Wagner/Mays: Who Do You Rank Higher as Historical Players?

[Bill Burgess]

Where have I gone personal Bill?

Where did I? I suggest that I am working nuances, and you can't seem to handle them. Why is that personal? I am debating honestly.

But since you asked.

I've addressed it ad nauseum. You didn't respond.

Because there is nothing to respond to. Your belief is that the real Honus Wagner could and would morph into your imaginated Honus. Okay, I can't refute that because it doesn't exist. Sure, I can say nahah and you can say yeahah but that is all it is really going to boil down to.

You say that all my argumentations are nothing? Was that personal? I didn't take offense, even though it was somewhat insulting to suggest that my arguments are nothing to you.

I throw out reasonable theories on what Honus Wagner might have done had he played later, without the disincentives to his hitting, and you feign disbelief that such a man might hit a lot of homers, just because his era acted as a disincentive to try for the long ball.

You are the one who is adopting the posting style that is baiting, Ubi, not I. I have been as restrained as possible. You mock, bait, provoke, but I won't take the bait. I will continue to post civilly, with respect.

If you don't want the other side to be aggressive, maybe you should rethink your own feigned shock that Wagner might get his fair share of power.

[Ubiquitous]

You can dish it, but you don't enjoy it when it comes back to you.

Where have I gone personal Bill?

They chose not to without disincentives.

And I am asking what would their line be if they chose to do it. IF Wagner chooses to do it and hits 600 to 700 homers then anybody who chooses to do it could hit a ton of homers as well.

I don't care why Tony and George decided not to do it. Why isn't important. If Honus Wagner as a big burly smart man would be able to hit 600 to 700 homers because he chooses to do so then it is quite possible that other big burly smart men can do so as well if they choose to do so.

[Bill Burgess]

Ahh, good old Bill decides to get personal and then I'm sure he'll wonder where it all went wrong and tsk us all for derailing his thread.

You can dish it, but you don't enjoy it when it comes back to you.

The question at hand is that if Honus Wagner played in a later era would he hit a a ton of homers. IF you answer yes then how can you answer no to the question of whether or not George Brett or Tony Gwynn would hit tons of homers as well if they CHOSE to do so?

Asked and answered. Over and over and . . .

Yes, Tony and George chose not to try for homers and I am asking why couldn't they hit homers if they chose too? According to your logic and reasoning if they had decided to go for homers they would have hit a ton of homers. If you think the idea of Tony and George hitting lots of homers is silly then the idea of Honus Wagner hitting lots of homers is silly as well.

They chose not to without disincentives. Wagner was constrained by the same, exact dynamics that prevented all other sluggers from hitting many over 10 homers/seasons, for almost 50 years pre-1920. Or didn't you notice the increase in homers post-1920. It was very much a controversy and commented on at the time in the 1920's.

Maybe it passed you by and you didn't notice it.

You continue to post that deadball sluggers would have had to 'change their style' if they played in later eras, as if that would have been strange to adjust to an accepted hitting approach. And I find that either strange, or disingenuous.

[Ubiquitous]

Seems the nuances of the game have proven too much for you. But while your posting style seems silly to me, there are probably many following this discussion that are seeing through your Zen-style Socratic musings.

Ahh, good old Bill decides to get personal and then I'm sure he'll wonder where it all went wrong and tsk us all for derailing his thread.




The question at hand is that if Honus Wagner played in a later era would he hit a a ton of homers. IF you answer yes then how can you answer no to the question of whether or not George Brett or Tony Gwynn would hit tons of homers as well if they CHOSE to do so?

Yes, Tony and George chose not to try for homers and I am asking why couldn't they hit homers if they chose too? According to your logic and reasoning if they had decided to go for homers they would have hit a ton of homers. If you think the idea of Tony and George hitting lots of homers is silly then the idea of Honus Wagner hitting lots of homers is silly as well.

[Bill Burgess]

George Brett's approach at the plate was not an approach conducive to hitting home runs nor was Tony Gwynn's. If Honus Wagner can change his approach and hit 600 to 700 homers then why can't George Brett change his approach and hit 600 to 700 homers? Why can't Tony Gwynn hit 500 to 600? Both George and Tony were big burly guys by deadball standards.

Again, if big burly Honus Wagner can change his approach to hitting and hit 600 to 700 home runs then big burly guys like George Brett, Tony Gwynn, and various other non-hr approach guys could do the same.

Tony Gwynn only hit 135 homers and has been quoted numerous times as saying he didn't try for home runs. Charlie Lau's hitting style does not lead to a lot of homers.

Your approach to this discussion is truly odd, peculiar, strange and inexplicable.

I put forth the theory that if Honus Wagner had played in a later era, without a ballpark to serve as a disincentive to power, would have been every bit the power hitter that Willie Mays was.

You seem to post as if that is a strange theory. Why you find that so strange or unlikely is strange.

You use George Brett and Tony Gwynn as examples of big hitters who didn't hit home runs and then project that onto Honus Wagner.

Apparently, your examples had their chances to go for the long ball and chose, for reasons of their own, not to. They had nothing to prevent them from trying for homers, yet they chose not to go for homers.

Honus Wagner on the other hand, had huge constraints on his going for the long ball. He played in an era when going for the long ball was a losing proposition, and not even Crawford or Lajoie tried for them. It was not the accepted hitting strategy, regardless of one's built.

So why wax so sceptical that he would have refused to play in a later accepted hitting style, if the huge disincentives were no longer there?

In a later era, it was shown that power paid handsome dividends. I am not saying that Honus Wagner would have made power his primary goal. Willie Mays said that he did not make power his primary goal. Mickey Mantle, on the other hand, did make power his primary goal.

I believe that Honus Wagner would have found home runs come naturally, just like Willie Mays did. Just like Rogers Hornsby did. They come when they come.

Your posting style is sceptical beyond necessity.

Brett/Gwynn had no disincentives, while Wagner had massive disincentives. The same disincentives that all deadball era sluggers did. The exact same dynamics which prevented Crawford and Lajoie from going for power.

Seems the nuances of the game have proven too much for you. But while your posting style seems silly to me, there are probably many following this discussion that are seeing through your Zen-style Socratic musings.

[Ubiquitous]

I'm not even sure what page your on Ubi.

Apparently my examples are unthinkable while Honus Wagner is "yep, I can see it" and the only difference is the era they played in.

I don't get this. Honus has a chance at hitting 600 to 700 homers because he never had the chance to do it so maybe he could do it. But it is ridiculous or crazy to say George or Tony could do it because they too never attempted it.

What skill or talent does Tony Gwynn lack to hit 500 homers that Honus Wagner has?

Bill listed some criterias for a guy to hit a bunch of homers, let's go through them

Big and burly: Tony Gwynn was that.
Didn't try for homers: Tony Gwynn did that
Great player: Tony Gwynn was that
Line drive gap hitter: Tony Gwynn was that.
Smart player: Tony Gwynn was that

If Honus could do it then Tony could do it.

[jaxxr]

Big and burly men dont always hit 55 Hrs in a single season, a number truly unrealistic to project for Wagner. Frank Howard, Boog Powell, and Dave Kingman quickly come to mind .

50 HRS is quite a feat, especially prior to possible "juice-use".
Considering that Ted Williams, Hank Aaron, Rogers Hornsby, Mike Schmidt, Lou Gehrig,and Harmon Killebrew never could, it is difficult to assume Wagner could, if he merely wanted to.

Fine sluggers like Al Kaline, Stan Musial, George Brett, Goose Goslin, and Roberto Clemente, never got 40 HRs in a single season, would Wagner be as proficient as them , if he tried ?

The original claim,
That Wagner would match Mays HR for HR, still seems more wishful thinking, than statistically likely.
Wagner would have to the league's best 4 different times.
Wagner would need two season of over 50 HRs.
Wagner would have to be able to hit 4 HRs in a single game
Wagner would have to be the fourth most prolific HR hitter in baseball history, and garner at least 660 career HRs.

I do not have a time machine, nor a crystal ball, to prove the unlikeliness of Wagner accomplishing those things, however feel it is somewhat reasonable to feel he might not.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

George Brett's approach at the plate was not an approach conducive to hitting home runs nor was Tony Gwynn's. If Honus Wagner can change his approach and hit 600 to 700 homers then why can't George Brett change his approach and hit 600 to 700 homers? Why can't Tony Gwynn hit 500 to 600? Both George and Tony were big burly guys by deadball standards.

Again, if big burly Honus Wagner can change his approach to hitting and hit 600 to 700 home runs then big burly guys like George Brett, Tony Gwynn, and various other non-hr approach guys could do the same.

Tony Gwynn only hit 135 homers and has been quoted numerous times as saying he didn't try for home runs. Charlie Lau's hitting style does not lead to a lot of homers.

I'm not even sure what page your on Ubi.
OK so any hitter could and probably would hit more if they changed their approach.
I can see perfectly well what Bill is saying, he's speaking of a dead ball era hitter when the game was so different.

I'm not throwing 600 and 700 numbers out there.

OK, so Brett and Gwynn could have hit more if they tried, then it's seems only logical that Wagner could to.
We have no way of knowing what Wagner's approach was because the game was so different.
There were probably a number of strong hitters who did not go for the long ball around 1900 because of the ball in use and park size.

[Ubiquitous]

George Brett's approach at the plate was not an approach conducive to hitting home runs nor was Tony Gwynn's. If Honus Wagner can change his approach and hit 600 to 700 homers then why can't George Brett change his approach and hit 600 to 700 homers? Why can't Tony Gwynn hit 500 to 600? Both George and Tony were big burly guys by deadball standards.

Again, if big burly Honus Wagner can change his approach to hitting and hit 600 to 700 home runs then big burly guys like George Brett, Tony Gwynn, and various other non-hr approach guys could do the same.

Tony Gwynn only hit 135 homers and has been quoted numerous times as saying he didn't try for home runs. Charlie Lau's hitting style does not lead to a lot of homers.

[Bill Burgess]

George Brett was 6 feet tall and 200 lbs if he had changed his style he would have hit 600 to 700 homers. Where is the disconnect?

If you can't see the difference, I can't help you.

George Brett did not choose his style while under the conditions of a deadball and a ballpark that discouraged the long ball. Wagner did. Is that too subtle a nuance?

All deadball hitters had a huge condition that discouraged going for the long ball, but only the burly, stocky hitters had the long-ball potential that the deadball prevented them from realizing.

The smaller, BA-type deadball hitters were not that disadvantaged.

[Ubiquitous]

Tony Gwynn was 1 inch short of 6 feet tall and weighed 200 lbs (well, he did at some point), if he had changed his style he would have hit 500 to 600 homers.

[Ubiquitous]

George Brett was 6 feet tall and 200 lbs if he had changed his style he would have hit 600 to 700 homers. Where is the disconnect?

[Bill Burgess]

Before 1920, even powerfully-built men played the game as the style of the day dictated. Gap hitting and running hard.

What is so hard to fathom that a powerfully-built hitter like Wagner, Crawford or Lajoie might make concessions to a later era and play like that later era dictated? Going for a goodly amount of homers.

Is playing the accepted style 'morphing' into something you never were?

Smaller, less-powerfully-built hitters like Miller Huggins might not make major adjustments to a later era, but the bigger, stocky type, like Wagner and Cravath would be expected by thoughtful observers to make exactly that kind of adjustment.

Where is the hard part? Where is the disconnect in logic?

[Ubiquitous]

Honus hit 59 homers on the road and of that 15 were IPHR and 3 were by todays rules doubles. Of his 42 home homers 31 of them were IPHR.

Honus Wagner didn't hit his first over the wall homer at home (Pittsburgh that is) until after the Pirates moved into Forbes Field in 1909. His last home homer before that was on April 25, 1899 in Louisville.


These numbers come from the SABR HR log.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

In a prior post , you claimed Forbes Field was the culprit in Honus' lack of being a HR league leader,
now it's changed to Exposition Park, good you did some research, and perhaps have finally settled on one of the 3 different home parks he played HALF his regular season games in.

Teammates who led the Pirates in homers while at Exposition Park, include Tommy Leach, among several others, who in 1902 did lead the entire NL, and had DOUBLE the amount of HRs as Wagner. He adapted well to the homepark which had a 104+ rate, ( 106+ for the specific season), very favorable to hitters.

Might he also be likely to transform into a later day league leader, a 55 homer type, as you purport Wagner is likely to be ???
................................

In 1964 Willie Mays hit 47 HRs to lead the NL, ( one of 4 times ) his home park was Candlestick, which had a 102+ rate, slightly less of a hitter's park than Expo of 1902. Same when Mays got 51 in 1955, Polo Grounds was rated at 101+.
In 1961 at Milwaukee's county Stadium, a park rated with a 94 + , very much a pitcher's park, Mays hit 4 home runs in a single game.
The ballparks' batter factor in influenced by other aspects than wall distance alone, the angles, the height of the wall, and the wind currents all are important, the numerical rates developed are more accurate than folklore.

Mays has actually, not assumed, nor projected, nor fantasized, hit OVER 50 HRs two different times, he finished his career with 660 HRs, fourth best in MLB history.

Wagner, who NEVER could get even an extra 2 or 3 HRs, a very small amount needed back then, to just once lead his league, in 21 seasons, seems very distant as a HR hitter when compared to Willie Mays.

Speaking for myself, never said that Honus was the home run hitter that Willie was. So Honus never led the league in home runs, is it possible he was not going for the long ball. So Forbes was not 400 feet but deep enough to maybe discourage him from going long ball 360-462-376, not an easy target.

If I recall in the latter part of this thread much talk was around what might he do in the live ball era if he changed his approach.

What he did in the dead ball era doesn't prove what he might do in the later era, with a different approach.
You compare him to Tommy Leach and homers, proves nothing, certainly not that Leach was a stronger hitter.

Leach 49 IPH, his total 63 which means he reached the fence only 14 times in his career.
Wagner with 101 homers and 41 IPH the other 60 cleared the wall or fence, higher percentage of bleacher homers than Leach.

Toss in the fact that Leach was only 150 pounds, his legs probably earned him a good number of those IPH.
Bottom line, comparing Leach and Wagner for power or home hitting, no points scored on that one.