Rogers Hornsby Thread

[Honus Wagner Rules]

As with anything, we are left to discuss and put things into perspective. More specialized relief pitching, a smaller zone, and smaller fields, etc. Every factor influences other factors, points, counterpoints, the sharing of ideas and opinions continue on until the day we die.

Remember, the entire league got to hit in that park for some games here and there. Not for 77 home games a year. Big difference. That's why Chris posted visitors' numbers. If THOSE players, had THAT park for 77 games per season, what would their overall numbers look like? Ask yourself.

This is why I stopped ranking players years ago. Trying to determine the greater player between players who may have played 70-80 years apart is a fools errand in my opinion. For me at least, it's more important and fun to study the history of the game and the career and lives of the players. I don't really care what Babe Ruth or Rogers Hornsby or Ty Cobb could do in today's game or what Mike Trout or Albert Pujols or Mike Piazza, or A-Rod could do in 1930. It's all pure speculation and unprovable anyway so who cares? I'm much more interested in what players actually did in their era.

[csh19792001]

As with anything, we are left to discuss and put things into perspective. More specialized relief pitching, a smaller zone, and smaller fields, etc. Every factor influences other factors, points, counterpoints, the sharing of ideas and opinions continue on until the day we die.

I always wonder if scorers were much more liberal with ruling hits- and less likely to rule an in between play an error- during the 1900-1930 era than they are today. Esp. before 1920....not only were fielders' gloves a joke compared to today's, but the ball was disgusting, sodden, and blackened, and kept in play as long as was possible.

What was the actual strike zone- as called- in the 1920's?

Things that really bolstered offensive numbers of old timers...
1. Lousy gloves.
2. Relief pitchers were the opposite of what they are today....they were tired starters or stop-gap/backup pitchers who were usually subpar. Now they platoon incessantly, and all relievers throw 95+. Most relievers have much lower ERA's than starters.
3. Hitters beat up on pitchers over time if they get a 4th and 5th PA against them. The CG % was around 50% in Babe and Ty's time, 2-4% today!!
4. Familiarity (tends) to favor hitters. Bonds homered off of 449 pitchers, Ruth off of 219.
5. Night ball: Nobody hits better at night. In this century, 75% of games are evening/night games.
6. Massive fields, less athletic/speedy fielders overall: More room for hits to fall, more long extra base hits, esp. triples.

All I can think of at the moment...have to run.

Randy, you should take the opposite position.....disadvantages faced by old time hitters....

[Jackaroo Dave]

According your theory, players performance will then always depreciate as time goes by. Then Albert Pujols will be looked at as a scrub 50 years from now. I don't buy that. Also, I assume the entire league got to hit in the parks that you note.

Actually, your conclusion doesn't follow. And no one looks at Mays, Aaron, Mantle, Koufax, the Robinsons and other players of fifty years ago as scrubs. But . . . . if there were as many revolutionary changes in the baseball world in the next hundred years as there were in the past hundred, yes, in all probability Albert Pujols would be seen as the best of a demonstrably inferior lot, one who would be a star, but not a dominant one.

For example, suppose baseball became a truly worldwide sport, with the consequent media explosion and the revenue that would bring. And suppose this was accompanied by advances in neurology, kinesiology, nutrition, etc. so that potential stars could be predicted with some success in early childhood and trained in scientifically proven methods. So you would have a pool larger by an order of magnitude, worldwide, well-funded training programs, playing for enormous stakes. Every person in the world who could possibly throw 100 mph would be scouted from childhood, playing every day, and the top 1% might make it to the bigs. Every person in the world who could hit a ball 500 feet . . . likewise.

In other words, San Pedro de Marcoris would be the model for a global industry devoted to manufacturing the best possible baseball players. From that perspective, yes, our perfectly appropriate contemporary veneration of Albert Pujols will look rather quaint.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

I always wonder if scorers were much more liberal with ruling hits- and less likely to rule an in between play an error- during the 1900-1930 era than they are today. Esp. before 1920....not only were fielders' gloves a joke compared to today's, but the ball was disgusting, sodden, and blackened, and kept in play as long as was possible.

What was the actual strike zone- as called- in the 1920's?

Things that really bolstered offensive numbers of old timers...
1. Lousy gloves.
2. Relief pitchers were the opposite of what they are today....they were tired starters or stop-gap/backup pitchers who were usually subpar. Now they platoon incessantly, and all relievers throw 95+. Most relievers have much lower ERA's than starters.
3. Hitters beat up on pitchers over time if they get a 4th and 5th PA against them. The CG % was around 50% in Babe and Ty's time, 2-4% today!!
4. Familiarity (tends) to favor hitters. Bonds homered off of 449 pitchers, Ruth off of 219.
5. Night ball: Nobody hits better at night. In this century, 75% of games are evening/night games.
6. Massive fields, less athletic/speedy fielders overall: More room for hits to fall, more long extra base hits, esp. triples.

All I can think of at the moment...have to run.

Randy, you should take the opposite position.....disadvantages faced by old time hitters....

Short reply here, I think it's a wash pre 1920 it appears your speaking of how the ball may have effected fielding and I agree, but it didn't help the hitters either.
I guess we will never know what official scoring was like way back when but I can say seeing the game in the 1960s-1970s, official scorers were not very generous to the hitters. Official scoring in the last couple of decades has gone South, favor the hitters in general, not by much but some. I can't believe some of the fielding plays that go for hits today, fielders getting good leather on a ball and at times , it's a hit.

Can I prove that, no, thats my take on official scoring in todays game. It's not glaring but it's there.
What was the strike zone way back then..as called, no way to tell. But anyone on this board that can go back to the 1960's 1970's and some of the 1980's has to be aware that in the 1990's the strike zone on the verticle is a joke. At one time in the 1990's it was almost belt to the knees and even today, not what the book calls for.

Yes, overall pitching at a higher level today but I'm not going to subtract from Ruth, Foxx and some other because they batted against a smaller number of pitchers to indicate they couldn't hold their own today. Again, we are getting to that place again how would we know.

What I'm saying because a hitter today hits against more pitchers today, we can't just assume some past players stats would suffer today.
Batting average yes, home runs, total bases, no way to tell.
Night baseball, I don't think it hurts that much, not in the parks in recent years.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Some figure, picked at random but i would bet if we look at the last 20 years in total, the day/night numbers would not have a significant difference.
OK, could skew the numbers a bit, far more day game than night, I don't think it would matter that much.
The difference is certainly not like night and day.

[Jackaroo Dave]

I guess we will never know what official scoring was like way back when but I can say seeing the game in the 1960s-1970s, official scorers were not very generous to the hitters. Official scoring in the last couple of decades has gone South, favor the hitters in general, not by much but some. I can't believe some of the fielding plays that go for hits today, fielders getting good leather on a ball and at times , it's a hit.

That is my sense of it too, but I wonder if some of it isn't old fogeyism. It's an important issue to me, because one of the best indicators of improved quality of play is the decrease in errors and increase in double plays, which persist even after the introduction of the contemporary glove. (And even if an improvement is due to better equipment, it's still an improvement.)

Part of the improvement (in error rate, not dp) I guess, is due to the increase in strikeouts, but if it's also due to more stringent use of the E, then a big argument for improved quality gets smaller.

I wonder what the trends in Reached-on-error have to say about this.

s

[willshad]

Actually, your conclusion doesn't follow. And no one looks at Mays, Aaron, Mantle, Koufax, the Robinsons and other players of fifty years ago as scrubs. But . . . . if there were as many revolutionary changes in the baseball world in the next hundred years as there were in the past hundred, yes, in all probability Albert Pujols would be seen as the best of a demonstrably inferior lot, one who would be a star, but not a dominant one.

For example, suppose baseball became a truly worldwide sport, with the consequent media explosion and the revenue that would bring. And suppose this was accompanied by advances in neurology, kinesiology, nutrition, etc. so that potential stars could be predicted with some success in early childhood and trained in scientifically proven methods. So you would have a pool larger by an order of magnitude, worldwide, well-funded training programs, playing for enormous stakes. Every person in the world who could possibly throw 100 mph would be scouted from childhood, playing every day, and the top 1% might make it to the bigs. Every person in the world who could hit a ball 500 feet . . . likewise.

In other words, San Pedro de Marcoris would be the model for a global industry devoted to manufacturing the best possible baseball players. From that perspective, yes, our perfectly appropriate contemporary veneration of Albert Pujols will look rather quaint.

It would seem to me that comparing a player to his contemporaries is still the way to go...whether it is 1912 or 2012. The whole 'league quality' thing is ridiculous to me, because it isn't just the 'average' player' that improves...logic would dictate that if the average player improves, then the best players would improve as well, by the same margin. By definition, there could not be 100 Albert Pujols' in any league, simply because Pujols was one of the best hitters around. Likewise, there cannot be any hitter around today as good as Babe Ruth, because he was far and away the best of the best. Even if the average player has improved today, then by definition, if Ruth were around today then he would improve by about the same margin...otherwise he would not be Ruth any longer. No matter how good the average player gets, there has to be those that stand out and excel..and if Ruth couldn't do it, then who could? If a 20 year old rookie centerfielder can hit for a 171 OPS+, then a prime Ruth could top 200 today with relative ease.

The only way I use 'league quality' is in league leaderships, MVPs, etc, because it is obvious that in some eras there were a lot more top stars around than in other eras.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

That is my sense of it too, but I wonder if some of it isn't old fogeyism. It's an important issue to me, because one of the best indicators of improved quality of play is the decrease in errors and increase in double plays, which persist even after the introduction of the contemporary glove. (And even if an improvement is due to better equipment, it's still an improvement.)

Part of the improvement (in error rate, not dp) I guess, is due to the increase in strikeouts, but if it's also due to more stringent use of the E, then a big argument for improved quality gets smaller.

I wonder what the trends in Reached-on-error have to say about this.

s

I doubt that. I've noticed even some ex ballplayers as broadcasters commenting on some fielding plays, that they question, called base hits, questionable calls.
Not to say it's that frequent in todays game, but it's there.
As for the DP's, I checked some numbers, team fielding, second base and SS Dp's from 1960-2005 and out of the top 10, only about 4 were from 2000 or later. A good number were from the 1960's -1970's- 1980's. Of course, other factors can effect that, more walks, more strikeouts, balls in play, would have to really consider other factors than fielding alone.

Some of these plays we see every night on TV highlights, these middle infielders are wizards. What Dp's and these guys making plays in short RF and LF and throwing out runners at first base.
You have to watch them a couple of time to believe what your seeing.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

It would seem to me that comparing a player to his contemporaries is still the way to go...whether it is 1912 or 2012. The whole 'league quality' thing is ridiculous to me, because it isn't just the 'average' player' that improves...logic would dictate that if the average player improves, then the best players would improve as well, by the same margin. By definition, there could not be 100 Albert Pujols' in any league, simply because Pujols was one of the best hitters around. Likewise, there cannot be any hitter around today as good as Babe Ruth, because he was far and away the best of the best. Even if the average player has improved today, then by definition, if Ruth were around today then he would improve by about the same margin...otherwise he would not be Ruth any longer. No matter how good the average player gets, there has to be those that stand out and excel..and if Ruth couldn't do it, then who could? If a 20 year old rookie centerfielder can hit for a 171 OPS+, then a prime Ruth could top 200 today with relative ease.

The only way I use 'league quality' is in league leaderships, MVPs, etc, because it is obvious that in some eras there were a lot more top stars around than in other eras.

I've posed thjat question a number of times on this and other boards.
Not going to project what Ruth would do in todays game, but again if he could not match the best in todays game. What are we saying, that there was no player born whan he was and played when he did that could be among the best today.
Not logical, not a single player back then could be as good as any we have today, anyone buying that.

I have never projected Ruth possible numbers if playing today, but when I see some saying he would be a Jim Thome, Adam Dunn and yes, even Steve Balboni, it's a laugher.
BTW, no diminishing Jim Thome a legit long ball, slugger.

[leewileyfan]

Actually, your conclusion doesn't follow. And no one looks at Mays, Aaron, Mantle, Koufax, the Robinsons and other players of fifty years ago as scrubs. But . . . . if there were as many revolutionary changes in the baseball world in the next hundred years as there were in the past hundred, yes, in all probability Albert Pujols would be seen as the best of a demonstrably inferior lot, one who would be a star, but not a dominant one.

For example, suppose baseball became a truly worldwide sport, with the consequent media explosion and the revenue that would bring. And suppose this was accompanied by advances in neurology, kinesiology, nutrition, etc. so that potential stars could be predicted with some success in early childhood and trained in scientifically proven methods. So you would have a pool larger by an order of magnitude, worldwide, well-funded training programs, playing for enormous stakes. Every person in the world who could possibly throw 100 mph would be scouted from childhood, playing every day, and the top 1% might make it to the bigs. Every person in the world who could hit a ball 500 feet . . . likewise.

In other words, San Pedro de Marcoris would be the model for a global industry devoted to manufacturing the best possible baseball players. From that perspective, yes, our perfectly appropriate contemporary veneration of Albert Pujols will look rather quaint.

And in that Utopian World of perfect humanity, CHEATING would no doubt be raised as a moral issue, making all those SUPER players highly suspect and morally disgraced.

Conversely, Albert Pujols might be viewed as a saintly sample of honest human perfection; and Barry Bonds might be seen as a misunderstood martyr who was ahead of his time but born before his time.

Human nature being what it is.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I always wonder if scorers were much more liberal with ruling hits- and less likely to rule an in between play an error- during the 1900-1930 era than they are today. Esp. before 1920....not only were fielders' gloves a joke compared to today's, but the ball was disgusting, sodden, and blackened, and kept in play as long as was possible.

What was the actual strike zone- as called- in the 1920's?

Things that really bolstered offensive numbers of old timers...
1. Lousy gloves.
2. Relief pitchers were the opposite of what they are today....they were tired starters or stop-gap/backup pitchers who were usually subpar. Now they platoon incessantly, and all relievers throw 95+. Most relievers have much lower ERA's than starters.
3. Hitters beat up on pitchers over time if they get a 4th and 5th PA against them. The CG % was around 50% in Babe and Ty's time, 2-4% today!!
4. Familiarity (tends) to favor hitters. Bonds homered off of 449 pitchers, Ruth off of 219.
5. Night ball: Nobody hits better at night. In this century, 75% of games are evening/night games.
6. Massive fields, less athletic/speedy fielders overall: More room for hits to fall, more long extra base hits, esp. triples.

All I can think of at the moment...have to run.

Randy, you should take the opposite position.....disadvantages faced by old time hitters....

LOL hey Chris,

I'm not into just taking a position because I prefer one era over the other. I look at each factor and determine how much it helps or hinders that eras player.

I know you've read the Jenkinson chapter on COMARATIVE DIFFICULTY which deals with past eras but also how issues specifically relate to Ruth. Jenkinson makes excellent points, for example, Ruth facing more specialized relief pitching than anyone else in his time. We also know that pitchers were able to pace themselves, but hitters like Ruth, Cobb, Hornsby, etc...the elites, always faced the pitchers utmost focus and energy. How do we translate that into numbers? We can't.

I think you make great points about why offensive numbers were high. Remember though, the great hitters back then also played in the field and used the same gloves, in the same expansive outfields, etc. Everyone faced the same circumstances (field size, lack of scouting, crappy gloves, etc), which is why relative stats have meaning.

Points/counterpoints to nearly every issue.

You bring up night baseball. Personally, I think it is easier to see the ball at night, especially with the sophisticated lighting systems today. The ball glows because it is always white and always scuff free, coming in against a hitters backdrop. That is a huge counterpoint. Another one would be, it is much cooler at night, which is a huge advantage throughout the dog days of a long season. Playing all day games in heavy wool uniforms? Non air conditioned clubhouses, trains, or hotels. No thanks.

The high strike was called back in the day. Most videos or pictures you see, will have the catcher in a half crouch. Pitchers were able to come inside without a big stink being made about it. As a result, hitters (especially without helmets available) would not dive out over the plate with care-free attitudes, and inside pitches were called strikes more often because you didn't have hitters unjustly diving away, making the pitch appear inside.

Let us break this down. A hitter today does not have to worry about the letter high, or even the belt high pitch being called a strike. If the catcher even raises his mitt a little, 9/10 times it's called a ball. But....if the hitter decides to swing at said pitch, it's a GREAT pitch to hit (see pic below of a pitch that would not be called a strike), especially given the smaller ballparks.

So you have pitchers today who can throw harder than ever, but are not able to take advantage of a "normal" zone. If they could, it would allow them to work off their curveball and achieve was is crucial to pitching success; changing the hitter eye level (or expectations). The same principal that applies when busting a guy inside, only to paint the outside corner. As a hitter, you know exactly what the pitcher is doing, but there's a subconscious mental and muscle memory reaction, that causes you to expect the opposite (or not be as committed).

pujols.jpg

[SHOELESSJOE3]

LOL hey Chris,

I'm not into just taking a position because I prefer one era over the other. I look at each factor and determine how much it helps or hinders that eras player.

I know you've read the Jenkinson chapter on COMARATIVE DIFFICULTY which deals with past eras but also how issues specifically relate to Ruth. Jenkinson makes excellent points, for example, Ruth facing more specialized relief pitching than anyone else in his time. We also know that pitchers were able to pace themselves, but hitters like Ruth, Cobb, Hornsby, etc...the elites, always faced the pitchers utmost focus and energy. How do we translate that into numbers? We can't.

I think you make great points about why offensive numbers were high. Remember though, the great hitters back then also played in the field and used the same gloves, in the same expansive outfields, etc. Everyone faced the same circumstances (field size, lack of scouting, crappy gloves, etc), which is why relative stats have meaning.

Points/counterpoints to nearly every issue.

You bring up night baseball. Personally, I think it is easier to see the ball at night, especially with the sophisticated lighting systems today. The ball glows because it is always white and always scuff free, coming in against a hitters backdrop. That is a huge counterpoint. Another one would be, it is much cooler at night, which is a huge advantage throughout the dog days of a long season. Playing all day games in heavy wool uniforms? Non air conditioned clubhouses, trains, or hotels. No thanks.

The high strike was called back in the day. Most videos or pictures you see, will have the catcher in a half crouch. Pitchers were able to come inside without a big stink being made about it. As a result, hitters (especially without helmets available) would not dive out over the plate with care-free attitudes, and inside pitches were called strikes more often because you didn't have hitters unjustly diving away, making the pitch appear inside.

Let us break this down. A hitter today does not have to worry about the letter high, or even the belt high pitch being called a strike. If the catcher even raises his mitt a little, 9/10 times it's called a ball. But....if the hitter decides to swing at said pitch, it's a GREAT pitch to hit (see pic below of a pitch that would not be called a strike), especially given the smaller ballparks.

So you have pitchers today who can throw harder than ever, but are not able to take advantage of a "normal" zone. If they could, it would allow them to work off their curveball and achieve was is crucial to pitching success; changing the hitter eye level (or expectations). The same principal that applies when busting a guy inside, only to paint the outside corner. As a hitter, you know exactly what the pitcher is doing, but there's a subconscious mental and muscle memory reaction, that causes you to expect the opposite (or not be as committed).

pujols.jpg

Often forgotten. Anyone recall in the 1990s' when the umps threw out the rulle book, decided that the letter high pitch called a strke for almost 100 years with some variations, mid point......the arm, pits and as high as the shoulders......in the rule book, in the 1990's big topic of discussion...... was no longer a called strike, they were down to the belt. In the 1990's, Baseball Magazine, Baseball Digest, The Sporting News, Sports Illustrated ESPN, other magazines and a good number of newspapers, all carried articles about the shrunken verticle strike zone Many with illustrations...... rule book and what the umps were calling.

Yes a fairly high pitch for many hitters a good pitch to hit. But what the shrunken strike zone as done, taken away one of the pitchers weapons, The borderline high strike, the one that once was a toss up, could be called a ball or strike, not today, for sure a ball. The batter with two strikes could not take a chance years ago, often swinging at that borderline high pitch.
I saw Mantle, Killebrew and some of todays strongest hitters having a problem with that high pitch. Getting around, on the high one, getting "on top of the ball", driving it. Often this pitch is missed, fouled back or popped up, bat speed slows down that high.

One example although not everyone is Mariano Rivera. I've seen him so often, a pattern.When he has the batter 0-2, so many times he throws one up around the letters, usually strike three if the batter swings of course.

In recent years the umps are calling some higher pitches a strike, but still not that close to the rule book.
Why do you think we often hear broadcasterss comment............he called the high strike on that pitch...........no kidding, it is a strike in the rule book.

To me, this one gets overlooked. Other factors in the 1990's were a part of the offensive explosion but this is one of them

[TomBodet]

Which I hate seeing. The idea that he was a Balboni(!) or Thome(hmmm) or Adam Dunn gimme a break. He was a tank. He was described as having cat-like reflexes in the OF. He had a really good, accurate throwing arm. He was a legit top 5 all time great great hitter. He was a 20 game winner twice. None of this sounds much like Bye Bye Balboni or Adam 1 and Dunn now does it?

If Ruth was Dunn, does that make Josh Gibson Rob Deer or Kingman? Of COURSE it doesn't.

If the change in league quality was so great, guys like Rick Dempsey, Dave Philley, Dave Martinez and Doug Jones would NEVER have lasted but 5 years, much less the decades that they as a group played. I just don't see it. If Ruth was Adam Dunn, what are we going to say about Jackie Robinson-??