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

[SHOELESSJOE3]

DiMaggio was playing in an entirely different environment than Wagner, I would think. A majority of HR's were inside the park until the mid '20's, but by DiMag's day probably a large majority left the park.

I haven't made a statistical study of it but it's certainly true that, just as we assume a large field will benefit pitchers and handicap power hitters, so people in the 1880's made just the opposite assumption, and that would in all probablity have applied in Wagner's day as well. Thus, the wikipedia entry on Braves Field, which became a notably pitcher-friendly big ball park in the lively ball era, says, "The owner of the team at the time the stadium was built, James Gaffney, wanted to see the game played in a wide open field conducive to allowing numerous inside-the-park home runs." He built the park big to encourage home run hitting, but then the conditions of the game changed, producing precisely the opposite effect.

At the public library in Cincinnati I once ran into a fellow named Lauren Something-Or-Other, since deceased, who was a semiretired social worker who was going around the country making a sophisticated study of home runs. He had ball park plans and had calculated the distance from home plate at which home runs over the fence became a major factor in a nineteenth century ball park. I can't remember the exact distance, but there were not many parks with dimensions that small, although there were some. (the most famous example is Chicago, where right field was so short that a ball over the fence was a double, until they took the ground rule off in 1884, producing an astonishing proliferation of home runs by the standard of the day).

I got that Beady, very different game in Wagner and Joe's time, I only used the deep dimensions as an example.
If I recall, the distance to that fence was only about 180 feet.

[Beady]

Here's a post from the triples thread over on the stats board that nicely explains how the long fence/short fence dynamic works under dead ball conditions.

In a park with super deep fences or no fences, once the ball goes over your head in a deep stadium you are basically conceding the triple and trying to stop the run from scoring. short fence and it is no problem, you are daring them to make the turn...The longer the ball is rolling away from the fielder the more time a runner has to run.

When Tris Speaker is playing so shallow that he can get 30 assists per season in centerfield and someone rips one over his head to the wall then that person is getting a 3B if he is slow and an ITPH if he is fast.

Somebody else posts there that 55 of Wagner's 101 home runs left the park. In the context of a thread asking what has happened to triples, that is naturally treated as a very small proportion, but by contemporary standards it is probably quite high -- I'm pretty sure the average was well below 50%. To the extent that Wagner was playing in home parks with large dimensions (and I don't know how true that is), it's an indication that he really could drive the ball. But his power stats still would have benefited, rather than suffering, from deep fences.

[Bill Burgess]

Here's a post from the triples thread over on the stats board that nicely explains how the long fence/short fence dynamic works under dead ball conditions.

Somebody else posts there that 55 of Wagner's 101 home runs left the park. In the context of a thread asking what has happened to triples, that is naturally treated as a very small proportion, but by contemporary standards it is probably quite high -- I'm pretty sure the average was well below 50%. To the extent that Wagner was playing in home parks with large dimensions (and I don't know how true that is), it's an indication that he really could drive the ball. But his power stats still would have benefited, rather than suffering, from deep fences.

You don't know how true it was that Wagner's home ballparks had large dimensions? You are aware, Beady, aren't you, that from the age of 26 to 34, his prime, 1900-1908, his home ballpark was Exposition Park? Exposition park had both the right and the left foul line at 400 feet, don't you? And its CF fence measured 450 feet, don't you?

If those dimensions don't create the most massive OF configuration you've heard of . . . I don't know how else to impress you. And after 1909, Forbes Field, his next and last home ballpark, featured a LF foul line of 360 feet. But that's not all! Not by a long shot. When Forbes Field was built in 1909, as the first really modern ballpark of concrete and steel, its deepest corner, left of straightaway center, at the flag ple, measured all of 462 feet in 1909, when Wagner was 34 years old. (Holy Catfish, Batman! Shades of Yankee Stadium!!) And it stayed that deep until 1930, long after Wagner's retirement in 1917, when they moved it in a whopping 3 feet.

In 1909, Forbes Field started off with a RF foul line of 376. Not very close.

I went to the trouble to look up these park dimension from Total Baseball, 6th Edition, just so you don't doubt that the Pirates' management had obviously made a strategic, managerial, editorial decision to play the game a certain way.

Next, "But his power stats still would have benefited, rather than suffering, from deep fences."

That would depend on how you might care to measure 'power stats', wouldn't it?

True, one might choose to measure them by slugging percentage, or times in one's Top 5 or Top 10 in HRs, triples, SA, TBs, etc.

Other's might include RBIs, although we here at Fever frown on that because we realize that RBI are largely a function of how often one's team-mates can get on base.

Power stats are very flexible little critters. How one measures them are as varied as how one interprets the Bible. Different strokes for different folks?

But just in case I still haven't convinced you, seeing is believing. I will include the few photo images of Exposition Park, just so folks can get a gander at how large those OF expanses really were.



August 23, 1904


New York vs. Pittsburgh - Saturday, August 5, 1905, Exposition Park, Pittsburgh.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Here's a post from the triples thread over on the stats board that nicely explains how the long fence/short fence dynamic works under dead ball conditions.



Somebody else posts there that 55 of Wagner's 101 home runs left the park. In the context of a thread asking what has happened to triples, that is naturally treated as a very small proportion, but by contemporary standards it is probably quite high -- I'm pretty sure the average was well below 50%. To the extent that Wagner was playing in home parks with large dimensions (and I don't know how true that is), it's an indication that he really could drive the ball. But his power stats still would have benefited, rather than suffering, from deep fences.

Just so I understand, correct me if not. Are you saying the those deep dimensions help Wagner's power stats, like slugging percentage and maybe even home runs because the long distances made it possible for him to gain bases, once the ball got by the outfielders.

That could be, to a degree. Lets look at the other side, Wagner's big home parks had to turn some long drives into outs. Some of those deep drives would be home runs in some other parks.

First, he would be losing more home runs at home with drives that would be home runs in other parks.
Also his slugging percentage would suffer, losing total bases. Slugging percentage formula as you probably already know, devide total bases by at bats. Instead of gaining 4 bases on potential home runs in other parks, he gets zero in some cases, fly out. Think of all the long drives, the fly outs at home that could have given him more total bases in his career
Also, lower career slugging, lower career OPS. I don't see how a hugh park could help power numbers.

[Beady]

As I understand it, under dead ball conditions batters in a big park didn't lose many hits because balls were caught that would have left a smaller field. Certainly, they would know, or in DiMaggio's day but not that many balls left any field, and more importantly I don't think the outfielders were playing deep enough, whatever the dimensions, for such a situation to come into play prior to the 1920's. Really hard hit drives were rare enough that the outfielders would play close and simply risk the ball being hit into the gaps between them, or over their heads. In the 1905 picture above, the outfielders aren't playing extremely shallow, but there's no way the center fielder, especially, is going to catch a ball hit remotely close to the fence.

If a ball did get past the fielders, the question became how far it would go. If the fences were far back, it might roll and roll and roll while the runners circled the bases. If the wall was closer, the ball would bounce off it, and the fielders might be able to hold the runners to fewer bases. This was the most common dynamic. At least in the 19th century, there do seem to have been parks with walls that were so close that fair balls were hit out of them relatively frequently, but that was not the norm. With a big hitter like Wagner, of course the outfielders must have played deeper, and maybe sometimes they would catch up with a ball that would have been out of a smaller park. But on balance, the deep walls helped a hitter like Wagner who could drive the ball and run well once he became a base runner. This

isn't my bright idea -- it's conventional wisdom in the 1880's that a small park is a pitcher's park and a big one a hitter's park, and I don't think those particular conditions would have changed by 1910 or 1915.

That said, if you hit with power and run well, and you play an excellent shortstop and win eight batting titles, too, you're obviously going to be an outstanding player in any ball park. Call him Musial playing shortstop, call him Jeter with a gold glove, either way that's an extraordinary player, one I'd love to see play. (Long ago I met someone who actually had seen Wagner play, but he was very old and didn't have much to say)

[SHOELESSJOE3]

As I understand it, under dead ball conditions batters in a big park didn't lose many hits because balls were caught that would have left a smaller field. Certainly, they would know, or in DiMaggio's day but not that many balls left any field, and more importantly I don't think the outfielders were playing deep enough, whatever the dimensions, for such a situation to come into play prior to the 1920's. Really hard hit drives were rare enough that the outfielders would play close and simply risk the ball being hit into the gaps between them, or over their heads. In the 1905 picture above, the outfielders aren't playing extremely shallow, but there's no way the center fielder, especially, is going to catch a ball hit remotely close to the fence.

If a ball did get past the fielders, the question became how far it would go. If the fences were far back, it might roll and roll and roll while the runners circled the bases. If the wall was closer, the ball would bounce off it, and the fielders might be able to hold the runners to fewer bases. This was the most common dynamic. At least in the 19th century, there do seem to have been parks with walls that were so close that fair balls were hit out of them relatively frequently, but that was not the norm. With a big hitter like Wagner, of course the outfielders must have played deeper, and maybe sometimes they would catch up with a ball that would have been out of a smaller park. But on balance, the deep walls helped a hitter like Wagner who could drive the ball and run well once he became a base runner. This

isn't my bright idea -- it's conventional wisdom in the 1880's that a small park is a pitcher's park and a big one a hitter's park, and I don't think those particular conditions would have changed by 1910 or 1915.

That said, if you hit with power and run well, and you play an excellent shortstop and win eight batting titles, too, you're obviously going to be an outstanding player in any ball park. Call him Musial playing shortstop, call him Jeter with a gold glove, either way that's an extraordinary player, one I'd love to see play. (Long ago I met someone who actually had seen Wagner play, but he was very old and didn't have much to say)

Makes sense Beady, I could understand the big park actually being a favorable condition for some hitters. I would agree and think Honus must have been played deeper than most hitters back then, 210 pounds, bigger and stronger then the average player back then
The keyword is on balance, at times, the bigger ball park it could be a plus and at times a negative. Overall, was it a plus or a minus, was it neither, did one negate the other.
Too bad we there were no hit charts back then, that would help.

[sturg1dj]

I feel like all of this talk about the long drives being caught in these labrynth ballparks is overstated. We're talking about outfielders who played more shallow than they do today. So if the ball is it 420 feet very few outfielders are going to run it down. If you are standing 250 feet from home plate and someone rips it 350 it is going to be hard to track it down. The best ones may, but that is always the case.

To be fair someone like the Babe lost a bunch of home runs on balls he hit 430 feet that didn't make it out, but he probably got a ton of his triples from them...and few from his era or prior could hit the ball like him anyways.

[willshad]

I think that Willie would adapt to the dead ball style better than Honus would to the modern style. It appears to me that pure speed would translate to more steals more easily than pure size would translate to more home runs. Sure, not every super fast guy is going to steal 90 bases a season, but it is more a matter of effort than anything else. if they try to steal more, then they will get more steals...and if you are very fast, you will not be caught often.

Home runs are a different story.

There are a lot of huge guys who do not hit for much power. This could be a choice, as they try to hit for average. Joe Mauer is 6'5" and 235 pounds. Could he hit 40 homers a season if he merely tried to? If he did so, would his batting average go down to Adam Dunn levels? it takes a very special hitter to hit for great average, and also hit a lot of home runs. usually, you have to choose one or the other. Could Wagner hit 600 home runs playing now? Possible, but highly unlikely..and if he DID, then for sure his average would suffer.

I may be way off base, but I see him a Derek Jeter type, only with great fielding. Jeter's hitting and Vizquel's glove. This makes him easily the best shortstop ever, but doesn;t give him 660 career home runs...and doesn't quite put him in Mays' class.

[wrgptfan]

If you were to make all of Cobb's and Wagner's EBH HRs instead of the 2B and 3B that they had, their lines would look like this:

0.366 0.433 0.664 1.097
0.328 0.391 0.614 1.005

Amazing, but not the best ever.

[chicagowhitesox1173]

Close call but I picked Mays, I give him credit for missing time out to Military

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I think that Willie would adapt to the dead ball style better than Honus would to the modern style. It appears to me that pure speed would translate to more steals more easily than pure size would translate to more home runs. Sure, not every super fast guy is going to steal 90 bases a season, but it is more a matter of effort than anything else. if they try to steal more, then they will get more steals...and if you are very fast, you will not be caught often.

Home runs are a different story.

There are a lot of huge guys who do not hit for much power. This could be a choice, as they try to hit for average. Joe Mauer is 6'5" and 235 pounds. Could he hit 40 homers a season if he merely tried to? If he did so, would his batting average go down to Adam Dunn levels? it takes a very special hitter to hit for great average, and also hit a lot of home runs. usually, you have to choose one or the other. Could Wagner hit 600 home runs playing now? Possible, but highly unlikely..and if he DID, then for sure his average would suffer.

I may be way off base, but I see him a Derek Jeter type, only with great fielding. Jeter's hitting and Vizquel's glove. This makes him easily the best shortstop ever, but doesn;t give him 660 career home runs...and doesn't quite put him in Mays' class.

Not seeing the Jeter comparison as hitters. Wagner had freakish raw home run power. As for Joe Mauer the reason he doesn't hit many home runs is that he has a flat level swing and doesn't generate much backspin on the ball. Wagner didn't have a flat level swing.

Here is an example from the biography, Honus Wagner:a Biography. This is from a game in 1903:

At Brooklyn on June 30th, Wagner had a second consecutive four hit game. He tripled, drove in four runs, scored three times, and his 450-foot home run over the centerfield fence was heralded as one of the longest ever hit at Washington Park.

The ball used in 1903 was a far cry from even the ball used in 1910. From age 244 of the same book.

Late in the 1910 season, the cork-center baseball was introduced to the big leagues. Although a far cry from the lively ball used today, the new ball was a bit more springy than the rubber-center one. For the first time, fans were treated to the crack of the bat, rather than the thud that resulted from what Wagner described as hitting “a chunk of mud.” If there was any doubt that the cork-center ball would have an effect on the game, it was dispelled during an August homestand, as six homers were blasted over the Forbes Field wall in nine games-a feat accomplished just eight times in the previous year.

After Wagner retired he was a Pirates coach for many years. He would take batting practice and even play in exhibition games from time to time. The following is from the book The Diamond Appaised.

Wagner hitter 1a.JPG

Wagner hitter 2a.JPG


As far as I know this is the only film of Wagner batting.

Honus Wagner swing.gif

Here is a photo of Wagner's follow through on his swing. This is certainly not the swing of a slap hitter.

Honus Wagner swings.jpg

Wagner was a great athlete. This is one of my favorite Wagner photos, showing his wrists. Freak.

Honus Wagner wrists.jpg

I have NO doubt in my mind that had Wagner been born 20-25 years later he would have been the equal of Lou Gehrig and Jimmie Foxx as a home run hitter.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Honus Wagner looks like a power hitter! He's an old man in the second and third photos.

Honus Wagner 1909 small.jpeg

honus Wagner coach.jpg

Honus Wagner BP.jpg

[1905 Giants]

I have Wagner just a tetch higher than Mays.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Honus Wagner looks like a power hitter! He's an old man in the second and third photos.

[ATTACH]116301[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]116302[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]116303[/ATTACH]

Great pics, especially that first one. Honus must have scared the heck out of a lot of pictures, looks strong as a bull.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

I believe this was 1898.