Joe DiMaggio

[Myankee4life]

I feel that you guys shortchange Joe D.

I know he wasn't the greatest person and he was a Yankee

Some of you guys give Ted Williams credit for his missing war seasons, but not Joe?

Joe missed 1943-45 in arguably his prime. In 1942 he had a solid season .305/24/114. Give him 3 years of that and he gets 72 hr's and 342 rbi's. Im going to leave his avg as it is but his career Hr total would be 433 and rbi's would be a gaudy 1879 in only 16 seasons. Next if you adjust his home park numbers which killed him, add in his 9 ws and great defense. Now do you feel that under these circumstances he may be considered in the top 10 all time player list.

Just a query

[Brian McKenna]

i'm not a big dimaggio fan and i'm not really into projected numbers but one cannot argue with the numbers he put up - can't argue with anything he did on the field - these are season averages

AGE AVG HR RBI
1936-42 21-27 .339 31 133
1943-45 28-31 in service
1946-51 31-36 .304 24 101

top notch

[sschirmer]

Joe had to do something right, he bagged Marylin, if only for a week.:laugh

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I feel that you guys shortchange Joe D.

I know he wasn't the greatest person and he was a Yankee

Some of you guys give Ted Williams credit for his missing war seasons, but not Joe?

Joe missed 1943-45 in arguably his prime. In 1942 he had a solid season .305/24/114. Give him 3 years of that and he gets 72 hr's and 342 rbi's. Im going to leave his avg as it is but his career Hr total would be 433 and rbi's would be a gaudy 1879 in only 16 seasons. Next if you adjust his home park numbers which killed him, add in his 9 ws and great defense. Now do you feel that under these circumstances he may be considered in the top 10 all time player list.

Just a query

I think his home park hurt him a lot. More than even "park adjustments" show. Knowing that you can blast a ball 400 to left center and it won't even go out, has an effect mentally. Not only psychologically, but his approach was affected as well. Joe D was an amazing player that does seem to get short changed a bit on here. We fall in love with huge end totals, sometimes not taking into account what kind of "ballplayers" they were.

[64Cards]

Hey, Joe D. is aces in my book. 10 pennants in his 13 seasons, 9 of the 10 years they won the WS. I know he played with a lot of other talented players on those great Yankee teams, but Joe was, without question, the top dog of the bunch. Seemed to be quite arrogant but one hell of a player between the lines, quite respected by his teammates. He had a couple of monster seasons for SF in the PCL before joining NY, so with that and the time lost to WW2, easily could have had 5 years of big stats added to his totals. Still, the numbers he has for a relatively short career speak for themselves.If you throw out the longevity factor on his lifetime stats, a legitimate top ten player.

Give him some props on Marilyn Monroe, too.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

He had a couple of monster seasons for SF in the PCL before joining NY, so with that and the time lost to WW2, easily could have had 5 years of big stats added to his totals.

Give him some props on Marilyn Monroe, too.

He moved up 3 spots on my all time list strictly because of Marilyn. Very nice pull Joe :D jk

You're not saying we should count his Seals stats are you? Cause then his 56 would be meaningless. The record would be his 61.

In '34 he tore ligaments in his knee. The next day he homered and literally WALKED around the bases, lol. Because of the injury, clubs were scared to sign him. The Cubs passed on a tryout.

Sportswriters were labeling him, Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, and Shoeless Joe all rolled into one.

[Wee Willie]

Joe's in my top 15. I think anything below top-20 is definitely underrating him.

[Bill Burgess]

I have Joe ranked at #16 in my Top 100 Position Players. I think he was great.

I understand that his ballpark/WWII hurt him seriously. So I do not base my rankings on career totals. I rank Joe ahead of Ted, because I think he was a better all around player. And their hitting was distorted by their parks.

But I do not give Joe credit for his park/WWII because I never took the credit away from him in the 1st place.

I think that Yankee Stadium's huge LF bulge probably caused Joe to become more of a line drive hitter than he would have been in a different ballpark.

[leecemark]

--I think DiMaggio's park adjusted stats seriously underrate him because they don't adjust for handedness and Yankee Stadium was MUCH more difficult for a RH hitter than a LH one. Of course, the flip side to that - and one Yankee fans, especially Ruth and Gehrig fans - don't want to see is that LH batters are at least a little overrated by park adjustments. If RH hitters are more disadvantaged then logically the benefit of the hand neutral adjustment favors the lefties.

[Chisox]

I have Joe ranked at #16 in my Top 100. I think he was great.

I understand that his ballpark/WWII hurt him seriously. So I do not base my rankings on career totals. I rank Joe ahead of Ted, because I think he was a better all around player. And their hitting was distorted by their parks.

But I do not give Joe credit for his park/WWII because I never took the credit away from him in the 1st place.

I think that Yankee Stadium's huge LF bulge probably caused Joe to become more of a line drive hitter than he would have been in a different ballpark.

I actually agree with you on something else!!!:dance
Except, I've got Joe D. #3CF, #8positional player, #11overall, one/two spots ahead of Teddy, respectivly.

[mordeci]

Dimaggio was a great player, but he was no Ted Williams.

For what it's worth, Baseball-reference.com's most similar batters for Dimaggio:

Larry Walker
Chuck Klein
Johnny Mize
Duke Snider
Earl Averill
Manny Ramirez
Ellis Burks
Bob Johnson
Jim Rice
Juan Gonzalez

and for Williams:

Jimmie Foxx
Lou Gehrig
Mel Ott
Mickey Mantle
Frank Robinson
Babe Ruth
Barry Bonds
Ken Griffey
Jeff Bagwell
Al Simmons

[Bill Burgess]

I actually agree with you on something else!!!:dance
Except, I've got Joe D. #3CF, #8positional player, #11overall, one/two spots ahead of Teddy, respectively.
Was bound to happen sooner or later. Only took 1,200 posts.

Did you hear that loud sound in the distance, outside your window? That was actually the popping of my champagne cork, in celebration of your nice compliment.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

--I think DiMaggio's park adjusted stats seriously underrate him because they don't adjust for handedness and Yankee Stadium was MUCH more difficult for a RH hitter than a LH one. Of course, the flip side to that - and one Yankee fans, especially Ruth and Gehrig fans - don't want to see is that LH batters are at least a little overrated by park adjustments. If RH hitters are more disadvantaged then logically the benefit of the hand neutral adjustment favors the lefties.

I believe left center was like 457 when Joe D played there. Right center was just as spacious for Ruth and Gehrig. The short right field in Yankee Stadium might be a knock if we were talking about Mel Ott or something, not Ruth and Gehrig. Really, how many of Ruth's homers were pulled right down the line, and of those, how many landed in the first 5 or so rows? Probably hardly any. Center and right center took far more away than the short right porch gave them, imo.

[KCGHOST]

It is tough to rank a guy as a top ten player in the game when he is probably is, at best, 3rd all-time at his position and most likely 5th. I know he missed three years to the war but do those three years offset the difference in his work and what Cobb, Mays, Mantle, and Speaker actually did?

As for him and Williams, no matter what stat you pick, cumulative or qualitative, Joe isn't in the same league as a hitter and Williams lost 5 years to wars not just three.

That said Joe is definitely a top-tier HoFer.

[Bill Burgess]

Really, how many of Ruth's homers were pulled right down the line, and of those, how many landed in the first 5 or so rows? Probably hardly any. Center and right center took far more away than the short right porch gave them, imo.

Randy,

Think high pop-ups down the RF line, not line drives. Think sky-high pop-ups.

[Brian McKenna]

all those top-notch yankee players with all those top-notch ballplayers playing beside - at what point do we subtract from the individual for the strength of the supporting cast?

[Chisox]

It is tough to rank a guy as a top ten player in the game when he is probably is, at best, 3rd all-time at his position and most likely 5th. I know he missed three years to the war but do those three years offset the difference in his work and what Cobb, Mays, Mantle, and Speaker actually did?

As for him and Williams, no matter what stat you pick, cumulative or qualitative, Joe isn't in the same league as a hitter and Williams lost 5 years to wars not just three.

That said Joe is definitely a top-tier HoFer.
Who's arguing that? Those that pick Joe as greater than Ted are doing so as an overall/all-around player, not just as a hitter. I don't rate Joe anywhere near Ted as a hitter, but combine that with his running and fielding, and I think you've got just as good of a player, especially when you consider the championships.

[sschirmer]

Dimaggio was a great player, but he was no Ted Williams.


You got that right. As much as I love Ted Williams, I have to admit, at least Joe brought a glove to the game with him.

[Myankee4life]

I like this line from the book Joe Dimaggio: The hero's life by Ben Cramer

paraphrased

Ted WIlliams wanted to be the greatest hitter of all-time, but Dimaggio wanted to be the greatest all-around player the game ever saw. He strived to be just not great at one thing but at everything and damned you if you were to get in his way.

[Bill Burgess]

How anyone could ever, then or now, consider Ted in the same class of ballplayer as Joe is beyond my comprehension. The only card that Ted has to play is in the batter's box, and even there, Joe trumps him on the road in BA, Ted's supposed bastion of strength.

Mix in defense, and Ted just isn't in the same class. And during their playing careers, no one ever thought he was. Ted only has longevity over Joe, and they both lost their prime seasons to the war.

On the road:

------BA/Onbase/SLG.
Joe: .333/.405/.610
Ted: .328/.468/.615

[538280]

How anyone could ever, then or now, consider Ted in the same class of ballplayer as Joe is beyond my comprehension. The only card that Ted has to play is in the batter's box, and even there, Joe trumps him on the road in BA, Ted's supposed bastion of strength.

Mix in defense, and Ted just isn't in the same class. And during their playing careers, no one ever thought he was. Ted only has longevity over Joe, and they both lost their prime seasons to the war.

On the road:

------BA/Onbase/SLG.
Joe: .333/.405/.610
Ted: .328/.468/.615

Bill, I'd say 63 points of OBP, 5 points of SLG, and a longer career are plenty to make up for 5 points of BA and more defensive value. Also, the career numbers are a bit deceiving since Ted had a worse decline. Plus, even if Fenway really helped Ted, we shouldn't just discount everything he did there.

[538280]

It is tough to rank a guy as a top ten player in the game when he is probably is, at best, 3rd all-time at his position and most likely 5th. .

There is absolutely, certainly, no way in the world no matter how much you skew numbers a way to put DiMaggio 3rd on your CF list. It is almost just as bad to put him 4th, and 5th is still too high but I suppose somewhat reasonable. After the top 5 though, there is a very large gap, so DiMaggio can slip in at 6th, but still far behind the 5th man. After DiMag at 6th, and Torriente at 7th, the list takes a huge drop. My top 10 CFers, just so you can see what I'm talking about:

1.Charleston
2.Mays
3.Mantle
4.Cobb
5.Speaker
6.DiMaggio
7.Torriente
8.Wynn
9.Snider
10.Hamilton

[leecemark]

--Looking at road averages only always hurts a guy with a good home park. It gives that park to whoever he is being compared to, while withholding it from him. Their numbers at neutral parks (elimanting both Yankee Stadium and Fenway park games from both men) would be more accurate.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Randy,

Think high pop-ups down the RF line, not line drives. Think sky-high pop-ups.

I was thinking that. And Ruth was no Mel Ott.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

There is absolutely, certainly, no way in the world no matter how much you skew numbers a way to put DiMaggio 3rd on your CF list. It is almost just as bad to put him 4th, and 5th is still too high but I suppose somewhat reasonable. After the top 5 though, there is a very large gap, so DiMaggio can slip in at 6th, but still far behind the 5th man. After DiMag at 6th, and Torriente at 7th, the list takes a huge drop. My top 10 CFers, just so you can see what I'm talking about:

1.Charleston

6.DiMaggio


I like how you just "assume" Charleston was that much better than Joe D. Thats a lot to take for granted don't ya think.

[538280]

I like how you just "assume" Charleston was that much better than Joe D. Thats a lot to take for granted don't ya think.

Anybody who rates Joe DiMaggio above Oscar Charleston just doesn't know much about Oscar Charleston.

[charlesblalack@yahoo.com]

I have Joe 17th amongst all-time MLB position players. I always thought that he was overrated by the public but underrated on BBF.

[leecemark]

--I can't see Charleston ahead of Cobb or Mays, due to his quicker loss of skills (he got too heavy to play CF by his early 30s). That same lack of longevity is an issue with Speaker (although he may have been enough better at his peak to overcome that). League quality is a huge issue with putting him ahead of Mantle and he is unlikely to have any kind of peak edge on The Mick. I have him ahead of DiMaggio, but could see it the other way. I've got Griffey and Snider ahead of Torriente too and I don't even want to get started on Jimmy Freakin Wynn again.
--The Babe hit more than his share of tape measure shots. That doesn't mean all his HR or even most of them would have gone out of Yellowstone. He had to have had a few cheapies to the short porch. More relevant to to my earlier comment is that park effects are not adjusted for handedness and Yankee Stadium was unquestionably much tougher on RH hitters. Therefore standard park adjustments are going to short change RH hitters at Yankee and must then overrate LH hitters. That is true even if Yankee Stadium actually hurt Ruth's raw numbers over what he may have done at another park.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Anybody who rates Joe DiMaggio above Oscar Charleston just doesn't know much about Oscar Charleston.

I was referring to you having him as SO MUCH better than Joe D, not the fact that you simply "have him ahead."

[Bill Burgess]

My top CFers:

Negro Leagues = Red
Pre-1900 = Blue

1. Cobb
2. Mays
3. Charleston
4. Speaker
5. DiMaggio
6. Mantle
7. Bell
8. Poles
9. Snider
10. Dihigo
11. Griffey
12. Pete Hill
13. Irvin
14. Torrienti
15. Roush
16. Milan
17. Carey
18. Ashburn
19. McAleer
20. Edmonds
21. Lange

[Bill Burgess]

--I can't see Charleston ahead of Cobb or Mays, due to his quicker loss of skills (he got too heavy to play CF by his early 30s). That same lack of longevity is an issue with Speaker (although he may have been enough better at his peak to overcome that). League quality is a huge issue with putting him ahead of Mantle and he is unlikely to have any kind of peak edge on The Mick. I have him ahead of DiMaggio, but could see it the other way. I've got Griffey and Snider ahead of Torriente too and I don't even want to get started on Jimmy Freakin Wynn again.
--The Babe hit more than his share of tape measure shots. That doesn't mean all his HR or even most of them would have gone out of Yellowstone. He had to have had a few cheapies to the short porch. More relevant to to my earlier comment is that park effects are not adjusted for handedness and Yankee Stadium was unquestionably much tougher on RH hitters. Therefore standard park adjustments are going to short change RH hitters at Yankee and must then overrate LH hitters. That is true even if Yankee Stadium actually hurt Ruth's raw numbers over what he may have done at another park.

Mark,

Must say, one of your most perceptive posts ever yet. Handedness is one of the earliest arguments I gave for Babe/Lou at Yankee Stad.

Because of the huge LF bulge, it was most often designated a pitcher friendly ballpark. And park effects often gave Babe credit for having to play in an unfriendly park!! How ridiculous. DiMag/Gehrig were apparently hurt by the Stadium, but not Babe. Nice work.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

--The Babe hit more than his share of tape measure shots. That doesn't mean all his HR or even most of them would have gone out of Yellowstone. He had to have had a few cheapies to the short porch. More relevant to to my earlier comment is that park effects are not adjusted for handedness and Yankee Stadium was unquestionably much tougher on RH hitters. Therefore standard park adjustments are going to short change RH hitters at Yankee and must then overrate LH hitters. That is true even if Yankee Stadium actually hurt Ruth's raw numbers over what he may have done at another park.

Right field was roughly 295' up until '75. That's a short porch for sure, but not much shorter than some parks of today down the line. And the rest of the park was enormous. Ruth probably had a few homers pulled down the line, which wouldn't have been homers in some other parks. No doubt the rest of the park hurt him much worse than the '295 helped him. He wasn't the type of hitter in style or distance to have the '295 aid him.

Yankee Stadium

Left field: 280.58 (1923), 301 (1928), 312 (1976), 318 (1988)

left side of bullpen gate in short left-center: 395 (1923), 402 (1928), 387 (1976), 379 (1985)

right side of bullpen gate: 415 (1937)

deepest left-center: 500 (1923), 490 (1924), 457 (1937), 430 (1976), 411 (1985), 399 (1988)

left side of cente-field screen: 466 (1937)

center field: 487 (1923), 461 (1937), 463 (1967), 417 (1976), 410 (1985), 408 (1988)

deepest right-center: 429 (1923), 407 (1937), 385 (1976)

left side of bullpen gate in short right-center: 350 (1923), 367 (1937), 353 (1976)

right side of bullpen gate: 344 (1937)

right field: 294.75 (1923), 295 (1930), 296 (1939), 310 (1976), 314 (1988)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Sultan_1895-1948]

And park effects often gave Babe credit for having to play in an unfriendly park!! How ridiculous.

If they do, its justified. He was hurt by Yankee Stadium. You're confusing him for another player who mastered the art of pulling pop ups 260 feet. Thats not Ruth. He hit to ALL fields with power. He didn't end up hitting .342 by only pulling the ball Bill. THAT'S "rediculous."

[digglahhh]

--Looking at road averages only always hurts a guy with a good home park. It gives that park to whoever he is being compared to, while withholding it from him. Their numbers at neutral parks (elimanting both Yankee Stadium and Fenway park games from both men) would be more accurate.


Ding Ding Ding.

Buy that man a beer!

[Sultan_1895-1948]

--------------

[csh19792001]

--------------

Very nice graphic, Sultan. Where'd you find it?

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I was doin' a post over on the "stastics, saber, whatever" page, and found that graphic while posting an article by Kaat in Popular Mechanics.

I know, I think thats pretty cool. Wish I could find those for all parks.

[csh19792001]

Few get shortchanged more by the current player value metrics du jour than Joe Dimaggio.

At Yankee Stadium over his career, Dimaggio hit .315 at home and a home run once every 22.7 at bats. On the road he hit .333/.421/.606, and hit one home run every 16.2 at bats.

He missed three full PRIME seasons due to WWII, and he also hit 213 of his 361 career homeruns on the road. Put him in in a reasonable park, he'd have easily hit over 400 homeruns. Give him back his three war seasons, and now we're talking about a guy who could have easily hit over 500 homeruns in 16 seasons.

Dimaggio's strikeout total is truly incredible- he's BY FAR the greatest slugger in history in terms of sheer power combined with incredible bat control. 361 homeruns coupled with ONLY 369 career strikeouts is one of the greatest achievements in baseball history.

Dimag was hitting over .400 in September of 1939, but began to suffer terrible pain over his right eye- he went to Joe McCarthy and asked to be sat out, but McCarthy insisted he stay in the lineup. Dimaggio dropped off precipitously and finished at .381.

Debilitating (and continuous) foot injuries (which included lots of small breaks that never healed) helped conspire to end his career, but in terms of sheer quality, Dimag was one of the best to ever play. He ranks 12th alltime in Win Shares per season, and as stated before, I seriously doubt Win Shares or any other standardized metric properly reconciles the fact that he played in such an atrocious park for right handed power hitters.

Dimaggio was also one of the greatest all around players who ever lived.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Few get shortchanged more by the current player value metrics du jour than Joe Dimaggio.

Dimaggio was also one of the greatest all around players who ever lived.

Unfortunate that Joe's charactar flaws keep getting in the way of those who can't separate Joe the man from Joe the ballplayer. Some don't care for him because they believe he was overatted. OK overratted by how much, who determines where true merit and greatness ends and being overatted starts.

We keep seeing how Ted Williams was robbed of some MVPs that went to Joe. Was that Joe's fault or the voters.

Last, they won't admit it but the fact that he wore pinstripes that cause indigestion in some, the Yankee uniform that is, makes him even less likable.

Say what you like, his short career takes some of the shine off of Joe, but when he suited up and took the field he was a great all around ball player.

Who wouldn't want a great hitter, great fielder, better than average arm, slugger/hitter all in one, great base runner on their team.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Anybody who rates Joe DiMaggio above Oscar Charleston just doesn't know much about Oscar Charleston.

No one knows that much about him or any other black star. Stats are scarce to say the least. There were times when infielders or outfielders would be used as starting pitchers. We know there were some greats in black baseball but we do not know the level of play or competition day to day. Some of Gibson's home run total came from exhibition games. Not taking anything away from the great blacks, denied there chance in MLB because of skin color, what a terrible injustice.

For sure there were blacks as good and some better than some white MLB players. But, the fact remains, through no fault of their own they never played MLB. We have no idea how they would perform. For sure some would have been great, better than some white MLB players, some into the Hall of fame, but we have no way of measuring what level they would perform on.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Dimaggio was a great player, but he was no Ted Williams.

For what it's worth, Baseball-reference.com's most similar batters for Dimaggio:

Larry Walker
Chuck Klein
Johnny Mize
Duke Snider
Earl Averill
Manny Ramirez
Ellis Burks
Bob Johnson
Jim Rice
Juan Gonzalez



Don't take it personal, you didn't make up the list, for what it's worth, not much when you consider the following.

Some on that list, we have to consider where they played, home parks. Larry Walker 10 seasons at Coors, no gravity, balls fly out of that park.

Chuck Klein a lefty at Baker Bowl, 280 down the right field line, 300, not a misprint 300 feet in the power alley in right center.

Snider at Ebbets, nuff said

Ellis Burks a righty, six seasons at Fenway a righty heaven, five seasons at anti gravity Coors

Jim Rice another righty at Fenway. Rice of those I mentioned could hit anywhere but he had to be helped by Fenway. Even two lefty's at Fenway used that wall. Can't say how many were to left but I'm sure both had a good number.

Ted Williams ---doubles-- road 206----Fenway 319.
Yaz -----------doubles---road 264----Fenway 382- WOW.

So not only did some on that list compared to Joe play in hitters heaven on the other side Joe played in a park that was murder for right handers.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

I believe left center was like 457 when Joe D played there. Right center was just as spacious for Ruth and Gehrig.

Left center was shortened from 490 to 457 in 1937, Joe's second year in MLB. Most dimensions at the stadium were shortened in 1937.

[64Cards]

Few get shortchanged more by the current player value metrics du jour than Joe Dimaggio.

He missed three full PRIME seasons due to WWII, and he also hit 213 of his 361 career homeruns on the road. Put him in in a reasonable park, he'd have easily hit over 400 homeruns. Give him back his three war seasons, and now we're talking about a guy who could have easily hit over 500 homeruns in 16 seasons.

Dimaggio's strikeout total is truly incredible- he's BY FAR the greatest slugger in history in terms of sheer power combined with incredible bat control. 361 homeruns coupled with ONLY 369 career strikeouts is one of the greatest achievements in baseball history.

Dimaggio was also one of the greatest all around players who ever lived.
Great post. Well said, couldn't agree anymore. Joe D in his prime was as good of an all round player who has ever been in the game. Read just about anything his teamates or others from that era said about him.

[csh19792001]

Dimaggio was a great player, but he was no Ted Williams.

For what it's worth, Baseball-reference.com's most similar batters for Dimaggio:


It isn't worth much- the similarity scores are somewhat arbitrary and slipshod in composition. The most similar player in baseball history to Barry Bonds through age 28 is Greg Luzinski.... does that seem verisimilar?

A small group of stat mongers who never saw either Ted Williams or Joe Dimaggio play (and probably never played baseball much themselves) look back over 50 years, crunch their numbers, and assume they have perfect (or approaching perfect) exactitudes about the greatness of players of eras long bygone.

Williams was a hitter and a true liability elsewhere- everything he did well is augmented by looking only at stats, and all the things he was lousy at he is either minimally penealized for, or not penalized at all. People follow the numbers blindly because they either don't know or care to look deeper and do actual in depth research- they regurgitate numbers ad nauseum and propogate falsehoods. The contagion effect creates such popular falsehoods as Ted Williams being a vastly greater baseball player than Joe Dimaggio.

Basketball "statistical historians" 20 or 30 years will probably create a litany of statistics mandating that Wilt Chamberlain was a VASTLY superior basketball player than Bill Russell... and those statisticians will be both myopic and flat out wrong in their conclusions also, just as today's are regarding Williams vs. Dimaggio. Numbers lie, and some players look better on paper than are in reality. This is why the term "on paper" exists.

I seriously doubt anyone who saw Williams and Dimaggio play extensively believed Williams was the greater baseball player, and no statistician would ever claim anything BUT that being the case. The truth is most likely an amalgam of the two.

[leecemark]

--I think you can make a case for DiMaggio being the better ballplayer in their respective primes. Williams quite clearly had the better career though. Any argument to the contary would only make its author look foolish. Of course, I'm one of people who already believe (not waiting for the new stats 20-30 years away:laugh ) Wilt Chamberalin was a much better player than Bill Russell too. Russell just had much better teammates. Which, now that I think about it, so did DiMaggio.

[64Cards]

--I think you can make a case for DiMaggio being the better ballplayer in their respective primes. Williams quite clearly had the better career though. Any argument to the contary would only make its author look foolish. Of course, I'm one of people who already believe (not waiting for the new stats 20-30 years away:laugh ) Wilt Chamberalin was a much better player than Bill Russell too. Russell just had much better teammates. Which, now that I think about it, so did DiMaggio.
Pretty good assessment, although the Red Sox in the late 40's were a very talented team, had they won the last game of the season in 48 & 49 could have had 3 pennants in 4 seasons. Ted was pretty much a one-dimensional player, although that skill, being batting, may be the most imporatant, since it produces runs and Ted was as good at that as anyone.

A quick aside about the Wilt vs. Russell argument...best line I ever heard, on who was better was "if you brought an alien to watch an NBA game, he would be most impressed with Wilt. But if you wanted to win a championship, go with Russell." Either way, I have had very little interest in the NBA since their era, save for the Bird-Magic rivalry in the 80's and watching some of Jordan in the 90's.

[Joltin' Joe]

Sultan, that overlap image of the old and new Yankee stadium is one of the coolest things I've seen! You think Yankee stadium looks lopsided now, it is almost ridiculous how lopsided it was back then. I know most parks, for whatever unknown reason, are made to favor lefties but the original Yankee stadium was ridiculous. I mean what was the purpose of making it so ridiculously difficult for righties?? :confused: We all know how much Death Valley killed DiMaggio but not many people mention how much the Mick got killed too when he hit from the right side. :grouchy

[leecemark]

--On the other hand, The Mick took advantage of the short porch the 75% or so of the time he hit lefty. The park adjustments are probably fair enough for a switch hitter at Yankee Stadium.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

No doubt the 295 helped certain hitters with little pop. It would be nice if we had home run distances on record so we knew how much it actually helped. For a hitter like Ruth, a spray power hitter, who was pitched the way he was, Yankee Stadium no doubt hurt him as much as it helped. The ones he pulled didn't exactly scrape over the fence. Its unfair to paint every lefty with the same broad stroke just because the '295 was there.

[Bill Burgess]

I mean what was the purpose of making it so ridiculously difficult for righties?? :confused: We all know how much Death Valley killed DiMaggio but not many people mention how much the Mick got killed too when he hit from the right side. :grouchy

Goodness gracious. I would think it was rather obvious. Yankee Stadium was built and good to go by 1923. It was built by Colonel Huston, and loosely based on the Polo Grounds, in a particular way.

Their strategic design was to make it easy for The Babe to hit lots of homers, while simultaneously dampening enemy power. They figured more hitters hit right than left, so let's suppress that with an expansive LF bulge to absorb enemy power.

They figured they had good OFers/pitchers, so they'd make it hard to score runs, while letting local Casey at the bat whale away.

Now while this may be somewhat crude, that is their exact reasoning for such a strangely contorted ballpark configuration.

[csh19792001]

A quick aside about the Wilt vs. Russell argument...best line I ever heard, on who was better was "if you brought an alien to watch an NBA game, he would be most impressed with Wilt. But if you wanted to win a championship, go with Russell."

Exactly, Russell was better in real life than he was on paper, and vice versa for Chamberlain. That's the point, but some of the constituency here obsessed with statistics (and not knowing anything else but statistical analysis) haven't broadened their horizons enough to realize this.

And for the record, only when Wilt became a great all around player (and far less selfish player) did his team actually win a championship. His STATS were drastically less impressive than they had been in the early 60's, when he set all the records.

[leecemark]

--Depends which stats you're looking at. The year Chamberlain won his first championship he was 5th in scoring, led in rebounds and FG percentage and was fourth in assists. He probably would have led in blocked shots if they had kept track of that too. The change in style (and finally beating the Celtics) was probably driven mostly by having better teammates to share the load with. Chamberlain always beat Russell in their head to head matchups, but the other 4 guys on his side were getting their asses kicked.

[csh19792001]

Joe Dimaggio
2150 Beach Street
San Franciso, CA 94123


January 3, 1985

Dear Joe,
My best wishes to you for a happy 1985. I hop you had a chance to see the NOVA show in which you so kindly participated. I have received so many favorable comments, with unanimous agreement that your appearance mad eth show.

I mentioned to you in San Francisco that my colleague Ed Purcell, a Nobel Laureate and one of the world’s greatest physicists, had determined that your fifty-six-game hitting streak was, statistically, the most unusual and unexpected great event in the history of baseball. Ed recently sent me the enclosed note in which he derives the reason for his statement. The mathematical details need not be perused, but the chart on the back of the second page will give you some idea of how remarkable and unpredictable your achievement was in statistical terms. The top row labeled b represents lifetime batting averages of .400, .380, and .300. The first column, labeled n at the left indicates the number of games in a hitting streak- 40, 50, and 60 in this example.

The nine numbers in the chart itself give you the probability that a batter with lifetime batting averages of b will have a hit streak of number of games n over a career of 1,000 games. Just consider the .0096 value for a .350 lifetime average, and a 50 game hitting streak. This means that a lifetime .350 batter has only nine chances in a thousand to have a 50 game hitting streak in a career of 1,000 games. To make it more likely than unlikely that such a hitting streak would exist, the number in the chart must be great than .5- for a probability of greater than one-half.

Thus, there would have to be fifty-two lifetime .350 hitters in order to make the probability of a 50 game hitting streak more than likely (.0086 times 52 equal the crucial value of one-half). I don’t have my encyclopedia handy, but I think that only 3 people actually have lifetime averages exceeding .350 (Cobb, Hornsby, and perhaps Joe Jackson). But your streak went for 56 games, a value that would only become more likely to happen (than not to happen) if baseball included more than 100 lifetime .350 hitters.

You asked me jokingly if this analysis meant that your record would never be broken. Even us pompous academics wouldn’t dare to make a statement like that. But Ed Purcell’s analysis does suggest that of all baseball records, your hit streak is surely the one least likely to be broken.

Thanks again for you time and, especially, for your kindness to my son Ethan.

Sincerely,
Steven Jay Gould

Gould (2003), Triumph and Tragedy in Mudville (188-189).

Ill post this on the “greatest records” thread, as well.

[yanks0714]

Exactly, Russell was better in real life than he was on paper, and vice versa for Chamberlain. That's the point, but some of the constituency here obsessed with statistics (and not knowing anything else but statistical analysis) haven't broadened their horizons enough to realize this.

And for the record, only when Wilt became a great all around player (and far less selfish player) did his team actually win a championship. His STATS were drastically less impressive than they had been in the early 60's, when he set all the records.

Bill Russell has to be recognized as one of the greatest team players in NBA history.
Russ started with the Celts in the late 50's. He played with Cousy, Sharman, Ramsey, Tommy H. of Auerbach's first freat dynasty. He was the defense that the team needed to go over the top.
Auerbach changed the entire team over the course of the next several years. He brought in Santch Sanders, K.C. Jones, Sam Jones, John Havlicek, and others. Guess what? With Russell at Center as the cornerstone the Celtics never missed a beat and kept winning.
The man won 2 NCAA Championships; then a Gold Medal in the Summer Olympics; and won the NBA Championship 11 or 13 years!!! Yhe only 2 years the Celtics did not win the Championship was in '57 when Russell was injured during the Finals and the Bob Pettit/Cliff Hagen Hawks from St. Louis won. The other was when Wilt, surrounded by Hal Greer, Wali Jones, Luke Jackson, Chet 'The Jet Walker. and Billy Cunningham as a rookie 6th man won it all.

As for Wilt, froma standpoint or natural ability I think his 2nd only to MJ as the freatest player in NBA history. Forget his scoring for a second: Look at his rebound and shots blocked (for when the NBA counted them). Plus, he's the only Center in NBA history to lead the league in assists for a season.

[csh19792001]

--Depends which stats you're looking at. The year Chamberlain won his first championship he was 5th in scoring, led in rebounds and FG percentage and was fourth in assists. He probably would have led in blocked shots if they had kept track of that too. The change in style (and finally beating the Celtics) was probably driven mostly by having better teammates to share the load with. Chamberlain always beat Russell in their head to head matchups, but the other 4 guys on his side were getting their asses kicked.

And Russell would let Chamberlain score 50 (concentrating on the rest of the game), because the Celtics would still win, and Russell wasn't the selfish egomaniac as Wilt was. He cared more about his teammates than his stats and personal glory, and his teams won as a result.

Only when Wilt adopted this philosophy to become a far less selfless and more complete (yet far less statistically dominating player) did he actually win a championship. The year Philly finally won, he was scoring HALF of what he was in his best year.

[leecemark]

--I'm not sure that allowing the man you are supposed to be guarding score 50 points can be made up in other areas. I'll stick with my interpretation. Chamberlain could beat Russell, but not by enough to make up for the whipping the other Celtics were putting on his teammates.

[yanks0714]

--Depends which stats you're looking at. The year Chamberlain won his first championship he was 5th in scoring, led in rebounds and FG percentage and was fourth in assists. He probably would have led in blocked shots if they had kept track of that too. The change in style (and finally beating the Celtics) was probably driven mostly by having better teammates to share the load with. Chamberlain always beat Russell in their head to head matchups, but the other 4 guys on his side were getting their asses kicked.

Exactly. His 76'er team had Hal Greer (HOF), Chet Walker (outstanding for years), Wali Jones, and Luke Jackson. Billy Cunningham (HOF) was a young 6th man.

His Laker Championship teams had Jerry West (HOF), Gail Goodrich, Happy Hairston, and Jimmy McMillan. Elgin Baylor (HOF) by then was best by injuries and a shadown of himself by the time Wilt got to LA.

When Wilt had the teammates he blended into the team concept and was a winner.

Russell was surrounded by HOF and near HOF'ers his entire career. BUT give him credit, he was the foundation to two totally distinct Celtic teams that never missed a beat and kept winning.
How can you argue with 2 NCAA titles; and Olympic Gold Medal; and 11 of 13 NBA Championships the last couple as a player/coach????

[charlesblalack@yahoo.com]

selfish egomaniac as Wilt was.
Wilt was NEVER selfish or anything in the sense of the word. He just wanted to win. His first seven years in the league his coach instructed him to score like no man before-he did. The rest of his career his coach instructed him to take the higher percentage shot and get his teammates involved- he did. If you're ever gonna criticze Wilt's style of play blame his coaches, not him. NO athlete ever did what he was instructed to do better than Wilt.

[iPod]

My gut reaction is that, if I were starting a franchise and could pick either Joe or Ted to be the headpiece of it, and I only had 5 seconds to pick, I'd end up picking Joe. But I tend to believe in the intrinsic value of being a well-rounded player.

[538280]

And Russell would let Chamberlain score 50 (concentrating on the rest of the game), because the Celtics would still win, and Russell wasn't the selfish egomaniac as Wilt was. He cared more about his teammates than his stats and personal glory, and his teams won as a result.

Only when Wilt adopted this philosophy to become a far less selfless and more complete (yet far less statistically dominating player) did he actually win a championship. The year Philly finally won, he was scoring HALF of what he was in his best year.

I agree with others. I don't understand how Russell could have actually helped his team by allowing Wilt to score 50 points. Why does Wilt even have to incorporate his teammates if he can just score by himself every posession?

Also, from all I have read about Wilt, he was anything but a selfish egomaniac.

[csh19792001]

I agree with others. I don't understand how Russell could have actually helped his team by allowing Wilt to score 50 points. Why does Wilt even have to incorporate his teammates if he can just score by himself every posession?

Also, from all I have read about Wilt, he was anything but a selfish egomaniac.

50 points was hyberbolic. It wasn't meant to be taken literallly. Russell was concerned with winning first and wasn't very concerned about his own stats, much like Dennis Johnson on the 80's Celtics teams. Johnson would score 8 points and would frequently be named the game's most valuable player. Why? Because he played his heart out and did all of the little things to win games.

How much have you actually read about Wilt? Start with the words straight from his own mouth- read "A View From Above"
Loads of self-aggrandizement about the number of women he slept with, and his statistical domination.

If bragging to the world that you slept with 10,000 women isn't egomaniacal, what is?

[64Cards]

If bragging to the world that you slept with 10,000 women isn't egomaniacal, what is?
Let's be factual, csh. Wilt claimed to have slept with 20,000 women.:cool:

[iPod]

Let's be factual, csh. Wilt claimed to have slept with 20,000 women.:cool:

Someone actually crunched the math on that, and in order to have slept with 20,000 women by the time he made that claim... now, the math's a little fuzzy here, so it might be wrong, but I think it was that he would have had to have sex with 1.3 women per day, beginning at his 13th birthday.

[Chisox]

Someone actually crunched the math on that, and in order to have slept with 20,000 women by the time he made that claim... now, the math's a little fuzzy here, so it might be wrong, but I think it was that he would have had to have sex with 1.3 women per day, beginning at his 13th birthday.

And that's out of the realm of possibility?:coffee

[64Cards]

Someone actually crunched the math on that, and in order to have slept with 20,000 women by the time he made that claim... now, the math's a little fuzzy here, so it might be wrong, but I think it was that he would have had to have sex with 1.3 women per day, beginning at his 13th birthday.
I guess we've diverted off the topic, but hell, Joe D. was married to the el supremo trophy wife, America's greatest sex goddess.

So back to the 20K women. When it came out, me & a bud did some number crunching. Wilt was 55 at the time, so we gave him credit for 40 years of sexual prowess, 350 gals a year. Even though, given the morals of 1950's America, it seems unlikely he was bagging that many as a schoolboy in Philly, although I'm sure he had his moments. We gave him credit for the time at KU, although I doubt if there were 350 black women in Lawrence at the time and although I realize Wilt's appeal went across all racial divides, I still can't imagine much of that happening in Lawrence in 1956. Anyway, 40 years, 350 gals a year [figuring occasionally he's not feeling well, especially after beating the boards against Russell or Willis Reed] comes to 14K...Wilt, you're still 6K short!

But then, nobody can average 50 points a game. Or hit in 56 consecutive games, to return to the subject.:p

[yanks0714]

Let's be factual, csh. Wilt claimed to have slept with 20,000 women.:cool:


Folks, I know that is what wilt said in his book. But later, after being ridiculed, Wilt claimed he used that figure because had no idea how many women he had had, but it was alot. :rolleyes:

In any event, he later said that he did not sleep with that many women, obviously, but simply wanted to imply that it was a great deal.

[Dodgerfan66]

joe d is overatted

[ElHalo]

joe d is overatted

You have GOT to be kidding me. Drag up a year old thread for THAT?

[Blackout]

sandy koufax is overatted
yep :atthepc

[Sockeye]

I have Joe Dimaggio at #24 all time. #18 among position players.

[blslivewire]

Joe had to do something right, he bagged Marylin, if only for a week.:laugh


Who didn't?

[Myankee4life]

Some cool videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYfony71EC4


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lheyMX3P4Yg


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6smc83z7xE8


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gDL2eb1n3A



The last one is an actual news reel.

[ChrisLDuncan]

Few get shortchanged more by the current player value metrics du jour than Joe Dimaggio.

At Yankee Stadium over his career, Dimaggio hit .315 at home and a home run once every 22.7 at bats. On the road he hit .333/.421/.606, and hit one home run every 16.2 at bats.

He missed three full PRIME seasons due to WWII, and he also hit 213 of his 361 career homeruns on the road. Put him in in a reasonable park, he'd have easily hit over 400 homeruns. Give him back his three war seasons, and now we're talking about a guy who could have easily hit over 500 homeruns in 16 seasons.

Dimaggio's strikeout total is truly incredible- he's BY FAR the greatest slugger in history in terms of sheer power combined with incredible bat control. 361 homeruns coupled with ONLY 369 career strikeouts is one of the greatest achievements in baseball history.

Dimag was hitting over .400 in September of 1939, but began to suffer terrible pain over his right eye- he went to Joe McCarthy and asked to be sat out, but McCarthy insisted he stay in the lineup. Dimaggio dropped off precipitously and finished at .381.

Debilitating (and continuous) foot injuries (which included lots of small breaks that never healed) helped conspire to end his career, but in terms of sheer quality, Dimag was one of the best to ever play. He ranks 12th alltime in Win Shares per season, and as stated before, I seriously doubt Win Shares or any other standardized metric properly reconciles the fact that he played in such an atrocious park for right handed power hitters.

Dimaggio was also one of the greatest all around players who ever lived.

Not to mention all the two years before/after he left...I'm pretty sure that'll mess with a guy. I take greats at their word...and when Ted Williams said that Joe D was the best all-around player that he's ever seen I'll take him at his word.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Let's be factual, csh. Wilt claimed to have slept with 20,000 women.:cool:


I have no idea what the number actually was or or what number would even be close to. But lets use some common sense here, neither does Wilt, who the heck could keep track or count that high.

[Brian McKenna]

Who didn't?

That would be a shorter list. DiMaggio though tried to turn the -- into a housewife.

[yanks0714]

I have no idea what the number actually was or or what number would even be close to. But lets use some common sense here, neither does Wilt, who the heck could keep track or count that high.

Wilt later recanted that figure. He says that he was trying to say that he slept with a "lot" of women and used the figure more or less figuratively.

[EvanAparra]

Not to mention all the two years before/after he left...I'm pretty sure that'll mess with a guy. I take greats at their word...and when Ted Williams said that Joe D was the best all-around player that he's ever seen I'll take him at his word.

Ok, why in the world would the two years BEFORE be hard for him?

[ChrisLDuncan]

Ok, why in the world would the two years BEFORE be hard for him?

Year before/year after two years

[EvanAparra]

Year before/year after two years
I dont get it.

[ChrisLDuncan]

I dont get it.

A year before a year after...that's two years all together.

[EvanAparra]

A year before a year after...that's two years all together.

Why the year before?

[SHOELESSJOE3]

More on Joe D.

[thaa]

Dimaggio was a great player, but he was no Ted Williams.

Actually, if you're talking about a great player, then, without question, Ted Williams is well below Dimaggio, and Musial, and Mantle, and Mays, and Aaron. Williams was, at best, at very best, just an average ballplayer, and that's probably to err on the side of generosity.

The Baseball-reference.com's comparison (below) is profoundly misguided, and would have been seen as such by Walker, Klein, Mize, Snider, Averill and anyone who played in Dimaggio's era (Ramirez doesn't count: hell, he probably thinks he's comparable to Ruth and Cobb).

Their comparison is even less intelligent if the question is: "Which ballplayers were comparable to Williams and Dimaggio."


For what it's worth, Baseball-reference.com's most similar batters for Dimaggio:

Larry Walker
Chuck Klein
Johnny Mize
Duke Snider
Earl Averill
Manny Ramirez
Ellis Burks
Bob Johnson
Jim Rice
Juan Gonzalez

and for Williams:

Jimmie Foxx
Lou Gehrig
Mel Ott
Mickey Mantle
Frank Robinson
Babe Ruth
Barry Bonds
Ken Griffey
Jeff Bagwell
Al Simmons

[thaa]

Ok, why in the world would the two years BEFORE be hard for him?

If the question is "Why would the year before he entered the army be 'hard' on Dimaggio," the answer is complicated and may depend on a lot of things. Family demands, for example (wife, children parents, etc). I know of no better place to go for an answer to this "why in the world" question than to Saul Bellow's novel about a guy waiting for his draft notice: Dangling Man. There's no need to think everyone would have found the wait distracting but there is also no reason to doubt that for many it would have posed a psychological distraction. If I may say so, you need to think about this more closely. The Dimaggio record for 1942 is well below what he had been doing from 1936-1941, so much below it that one can only ask, "What in heaven's name was going on in 1942 that would have posed such a problem?"

[SHOELESSJOE3]

If the question is "Why would the year before he entered the army be 'hard' on Dimaggio," the answer is complicated and may depend on a lot of things. Family demands, for example (wife, children parents, etc). I know of no better place to go for an answer to this "why in the world" question than to Saul Bellow's novel about a guy waiting for his draft notice: Dangling Man. There's no need to think everyone would have found the wait distracting but there is also no reason to doubt that for many it would have posed a psychological distraction. If I may say so, you need to think about this more closely. The Dimaggio record for 1942 is well below what he had been doing from 1936-1941, so much below it that one can only ask, "What in heaven's name was going on in 1942 that would have posed such a problem?"

Could this be the answer, part of the answer. What happened in the season of 1942, not a Joe Dimaggio like season.

1941, His wife Dorothy leaves thier home.
1941 Pearl Harbor attack.
Soon after the attack, Joe's parents are deemed "enemy aliens" and required to carry ID at all times. They are limited with travel, no further than 5 miles from home. They are not even allowed to visit Joe's restaraunt, it exceeds the 5 mile limit. Later in 1942 the government lifts the restriction, only to Joe's restaraunt to allow him to maintain restaraunt while Joe plays ball.

1942, Dorothy threatens Joe with divorce. Government agents search Joe's parent's home, sieze radios and flashlights. Yes, even flashlights. The gov fears his dad may be signaling enemy agents off the coast when on his vessals. One of his dad's vessals is seized.

Early-mid 1942, Joe is diagnosed with ulcers.

A restriction is placed on how far off the coast Joe's dad can fish. One time agents board one of his vessals, looking for radios, flares or flashlights.

Not much of a mystery, Joe had more than baseball on his mind in the season of 1942.
Decline after returning, most bio's and comments by teammates, lots of injuries, he was never the same as before going into the service.

[yanks0714]

Williams was, at best, at very best, just an average ballplayer, and that's probably to err on the side of generosity.

This is the first time I've ever heard Ted Williams called average.

Maybe he was average in defense and speed at best. But as a hitter, Ted Williams was anything but average. He was a better hitter than any of those mentioned with exception of Babe Ruth.

His hitting alone made him much more than an average player. His hitting overwhlemed his deficencies on defense and speed.

Joe DiMaggio was not the hitter Ted Williams was. JoeD was a terrific hitter. He was also a more complete ball player than Ted Williams but that doesn't make him better.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

This is the first time I've ever heard Ted Williams called average.

Maybe he was average in defense and speed at best. But as a hitter, Ted Williams was anything but average. He was a better hitter than any of those mentioned with exception of Babe Ruth.

His hitting alone made him much more than an average player. His hitting overwhlemed his deficencies on defense and speed.

Joe DiMaggio was not the hitter Ted Williams was. JoeD was a terrific hitter. He was also a more complete ball player than Ted Williams but that doesn't make him better.

Ted, certainly not just an average hitter. I give Ted the edge because of longevity. Joe was injury prone, shortened his career and that works against him but that takes nothing away from Ted, just part of the game.

But, for most of their career, when they put on the spikes and took the field, all around Joe was a good as any player and his value to his team was equal to any other player in those years. Does that make him better, debatable, one guy knocking the cover off the ball and the other, one of the best hitters in the league, better than average on defense and an excellent base runner, not to be confused with stealing bases. I don't think Ted was as bad a fielder as some think he was.

One thing to remember here, Ted was the better hitter, almost always makes the top 3 on most anyones list.

The gap is not that great if we factor in some conditions. Ted played in a very good hitter's park, Joe in one of the worst for right handed hitters.
A year after Ted joined the Bosox right field was shortened from 332 to 304. The power alley shortened from 405 to 382.
Some dimensions at Yankee Stadium were shortened in 1937 a year after Joe joined the Yanks centerfield from 487 to 461....LCF 490 to 457 and deep RCF from 429 to 407. Get away from the lines at Yankee Stadium and it's a long way, for RH hitters death.

The all time career list of hitters is dominated by LH hitters, one of the bigger reasons historically more RH pitchers. There has been only one RH hitter with a batting average over .320 since 1936, Dimaggio with .325,look at the list, all LH hitters at the top.
We see it all the time on this board, great pitchers and hitters ranked and park factors are used by all on this board among other factors.
If you recall earlier in my post I give Ted the edge when looking back on thier careers and I still do even with some factors included. And all that I posted about parks and the greater number of RH pitchers in the game does not change Ted's ranking, he hits in all parks, he hits LH and RH pitchers.

His OBA is far better than Joe's, he's number one. They had different hitting philosophies. We know Ted would not bite on a pitch a fraction off the plate. Joe would go out of the zone. It worked fine for both of them.
My point, looking at the factors in the game, these guys are not that far apart in hitting as the raw numbers appear.

[thaa]

[....]
Joe DiMaggio was not the hitter Ted Williams was. JoeD was a terrific hitter. He was also a more complete ball player than Ted Williams but that doesn't make him better.

Sure it does.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Never understood why the Yanks did nothing about those monster distances on the left side when Joe came to the Yanks.
1934 Al Simmons joines the White Sox, in some news articles Al makes no bones about Comiskey Park distances. The White Sox move home plate out 14 feet. Now the distance to CF from 450 to 436- down the lines from 362 to 342.

Ted Williams joins the Bosox 1939.
1940 Fenway distance down RF line shortened from 332 to 304.
Power alley RCF, bullpen installed, disatnce drops, 405 to 382.

Hank Greenberg joins the Pirates in 1947.
Forbes Field distance down LF line, 365 to 335, LCF from 406 to 355.
Known as " Greenberg Gardens."
Hank is with Pirates for only one season 1947 but here comes another RH young slugger, Ralph Kiner. Distances remain the same, now the left side known as "Kiner's Korner."
Ralph leaves the Pirates in 1953 and in 1954 the distance to left and LCF are moved back out.
When you look at some of these distances, Yankee Stadium was more difficult to reach than all the others and there were no changes.
I don't think we can ever overstate what Joe was up against on that left side at Yankee Stadium. I wonder how many 420-430+ drives died on that left side. Probably some for EBH's but some had to be just long outs

[EdTarbusz]

Could this be the answer, part of the answer. What happened in the season of 1942, not a Joe Dimaggio like season.

1941, His wife Dorothy leaves thier home.
1941 Pearl Harbor attack.
Soon after the attack, Joe's parents are deemed "enemy aliens" and required to carry ID at all times. They are limited with travel, no further than 5 miles from home. They are not even allowed to visit Joe's restaraunt, it exceeds the 5 mile limit. Later in 1942 the government lifts the restriction, only to Joe's restaraunt to allow him to maintain restaraunt while Joe plays ball.

1942, Dorothy threatens Joe with divorce. Government agents search Joe's parent's home, sieze radios and flashlights. Yes, even flashlights. The gov fears his dad may be signaling enemy agents off the coast when on his vessals. One of his dad's vessals is seized.

Early-mid 1942, Joe is diagnosed with ulcers.

A restriction is placed on how far off the coast Joe's dad can fish. One time agents board one of his vessals, looking for radios, flares or flashlights.

Not much of a mystery, Joe had more than baseball on his mind in the season of 1942.
Decline after returning, most bio's and comments by teammates, lots of injuries, he was never the same as before going into the service.

One more thing to add to add about DiMaggio and 1942: DiMaggio and his wife had a new baby in their apartment. This probably also added to his stress level.

[Paul Wendt]

Sure it does.
That's one of the better arguments I've read in my two years here!
:applaud:


Never understood why the Yanks did nothing about those monster distances on the left side when Joe came to the Yanks.
...
When you look at some of these distances, Yankee Stadium was more difficult to reach than all the others and there were no changes.
Maybe the Yankees ballclub considered itself to be above those shenanigans, or Yankee Stadium to be above that.

[thaa]

That's one of the better arguments I've read in my two years here!
:applaud:


Perhaps it really is one of the better arguments you've read, if only by virtue of its succinctness. Moreover, it doesn't commit the non sequitur that the earlier post, to which it responded, was guilty of. Namesly, that Joe D. was a more complete ballplayer than Williams but that this did not make him "better."

To be a "more complete" ballplayer is, by definition, to be a better player. This was self-evident, requiring nothing further from me than "Sure it does."

[SHOELESSJOE3]

That's one of the better arguments I've read in my two years here!
:applaud:


Maybe the Yankees ballclub considered itself to be above those shenanigans, or Yankee Stadium to be above that.

I don't think they ever considered it would be viewed as a shenanigan.
Possible they never even thought to do it, I have no idea.

[ol' aches and pains]

Perhaps it really is one of the better arguments you've read, if only by virtue of its succinctness. Moreover, it doesn't commit the non sequitur that the earlier post, to which it responded, was guilty of. Namesly, that Joe D. was a more complete ballplayer than Williams but that this did not make him "better."

To be a "more complete" ballplayer is, by definition, to be a better player. This was self-evident, requiring nothing further from me than "Sure it does."

If I had to choose, I'd go with the man who had a career OBP of .482, the highest in history. 12 seasons over .490 OBP. Sure Dimaggio was a more complete ballplayer, but a hitter like Williams comes along once in a lifetime. He beats Dimaggio in OPS+ 191-155! When you hit like Ted Williams, you can get away with average defense.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

The DiMaggio portion of Jenkinson's new book will be especially interesting.

[yanks0714]

Perhaps it really is one of the better arguments you've read, if only by virtue of its succinctness. Moreover, it doesn't commit the non sequitur that the earlier post, to which it responded, was guilty of. Namesly, that Joe D. was a more complete ballplayer than Williams but that this did not make him "better."

To be a "more complete" ballplayer is, by definition, to be a better player. This was self-evident, requiring nothing further from me than "Sure it does."

Self evident to who besides yourself?

There is no doubt that JoeD was a more complete ball player than Ted because his D was better and he ran better. Probably threw better too.

But Ted's hitting overrides his lack of 'completeness' for want of a better word. JoeD's fielding, running, and throwing advantage are not enough to overtake Ted's hitting, Therfore Ted is the 'better' of the two.

In BBF polls over the yers Ted is always ahead of JoeD in the opinion of the BBF posters.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Been said that when Joe returned from the service in 1946, he was not the same Joe as we knew him before the service.

I think it was more a case of eroding health and his physical being, not his skill level.

1946, right from the start problems with both knees swelling in spring training and into the start of the season. One knee heavily taped.
July 7 torn knee ligaments, returns August 17. Plays 132 games.

1947 Bone spur removed left heel January 6. Heel does not heal properly, surgery left heel March 12, skin graft. Hobbled in spring training and early season. First game April 21. In pain much of season, does play 141 games.

1948 some pain, same old story, the heel. Mild pain, one of his heathier and better years gets in a good number of games, 153.

1949 Bone spur spring training right heel, removed in April. sits out 65 games comes back June 28, big series with Bosox. Yanks sweep 3 games, Joe.... 11 at bats -4 home runs- 9 RBI.
September 18, hospitalized for a few days then remains out for a few games. Described as viral infection.

Did a good deal of research on Joe, right from the start and I can tell you, this guy had bad legs, even when young, played with lots of pain. I guess he was big and strong but that does not guarantee durability.

1939 age 24 he played 120 games, injures knee chasing down fly ball, out April 29 return June 7.

1940 AGE 25 plays 132 games.
Injures knee in pre-season game against Dodgers.
Pain in Knee out April 27- May 9.
There would be more gaps of a couple or a few games he would sit out as the result of that spring training injury