Obviously it wasn't the ball since Ruth was able to accomplish it, it couldn't have been the field dimensions or pitching. So what was it?
Also, I guess we're assuming Rose's eye sight will decline when hitting in the 1920's, because he clearly will not draw as many walks? What type of evidence do you have to support any of these claims?
So let's flip it around. Since Cobb led the league with 9 homeruns in 1909, would he have led the league in 2014? No. He wouldn't have hit 40 or 50 home runs. Probably 4 or 5 (if that).
"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
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 Rose's stats are transferrable to Cobb's era but Cobb's aren't transferrable to Rose's era? Simply put, the gap in their OPS+ is too much for Rose to overcome. Using your methodology to put Ichiro on the level of Honus Wagner or Manny Ramirez to Babe Ruth is too bizarre to lend any credence to, imo. >>
Both stats are transferrable. If Cobb usually hits 5-10 home runs a year, he'll probably do that today (maybe less with the stronger pitching of today) and if Rose hits 10-15 home runs a year he'll probably be able to do that back then too (probably a bit more with weaken pitching). There's absolutely no evidence to suggest players will have a harder time hitting home runs other than "players back then just weren't good enough to."
The gap between Rose's and Cobb's OPS+ is minimal once adjust for their respective eras played.
"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>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 actually agree with this. Not so much from today, but more from the 70's/80's/early 90's as well.
I also agree that Rose's size could put him at being a good power hitter in 1908. However, due to the ball and the park size, even the bigger stronger guys back then couldn't more than 16 home runs...and I doubt rose would have. You say he would have...but with the mush ball and big ballparks, he may have also ended up being a .275 hitter who just flew out a lot too.
The problem lies in your assertion that Rose's 118 OPS+is better than Cobb's 168. If that is true, then where on earth would Schmidt's 147 OPS+ put him? Or if Ichiro's 110 is better than Wagner's 150, where on earth does Pujols 163 put him? If you are going to use that method you used, then you have to use it on all the guys, and not just pick and choose.
Secondly, where are you drawing the line? Ted Williams played basically in the same era as Ruth, Gehrig, Ott, Foxx, Hornsby, Dimaggio, and his OPS+ 200 seasons are the same as Ruth's...so they carry over well. Cobb carried over well with those guys previous to that!
We had the luxury of seeing Ted Williams play Post War and Post integration, and he was STILL the best hitter in MLB. He bettered Mantle, Mays, Aaron...and he was an old man doing it!
Mantle, Mays, Aaron better Schmidt, Brett, Reggie, who all bettered Roses. So that throws a lot of what you are saying out the window.
In the end, what ends up happening is that based on your methodology, you would be doing the complete opposite and having all the best players playing now, and just relegating previous generations to nothings...and the chaining proves that they most certainly moved well with the elite players to the next generations.
If Rose's 118 OPS+ puts him better than Cobb'S 168....then Julio Franco with a 111 OPS+ who played in a generation AFTER Rose, would also be of Cobb's equal. If you are not ready to say that, then your whole notion is completely thrown out the window.
We have two players, Player A and Player B. Both players played during different times.
In the year xxxx Player A has a OBP and SLG of .250 and .300 respectively. The league he plays in is filled with minor league caliber hitters and the league average OBP and SLG was .100 and .150 respectively, giving Player A an OPS+ of 220 (estimate).
In the year yyyy Player B has a OBP and SLG of .350 and .500 respectively. The league he plays in is filled with major league caliber hitters and the league average OBP and SLG was .300 and .400 respectively, giving Player B an OPS+ of 165 (estimate).
Which player is better?
You would say Player A because the magical OPS+ stat is bigger. I say it's difficult to tell, because if Player B was playing in Player A's league, Player B would've had a better OPS+.
"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
Cobb did as well as Hornsby/Ruth when they played together. Hornsby did as well as Gehrig when they played together. Gherig did as well as Foxx when they played together. Ted Williams did as well as Foxx when they played togeter. Williams pre integration era was the same as Ruth's era. Williams dominated his era.
If Williams and Ruth dominated 'minor league' talent pre integration...then how on earth did Ted Williams lead a league in OPS+ in 1957 filled with Mays, Aaron, Mantle, etc...when he was an old man, and they were supposedly leap years better in talent than the Pre integration years?
You keep dodging the pertinent question....
The problem lies in your assertion that Rose's 118 OPS+is better than Cobb's 168. If that is true, then where on earth would Schmidt's 147 OPS+ put him? Or if Ichiro's 110 is better than Wagner's 150, where on earth does Pujols 163 put him? If you are going to use that method you used, then you have to use it on all the guys, and not just pick and choose.
If Rose's 118 OPS+ puts him better than Cobb'S 168....then Julio Franco with a 111 OPS+ who played in a generation AFTER Rose, would also be of Cobb's equal. If you are not ready to say that, then your whole notion is completely thrown out the window.
Waiting for this answer....
<< <i>I also agree that Rose's size could put him at being a good power hitter in 1908. However, due to the ball and the park size, even the bigger stronger guys back then couldn't more than 16 home runs...and I doubt rose would have. You say he would have...but with the mush ball and big ballparks, he may have also ended up being a .275 hitter who just flew out a lot too. >>
I'm not sure I get the logic of a career .303 playing in a league with weaker pitching and weaker defense hitting .275, but I guess the mushy ball is too hard for people to hit. Makes sense.
<< <i>The problem lies in your assertion that Rose's 118 OPS+is better than Cobb's 168. If that is true, then where on earth would Schmidt's 147 OPS+ put him? Or if Ichiro's 110 is better than Wagner's 150, where on earth does Pujols 163 put him? If you are going to use that method you used, then you have to use it on all the guys, and not just pick and choose. >>
I never said anyone's OPS+ was "better" than anyone else's. I simply adjusted the stat for the era and showed that they are more comparable than people may think. I think the "20 Best Hitters of All-Time" list needs to change drastically. The more recent generations should always occupy the majority of the list and then decline with older generations. Right now we see the opposite. The era adjusted OPS+ stat should be applied to everyone and I'm sure you'll see names like Schmidt and Brett on the list over players like Nap Lajoie and Mel Ott.
<< <i>Secondly, where are you drawing the line? Ted Williams played basically in the same era as Ruth, Gehrig, Ott, Foxx, Hornsby, Dimaggio, and his OPS+ 200 seasons are the same as Ruth's...so they carry over well. Cobb carried over well with those guys previous to that! >>
When Williams retired there were less than a handful of minorities in the league. No where near the 38% today. There is no "cut-off," baseball has progressively become more and more competitive. It's impossible to see the change when comparing 1947 with 1949, but when comparing 1947 with 2014 it's pretty plain to see.
<< <i>We had the luxury of seeing Ted Williams play Post War and Post integration, and he was STILL the best hitter in MLB. He bettered Mantle, Mays, Aaron...and he was an old man doing it! >>
This just goes to show Ted was one of the best hitters ever. Something I won't argue!
<< <i>Mantle, Mays, Aaron better Schmidt, Brett, Reggie, who all bettered Roses. So that throws a lot of what you are saying out the window. >>
How so? I never said Rose was better than Mantle, Mays, Aaron, Schmidt, Brett or Reggie. I said Pete Rose was better than Ty Cobb. The six players you just named were all better than Cobb too in my opinion.
<< <i>In the end, what ends up happening is that based on your methodology, you would be doing the complete opposite and having all the best players playing now, and just relegating previous generations to nothings...and the chaining proves that they most certainly moved well with the elite players to the next generations. >>
I wouldn't say "nothings" they were all great players. But YES YES YES! This is exactly what I'm arguing and it makes sense! There are more players playing now then in 1930 so shouldn't there be more "All-Time Greats?" Yes. But for some reason there aren't. Why were there more "great" players per person in 1930 than in 2014? Are players today worse? No. Most people would agree they're better overall. So why on earth would there be more great players per person in 1930?!?!?!?! It makes absolutely no sense!
"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 wouldn't say "nothings" they were all great players. But YES YES YES! This is exactly what I'm arguing and it makes sense! There are more players playing now then in 1930 so shouldn't there be more "All-Time Greats?" Yes. But for some reason there aren't. Why were there more "great" players per person in 1930 than in 2014? Are players today worse? No. Most people would agree they're better overall. So why on earth would there be more great players per person in 1930?!?!?!?! It makes absolutely no sense! >>
I've been saying the same thing for years....but you are taking it way too far.
Like I said, if Rose's 118 OPS+ is better than Cobb's 168 due to the era...then that puts Julio Franco's 111(who played in an even later era) as about as good as Cobb. You really believe that?
You aren't understanding the chaining, and I'm not going to write a book on here to explain it in greater detail...but that pretty much shows that the OPS+ that Cobb put up, and compared to his league mates, and comparing them to their league mates through the years, you see that they chained pretty much the same.
I actually did the population study, compared the available viable MLB players from 1908 to 1980, used birth rates, took into account immigration(of adults mostly), and I also took into account the number of teams. You can't discount the 16 teams. You also can't discount that baseball was the prominent sport back then drawing the best athletes, while the last 20 years the best athletes have gone to other sports.
You are also overestimating the foreign impact. Players from south of the border have been around. The pacific rim players that have been better than league average for more than five years can be counted on two hands, so don't overestimate them.
Also have to include the lifestyle of children that has been more sedentary the last 25 years compared to the 25 previous years.
An argument can be made that the players from the 70's/80's had the highest level of competition taking all that into account...and with expansion and all the above, better than now. Probably easily better than now.
<< <i>You keep dodging the pertinent question.... >>
I've answered just about every question you have posed, but you haven't answered my last eight......
It would make sense that Cobb played as well as Ruth and Ruth played as well as Gehrig etc. etc. etc.
Pitchers and hitters have been progressing at a very similar rate (hitters have been progressing through the years a bit quicker). So when Cobb played, he was facing less challenging pitchers than Ruth and then Ruth faced less challenging pitchers than Gehrig and so on. So when we reach say Ted Williams, the OPS+ may stay the same, because the league is getting better as whole! Pitchers are getting better as well as hitters. Just because Ted Williams could get a 200 OPS+ one year and Ty Cobb did it in another does not mean the two face similar levels of competition.
If hitters and pitchers progress at an even pace OPS+ won't change from one era to another, but it doesn't mean hitters aren't getting better and pitchers are getting better. The whole "chaining" thing is absolutely pointless.
"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
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>Like I said, if Rose's 118 OPS+ is better than Cobb's 168 due to the era...then that puts Julio Franco's 111(who played in an even later era) as about as good as Cobb. You really believe that? >>
No, because even adjusted for the era Julio Franco's OPS+ isn't greater than Cobb's. But I obviously discount it for other reasons as well.
<< <i>You aren't understanding the chaining, and I'm not going to write a book on here to explain it in greater detail...but that pretty much shows that the OPS+ that Cobb put up, and compared to his league mates, and comparing them to their league mates through the years, you see that they chained pretty much the same. >>
I think you're not understanding why the chaining is pointless.
>>
I actually did the population study, compared the available viable MLB players from 1908 to 1980, used birth rates, took into account immigration(of adults mostly), and I also took into account the number of teams. You can't discount the 16 teams. You also can't discount that baseball was the prominent sport back then drawing the best athletes, while the last 20 years the best athletes have gone to other sports.
You are also overestimating the foreign impact. Players from south of the border have been around. The pacific rim players that have been better than league average for more than five years can be counted on two hands, so don't overestimate them. >>
The impact of "our best athletes no longer play baseball" is greatly overstated in my opinion. While a small percentage of white athletes go to football, the percentage of those athletes who would have been viable baseball players is immaterial. The number of African American players has significantly decreased (as an overall percentage) over the past 40 years or so, but the number has been more than covered by Latino players and Asian players.
<< <i>An argument can be made that the players from the 70's/80's had the highest level of competition taking all that into account...and with expansion and all the above, better than now. Probably easily better than now. >>
I think the height of the steroid era is universally accepted as the period with the "highest level of competition" for obvious reasons. I think competition had steadily rose and peaked there only to decline a bit to today (which I believe is still at a higher level than before the steroid era).
"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>What makes no sense though is any methodology that argues that Julio Franco is as as good as Ty Cobb (yours does) or that ichiro is better than Honus Wagner or that Manny Ramirez is as good as Babe Ruth in any era, with any rational interpretation of statistics. >>
I literally said none of this.
"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>What makes no sense though is any methodology that argues that Julio Franco is as as good as Ty Cobb (yours does) or that ichiro is better than Honus Wagner or that Manny Ramirez is as good as Babe Ruth in any era, with any rational interpretation of statistics. >>
I literally said none of this. >>
You didn't have to. Your fundamentally flawed methodology does for you. You can't pick and choose to whom you apply it.
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>
<< <i>
<< <i>What makes no sense though is any methodology that argues that Julio Franco is as as good as Ty Cobb (yours does) or that ichiro is better than Honus Wagner or that Manny Ramirez is as good as Babe Ruth in any era, with any rational interpretation of statistics. >>
I literally said none of this. >>
You didn't have to. Your fundamentally flawed methodology does for you. You can't pick and choose to whom you apply it. >>
Sorry, I should have specified. I literally said the none of this and my methodology backs it up.
"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>What makes no sense though is any methodology that argues that Julio Franco is as as good as Ty Cobb (yours does) or that ichiro is better than Honus Wagner or that Manny Ramirez is as good as Babe Ruth in any era, with any rational interpretation of statistics. >>
I literally said none of this. >>
You kind of did.
Based on your premise, Rose's 118 OPs+ is better than Cobb's 168 due to tougher era. You claim that this current era is even tougher than Rose's, then that means Paul Konerko's 119 OPS+, and Luis Gonzalez 119 OPS+ are better than both Rose and Cobb.
So if Ichiro is as good as Wagner, and almost as good as Cobb in your methodology, and both Konerko and Luis Gonzalez(among many others) are better than Ichiro, Wagner, and Cobb...then who from the Pre War era IS better than Konerko or Luis Gonzalez if Cobb is not??
...and no, it is not overstated that the best athletes have gone to other sports...they simply have. The decade of the 2000's, with league expansion, less talented kids, less baseball players to draw from, more elite players going to other sports, is worse than 1980's when all those were better than now.
<< <i>Based on your premise, Rose's 118 OPs+ is better than Cobb's 168 due to tougher era. You claim that this current era is even tougher than Rose's, then that means Paul Konerko's 119 OPS+, and Luis Gonzalez 119 OPS+ are better than both Rose and Cobb. >>
No. I said that Rose's OPS+ is much closer to Cobb's than people believe. I never said it was "better." Like I have said for I think 6 times now, OPS+ isn't a magical stat that tells you who is "better" or worse. It's a good measure to determine how dominant a player was a single point in time. If you adjust Konerko's and Gonzalez's OPS+ to when Cobb played, they would obviously be a bit higher, and at a comparable level to Cobb. But does that mean they are better than Cobb? No. Does that mean they are comparable players even? Not necessarily. Hopefully people put in a little more effort in comparing which player is "better" than one arbitrary number. I know I do.
<< <i>...and no, it is not overstated that the best athletes have gone to other sports...they simply have. The decade of the 2000's, with league expansion, less talented kids, less baseball players to draw from, more elite players going to other sports, is worse than 1980's when all those were better than now. >>
It absolutely is.
"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
No, actually you did. From one of your previous posts:
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.
118>115
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>
<< <i>Based on your premise, Rose's 118 OPs+ is better than Cobb's 168 due to tougher era. You claim that this current era is even tougher than Rose's, then that means Paul Konerko's 119 OPS+, and Luis Gonzalez 119 OPS+ are better than both Rose and Cobb. >>
No. I said that Rose's OPS+ is much closer to Cobb's than people believe. I never said it was "better." Like I have said for I think 6 times now, OPS+ isn't a magical stat that tells you who is "better" or worse. It's a good measure to determine how dominant a player was a single point in time. If you adjust Konerko's and Gonzalez's OPS+ to when Cobb played, they would obviously be a bit higher, and at a comparable level to Cobb. But does that mean they are better than Cobb? No. Does that mean they are comparable players even? Not necessarily. Hopefully people put in a little more effort in comparing which player is "better" than one arbitrary number. I know I do.
<< <i>...and no, it is not overstated that the best athletes have gone to other sports...they simply have. The decade of the 2000's, with league expansion, less talented kids, less baseball players to draw from, more elite players going to other sports, is worse than 1980's when all those were better than now. >>
It absolutely is. >>
Your methodology puts them as better than Cobb. By all means, tell us the number you use? Is it that same useless stuff you used to try and make Ichiro look better than the accurate measurements show? You do realize that any 'number' you use is already valued properly in OPS+.
If you want to use another measure, then use Adjusted Batter Runs from Linear weights, which weighs each offensive event properly.
Cobb 1,038
Rose 394
L. Gonzalez 274
Konerko 227
Ichiro 125
So here, Rose's long career helps him(as it should). This measurement isn't as good as Win Probability Added, but they don't have such detailed information for pre war years. They do have it for all years after...and it says the same thing, that OPS+ and Adjusted Batter runs correlates extremely well to the play by play info...and it shows that Ichiro is the most overrated hitter in the history of the game.
Based on your premise that the generations keep getting better and better, then with this even more accurate measurement, if Rose is indeed better than Cobb, then considering your theory on better talent, then that puts Luis Gonzalez and Konerko in the ballpark as Cobb as well(since they played two generations after Rose).
PS. You claimed in another thread a while back that Ichiro was as good a hitter as Rose. Here you claim Rose better than Cobb, which means you belive Ichiro is better than Cobb...and the whole reason why you are saying Rose is, because you are an Ichiro homer.
So, no back tracking. Based on YOUR premise that would make Konerko and Luis Gonzalez(among others) better than Cobb, because both were better hitters than Ichiro.
<< <i>What are you talking about Skin? You do realize Ichiro only had averaged 7 points less in OPS+ than Pete Rose in a 162 game season? Pete Rose is arguably one of the greatest hitters in the history in the game and Ichiro is nearly IDENTICAL in every regard in hitting. How can someone who is neck-and-neck with the greatest hitter ever be considered "overrated"?
I honestly cannot see how Ichiro is overrated. >>
The above is your quote, jhs5120 claiming Ichiro was a good a hitter as Rose. Folks, this is the ENTIRE reason why this guy is saying all this nonsense, such as Rose being better than Cobb....because in his mind, that would also put Ichiro as being better than Cobb...which would be a neat trick because Ichiro isn't even as good as Luis Gonzalez or Konerko. Would that then make those two the best hitters ever? lol.
This guy is an Ichiro biased homer.
<< <i>No, actually you did. From one of your previous posts:
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.
118>115 >>
Geez Tim, I said it would be "closer to 115, right with Rose." I never said it was better. As I already stated, era adjusted OPS+ is an estimate (which is why I said "close"). If we're nitpicking over three OPS+ points in an adjusted total then there really is no point in this.
"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>No, actually you did. From one of your previous posts:
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.
118>115 >>
Geez Tim, I said it would be "closer to 115, right with Rose." I never said it was better. As I already stated, era adjusted OPS+ is an estimate (which is why I said "close"). If we're nitpicking over three OPS+ points in an adjusted total then there really is no point in this. >>
Why worry about nitpicking on "three" adjusted OPS+ points, when you just erased 50 out of thin air?
Your 'adjusted' total would put Konerko and Luis Gonzalez as better than Cobb based on your premise.
Oh, and above is another measurement that is used to say the same thing, so no more "just OPS+" defense from you...even though OPS+ does the trick just fine...and it would be just nitpicking between the best measurements
And again, your whole point is trying to get Ichiro higher than he really is. You claimed Ichiro was as good as Rose.
<< <i>Why worry about nitpicking on "three" adjusted OPS+ points, when you just erased 50 out of thin air?
Your 'adjusted' total would put Konerko and Luis Gonzalez as better than Cobb based on your premise.
Oh, and above is another measurement that is used to say the same thing, so no more "just OPS+" defense from you...even though OPS+ does the trick just fine...and it would be just nitpicking between the best measurements
And again, your whole point is trying to get Ichiro higher than he really is. You claimed Ichiro was as good as Rose. >>
I honestly have no idea what you're talking about any more. You made some ridiculous claim regarding OPS+ and "chaining" on page 9. I explained why your chaining was ridiculous and why OPS+ is a terrible stat to compare eras and now that somehow turned into me trying to make Ichiro look better than he does? I don't get it.
If you are one to believe OPS+ is the only stat worth measuring, Luis Gonzalez and Paul Konerko were very similar than Ty Cobb. If you look at any other stat you will understand that OPS+ should not be the only stat to use. I honestly I don't know what's difficult about that to understand.
"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
The chaining was waay over your head, so no need to even go back there.
What is fascinating is how you used some formula to claim that Rose was better than Cobb. However, unless you are willing to say that Konerko and Luis Gonzalez are also better(based on YOUR premise), then you are the one not making sense.
Actually, if you do say that those guys were better than Cobb, then you aren't making sense there either.
f you want to use another measure, then use Adjusted Batter Runs from Linear weights, which weighs each offensive event properly.
Cobb 1,038
Rose 394
L. Gonzalez 274
Konerko 227
Ichiro 125
So here, Rose's long career helps him(as it should). This measurement isn't as good as Win Probability Added, but they don't have such detailed information for pre war years. They do have it for all years after...and it says the same thing, that OPS+ and Adjusted Batter runs correlates extremely well to the play by play info...and it shows that Ichiro is the most overrated hitter in the history of the game.
Based on your premise that the generations keep getting better and better, then with this even more accurate measurement, if Rose is indeed better than Cobb, then considering your theory on better talent, then that puts Luis Gonzalez and Konerko in the ballpark as Cobb as well(since they played two generations after Rose).
PS. You claimed in another thread a while back that Ichiro was as good a hitter as Rose. Here you claim Rose better than Cobb, which means you belive Ichiro is better than Cobb...and the whole reason why you are saying Rose is, because you are an Ichiro homer.
So, no back tracking. Based on YOUR premise that would make Konerko and Luis Gonzalez(among others) better than Cobb, because both were better hitters than Ichiro.
<< <i>
<< <i>No, actually you did. From one of your previous posts:
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.
118>115 >>
Geez Tim, I said it would be "closer to 115, right with Rose." I never said it was better. As I already stated, era adjusted OPS+ is an estimate (which is why I said "close"). If we're nitpicking over three OPS+ points in an adjusted total then there really is no point in this. >>
3 points? You subtracted off 53 points, LOL! (And in contrast to your claim, put Rose at a better career OPS+)
Your statement comparing Rose and Ichiro blows up your entire argument, really--no matter what methodology you utilize, any formula or fuzzy math upon which Paul Konerko is a peer to Ty Cobb is ludicrous. And you cannot support your assessment above without ackowledging that comparison, too. The fancy footwork has painted you into the proverbial corner..
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.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012