Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Joe DiMaggio

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by 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.
    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.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by leecemark
      --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)
      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Last edited by Sultan_1895-1948; 11-10-2005, 05:38 PM.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by [email protected]
        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."
        Last edited by Sultan_1895-1948; 11-10-2005, 05:43 PM.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by 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.

          Ding Ding Ding.

          Buy that man a beer!
          THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT COME WITH A SCORECARD

          In the avy: AZ - Doe or Die

          Comment


          • #35
            --------------
            Attached Files

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Sultan_1895-1948
              --------------
              Very nice graphic, Sultan. Where'd you find it?

              Comment


              • #37
                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.

                Comment


                • #38
                  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.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by csh19792001
                    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.
                    Last edited by SHOELESSJOE3; 11-12-2005, 03:16 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by 538280
                      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.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by 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
                        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.
                        Last edited by SHOELESSJOE3; 11-12-2005, 04:00 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Sultan_1895-1948
                          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.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by csh19792001
                            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.
                            It Might Be? It Could Be?? It Is!

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by 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:
                              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.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                --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 ) 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.

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X