Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

OK, Shoeless Joe vs Dick Allen

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

  • Cowtipper
    replied
    Originally posted by Joltin' Joe View Post
    156+ OPS in a very tough league in one of the worst hitter's era is not HOF-worthy?
    Where in my post did I say it was not Hall of Fame worthy.

    Leave a comment:


  • Joltin' Joe
    replied
    Originally posted by Cowtipper View Post
    I like Shoeless Joe more. Shoeless Joe is a sure-fire Hall of Famer without his banishment. Allen takes some consideration.
    156+ OPS in a very tough league in one of the worst hitter's era is not HOF-worthy?

    Leave a comment:


  • Cowtipper
    replied
    I like Shoeless Joe more. Shoeless Joe is a sure-fire Hall of Famer without his banishment. Allen takes some consideration.

    Leave a comment:


  • ElHalo
    replied
    Originally posted by Ubiquitous
    So you honestly believe 1880's National league baseball was similar to the 1980's baseball. A league in which most experts don't even think was the best league of the decade. American Association wins that one. In a decade in which there was two competing leagues and one time a third one as well. With vastly different rules and playing styles, with poor to no scouting, training, and recruiting of the best available talent. Yet despite all these deficiencies it is almost as good as the 1980's?
    The 1880's were a very poor quality league. As were the 1980's. 1980's were certainly stronger.

    Back it up, though, to the 1890's. Rule changes implemented essentially the same game as today's game. Scouting advances meant that most all east coast players were getting a good look to see if they were MLB quality material. Only one league, so no big divisions of talent. And, first and foremost, baseball was exceptionally popular (especially among the massive quantity of East Coast Irish immigrants and second-third generation people), so there was a wide swath to cull from in formulating a player base.

    1890's baseball was not as strong as 1910's baseball, or 1920's baseball, or so on. But I feel that, by 1980, enough regression had happened to the point where the league was weaker than it was in the mid 1890's.

    So, yeah, while the 1980's were stronger than the 1880's, I still feel that, compared with any other decades, you need to give players from that era a hit due to the quality of their competition.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ubiquitous
    replied
    So you honestly believe 1880's National league baseball was similar to the 1980's baseball. A league in which most experts don't even think was the best league of the decade. American Association wins that one. In a decade in which there was two competing leagues and one time a third one as well. With vastly different rules and playing styles, with poor to no scouting, training, and recruiting of the best available talent. Yet despite all these deficiencies it is almost as good as the 1980's?

    Leave a comment:


  • 538280
    replied
    Originally posted by four tool
    How can two eras affect each other but have no basis for using them to compare players from a third era also? You're saying we can compare the players from the 1970s to the deadball players, but cannot use the same comparisons vis-a-vis today's players.
    We can't use the same comparisons becuase the league has changed in quality (in my opinion for the worse) from the 1970s to today. You can take your thoughts on league quality, and apply it to the players. We can still compare players in the same way, just making different LQ adjustments.

    For example, I think Allen's era was probably about 20% better than Jackson's. So, I can adjust Allen's stats up 20% to give him what I feel is the proper boost. I feel today's baseball is 15% better than Jackson's era, so we can increase a current player's stats by 15% to give him the proper boost. Understand?

    Leave a comment:


  • ElHalo
    replied
    Originally posted by 538280
    No, because Brouthers did that in the 1880s, when the league was really, really, weak.
    Ding ding ding ding ding! We have a winner!

    And Schmidt did it in the 1980's, when baseball was almost as weak as in Brouthers' day.

    Leave a comment:


  • four tool
    replied
    Originally posted by 538280
    Why is that true? Why if baseball today is better than deadball baseball baseball today also has to be better than 1970s baseball? Those are two completely different issues that don't effect one another.
    How can two eras affect each other but have no basis for using them to compare players from a third era also? You're saying we can compare the players from the 1970s to the deadball players, but cannot use the same comparisons vis-a-vis today's players.

    Leave a comment:


  • 538280
    replied
    Originally posted by ElHalo
    No, not really. Dan Brouthers led his league in OPS+ 8 times... does that mean he's a better hitter than Gehrig, who only did it three?
    No, because Brouthers did that in the 1880s, when the league was really, really, weak.

    Leave a comment:


  • 538280
    replied
    Originally posted by four tool
    I said if the 1970s are better than the deadball era, today's era must be better than the 70s so today's players must be as superior to the players of the seventies as those players are to the deadball players.

    Granted it doesn't affect Jackson vs. Allen, but it effects the claim that Allen is one of the top 25 hitters of all time.
    Why is that true? Why if baseball today is better than deadball baseball baseball today also has to be better than 1970s baseball? Those are two completely different issues that don't effect one another.

    Leave a comment:


  • ElHalo
    replied
    Originally posted by leecemark
    --I wasn't making any positional adjustment. My ranking Schmidt ahead of Ramirez as a hitter was based primarily on one fact. At his peak Mike Schmidt led the NL in OPS+ 6 times in 7 years. Manny has led the AL once in his career. It might be that Manny has had better competition for the top spot, although I'm not convinced that is true. Even if that is part of it,being the best in your league 6 times to somebody eles's one is a pretty big advantage.
    No, not really. Dan Brouthers led his league in OPS+ 8 times... does that mean he's a better hitter than Gehrig, who only did it three?

    Leave a comment:


  • four tool
    replied
    I said if the 1970s are better than the deadball era, today's era must be better than the 70s so today's players must be as superior to the players of the seventies as those players are to the deadball players.

    Granted it doesn't affect Jackson vs. Allen, but it effects the claim that Allen is one of the top 25 hitters of all time.

    Leave a comment:


  • leecemark
    replied
    --I wasn't making any positional adjustment. My ranking Schmidt ahead of Ramirez as a hitter was based primarily on one fact. At his peak Mike Schmidt led the NL in OPS+ 6 times in 7 years. Manny has led the AL once in his career. It might be that Manny has had better competition for the top spot, although I'm not convinced that is true. Even if that is part of it,being the best in your league 6 times to somebody eles's one is a pretty big advantage.

    Leave a comment:


  • 538280
    replied
    Originally posted by ElHalo
    I'm trying very, very, VERY hard to come up with a set of circumstances where Mike Schmidt could be considered a better hitter than Manny Ramirez. Very hard.

    It's obviously not in contact hitting, where Manny's a .314 hitter and batting champion and Schmidt's, well, Schmidt. Schmidt's got a small BB lead, but Manny's no slouch, and has a sizable lead on Schmidt in the on base department. It can't be in slugging, where Manny isn't quite Schmidt's match in relative HR's, but almost, and more than makes up for it by being a doubles machine. What other aspects of hitting am I missing?

    Manny is almost, but not quite, as good of a hitter as guys like Foxx or Mantle. Schmidt is probably roughly equal in skill as a hitter to, say, Jim Thome; or, to put it in a slightly more historical context... say Frank Howard. That's two completely different planets of hitting skill, and for you to say that Schmidt should be ahead of Manny as a hitter just truly boggles my mind.
    Ever heard of a positional adjustment?

    Leave a comment:


  • ElHalo
    replied
    Originally posted by 538280
    Of course I've heard that. It's nothing but a load of crap from a bunch of people who ridiculously hate Reggie for being loudmouth and want to connect him with something just out of pure hate. ...

    Yes, there's no proof whatsoever Reggie was ever on steroids, no circumstantial evidence. What really annoyed me is that you said it as if everyoneshould give Reggie a hit for steroids because everyone knows he used them.
    First off, I don't hate Reggie for being a loudmouth. Far from it. David Wells is my favorite current baseball player, and my main man Rajah was one of the hardest guys in baseball history to get along with. I just think that it's unfair that people look at his career HR total and think he's an all timer instead of looking at his BA and OBP and realizing he's lucky to be in the Hall. Second, no, there is no proof, and I firmly stated such before... but a whole lot of people have had steroid tags slapped on them for a whole lot less (such as, for example, Todd Helton, Alfonso Soriano, Jim Edmonds, Adrian Beltre, Jason Schmidt, and Carl Pavano).

    Leave a comment:

Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X