Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

1970s vs. 1930s-Top Level Talent

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

  • Originally posted by leecemark
    --Are the record books wrong about Musial's 4 bating titles in the 50s?
    Now who ya gonna believe? Me or your lying eyes? Thanks for the vote of confidence.

    BB

    Comment


    • Lots of things to respond to.....

      Bill, Ted and Stan both were still dominant in the 50s. Mark talked about Musial, I'll do Ted. Are the record books wrong about Ted's two batting titles , three OBP titles, one SLG title, one total bases title, and three OPS+ titles in the 50s?

      Mays and Aaron were both easily better in the 60s. You're being fooled by the raw numbers. Offense in the league plummetted right in the middle of their careers. Adjusted for the league average, both did better in the 60s.

      Plus, Mays played in the Polo Grounds at the beginning of his career, and in a hitter's era. That 52 hoime runs in 1965 is MUCH more impressive than the 51 in 1955. 1965 was Mays' best year. He also played the entire 60s decade, while he missed a few years in the 50s. He very well may be the best player of both decades, but he's a 60s player before he's a 50s player.

      Same with Aaron. He only played 6 years in the 50s, while he played the entire 1960s decade. Quality of the seasons is about the same. Again, you are probably being fooled by depression of league numbers.

      Originally posted by ElHalo
      To be quite honest with you, I don't know the first thing about Dave Parker. I never heard word one about him having a cocaine problem until you brought it up just now. I couldn't tell you if he looked like Mo Vaughn or Greg Maddux. All I know is what's on the stat sheet. The fact that he was one of the best few players in his league for several years is, without doubt, true. However, that says much, much more about how piss-poor his league was than about how good he was.

      And you don't think Waner's peak was that high? In 1927, it's arguable that he was better than Ruth OR Gehrig. Hit .380, and lead the league in BA, H, TB, RBI? Big Poison was a stark raving terror. The people I knew who were Brooklyn Dodger fans in the 20's and 30's (only one of them left, sadly, in my dear old grandmother) were terrified of Waner in a way that I can't quite express to you (the only other person who instilled that feeling: Go ask an old Brooklyn fan what they thought of Stan Musial). He was a true demon; a giant among men.
      EH, Parker was a terrifying player, maybe the most terrifying in a long time. He was a 6'5'' 230 pound monster at the plate. He swung a big bat too, with power and he hit the ball HARD. He had a cannon arm from the outfield, getting 26 assists one year, and putting on a show in the 1979 All Star Game.



      Dave Parker was a terrifying hitter and fielder. I find it hard to believe Waner was more so.

      Even using regular metrics, Parker and Waner's peaks are about the same. Parker was the best player in the league, Waner wasn't.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by 538280
        Even using regular metrics, Parker and Waner's peaks are about the same. Parker was the best player in the league, Waner wasn't.
        You know, it's funny. Levi Meyerle and Cal McVey were also the best players in the league at their peaks, and nobody ever talks about them. Probably for the exact same reasons as Parker.

        And, man, did people ever actually wear uniforms that looked like that? God, I hate every single thing about the 70's.
        "Simply put, the passion, interest and tradition surrounding baseball in New York is unmatched."

        Sean McAdam, ESPN.com

        Comment


        • Originally posted by 538280
          Bill, Ted and Stan both were still dominant in the 50s. Mark talked about Musial, I'll do Ted. Are the record books wrong about Ted's two batting titles , three OBP titles, one SLG title, one total bases title, and three OPS+ titles in the 50s?

          Mays and Aaron were both easily better in the 60s. You're being fooled by the raw numbers. Offense in the league plummetted right in the middle of their careers. Adjusted for the league average, both did better in the 60s.
          Ted/Stan were very good in the 50's, but that's not the point. They were MUCH better in the 40's. That's when their reps were made, and they crushed their peers.

          You insist Willie/Hank were better in the 60's. I think you're crazy. They just weren't. Mark did show their OPS+
          Mays top 5 OPS+
          60s...........50s
          185...........176
          175...........175
          172...........173
          166...........165
          160...........155
          --advantage 60s and he played quite a bit more in that decade
          Aaron top OPS+
          60s..........50s
          179..........181
          178..........166
          170..........151
          161..........143

          I don't see where they are better, and I'd have to see their ABs plus their Rel. Slg. figures to be convinced. I don't have the time right now to do it because Randy and I are in the middle of my photo project. BTW - What do you think of my private Photo Collection?

          Bill

          Comment


          • Originally posted by 538280
            Dave Parker was a terrifying hitter and fielder. I find it hard to believe Waner was more so.
            Well, you do forget that Paul was known for his arm and his grace afield. Paul was known for having the strongest outfield arm EVER in Pittsburgh until Clemente came along, and was a graceful and slick fielder.

            But this is a silly argument for me. I have Waner in my top 40 players all time; Parker wouldn't crack my top 300. No point in even getting into it.
            "Simply put, the passion, interest and tradition surrounding baseball in New York is unmatched."

            Sean McAdam, ESPN.com

            Comment


            • Originally posted by 538280

              Dave Parker was a terrifying hitter and fielder. I find it hard to believe Waner was more so.

              Even using regular metrics, Parker and Waner's peaks are about the same. Parker was the best player in the league, Waner wasn't.
              I looked into this, because it is an interesting exercise in the interplay of strength of competition and its effect on actual output/performance. Intuitively, I figured Parker might even be close to Waner.

              Parker was an outstanding hitter for a handful of years, I certainly agree. But even after considering league strength, he wasn't as great as Paul Waner.

              Waner has about 100 more career Win Shares (which is a ton), but we both already knew that. Waner also had a much more solid, consistent peak.. Look at Waner's first 12 years- more than 25 Win Shares every single year (and over 30 six times).

              Waner also buries Parker in WS/season, again demonstrating his outstanding reliability/consistency.

              Parker had a nice career, but he only topped 25 Win Shares 5 times in his entire career. From 1981 through 1984, he had very little overall value, and he did come back with a very good year in 85' and a good one in 86', but then again he played 5 more years after that as a DH with very pedestrian value.

              Parker struck out 1537 times in his career, and only drew 683 walks. Is that the marker of a truly great hitter? Not only is his OBP poor as a result, but it doesn't bode well for his actual hitting ability.

              But again, you can look at Schell's calculations or those from Baseball Prospectus (the only two sources that even actually consider league strength) and Waner comes out on top.

              Schell's Fully Adjusted Stats Here is the source. Here is a general overview of the methodology.

              Waner:
              .306/.393/.470 (ranks 42nd alltime not taking position into account, 84th after considering the necessary relative positional adjustments).

              Remember, Waner is 30th alltime in Win Shares, so this is a huge (probably appropriate) cut into his career value. Parker isn't in the top 100 in career Win Shares, despite having over 10,000 PA.

              Parker:
              .291/.342/.476 (124th, 229th, respectively). This takes into account he DH'ed 500 games, which cuts significantly into his value as a baseball player.

              Is this the absolute answer? No, but it's far better than making blanket assumptions like "Well, Parker's league was so much stronger that it overwhelms Waner's enormus advantage in quality/quantity stats".

              Obviously it doesn't, at least in this case.
              Last edited by csh19792001; 03-26-2006, 12:44 PM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by [email protected]
                Ted/Stan were very good in the 50's, but that's not the point. They were MUCH better in the 40's. That's when their reps were made, and they crushed their peers.

                You insist Willie/Hank were better in the 60's. I think you're crazy. They just weren't.

                Bill
                I don't think he's crazy, but he's slightly off base here.

                Also, I've cited this 1,000 times, but a large portion of Aaron's relative lack of decline (and the requisite big numbers he put up) from 1966-73 was largely attributably to moving from a pitchers' park to a bandbox for a home park.

                I'll keep bringing this up whenever people throw out stuff like "Hank Aaron's alleged PED use causing his late career jump" and other such uninformed garbage.

                Here's the article.

                True, Aaron played the entire decade, but in terms of his greatness while he was playing, he probably actually slightly better during the 50's, especially considering park effects that aren't properly accounted for in stats like OPS+, which assumes all hitters are identical and all parks symmetrical.

                All things considered, Aaron's 1959 season was one of the best offensive campaigns in baseball history.

                With Mays it's even more pronounced. Mays was certainly greater in the 50's by comparison. He was robbed of (basically) two entire seasons in 52' and 53', and came back to dominate baseball the next two years. He had a great run in the early 60's, but was finished as a premier player after 1966.

                Comment


                • --That is still 7 (60-66) great years in the 60s, as opposed to 6 (54-59) in the 50s. He also has 3 pretty good years vs 1 okay one and 3 missed ones. Sure looks like he was more of a 60s player to me.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by leecemark
                    --That is still 7 (60-66) great years in the 60s, as opposed to 6 (54-59) in the 50s. He also has 3 pretty good years vs 1 okay one and 3 missed ones. Sure looks like he was more of a 60s player to me.
                    I generally put Mays in the 60's category, just because he was such a great player that he deserves to be the best player of his decade... and there's no way he's beating out Mantle for the 50's.
                    "Simply put, the passion, interest and tradition surrounding baseball in New York is unmatched."

                    Sean McAdam, ESPN.com

                    Comment


                    • More things to address....

                      Is it? Is it, realy?

                      On the one hand: we've got an OBP guy who scored 74 runs on a playoff team; who finished in the top 10 in his league in only TWO regular counting stats (8th in RBI, 9th in SB); who did basically nothing of note whatsoever in the season... while on the other hand, we've got a guy who scored and drove in a combined 92 runs more than Otis, while batting .378 and leading his league in hits. Averill didn't necessarily walk or HR much, which I assume would lead to you not liking him, but he was truly a great player, while Otis was merely adequate.
                      EH, first I said Amos Otis' 1978 season was about an equal match for Averill's '36. Now I realize I was wrong. Otis' season was actually much better. Otis in '78 had 29 Win Shares, Averill in '36 had 27. That's with Otis' season coming at a time when the league was much harder to dominate. I don't always go right with WS, but in this case I think it's right. Averill had superhuman numbers, certainly (.378/.436/.627), but that was in the 1936 AL, when the league was scoring an insane amount of runs. The 1978 AL was basically a neutral league.

                      Otis' OPS+ (150) was only slightly below Averill's (159).

                      Averill from what I gather was a very good defensive outfielder, but he was known to be nonchalant and not the best hustler out there. Otis was a great fielder. He won four Gold Gloves, and Win Shares has him at 4.25 DWS/1000 innings, which is right up there with the best defensive outfielders of all time. Higher than Mays and DiMaggio. Averill has a good average (3.99), but it is behind Otis.

                      Even though I don't have DWS in season, I would guess Otis had a better defensive season than Averill did. I know it's not very good, but Otis had a relative range factor 25 points higher, and his fielding percentage was 16 points above league average at .995, while Averill was one point higher than league at .969.

                      It would appear Otis was a better defensive CFer than year, and they were about the same offensively in context. So I think WS has come up with the right conclusion here.

                      Luckily for Averill, though, 1936 isn't his best season by WS. 1934 is. He had 33 WS in 1934, which is 4 better than Otis' best year at 29. Averill does have a better peak, even with my LQ adjustments. But, Otis has more career value, and rates a hair ahead IMO.
                      Originally posted by csh19792001
                      I looked into this, because it is an interesting exercise in the interplay of strength of competition and its effect on actual output/performance. Intuitively, I figured Parker might even be close to Waner.

                      Parker was an outstanding hitter for a handful of years, I certainly agree. But even after considering league strength, he wasn't as great as Paul Waner.

                      Waner has about 100 more career Win Shares (which is a ton), but we both already knew that. Waner also had a much more solid, consistent peak.. Look at Waner's first 12 years- more than 25 Win Shares every single year (and over 30 six times).

                      Waner also buries Parker in WS/season, again demonstrating his outstanding reliability/consistency.

                      Parker had a nice career, but he only topped 25 Win Shares 5 times in his entire career. From 1981 through 1984, he had very little overall value, and he did come back with a very good year in 85' and a good one in 86', but then again he played 5 more years after that as a DH with very pedestrian value.

                      Parker struck out 1537 times in his career, and only drew 683 walks. Is that the marker of a truly great hitter? Not only is his OBP poor as a result, but it doesn't bode well for his actual hitting ability.

                      But again, you can look at Schell's calculations or those from Baseball Prospectus (the only two sources that even actually consider league strength) and Waner comes out on top.

                      Schell's Fully Adjusted Stats Here is the source. Here is a general overview of the methodology.

                      Waner:
                      .306/.393/.470 (ranks 42nd alltime not taking position into account, 84th after considering the necessary relative positional adjustments).

                      Remember, Waner is 30th alltime in Win Shares, so this is a huge (probably appropriate) cut into his career value. Parker isn't in the top 100 in career Win Shares, despite having over 10,000 PA.

                      Parker:
                      .291/.342/.476 (124th, 229th, respectively). This takes into account he DH'ed 500 games, which cuts significantly into his value as a baseball player.

                      Is this the absolute answer? No, but it's far better than making blanket assumptions like "Well, Parker's league was so much stronger that it overwhelms Waner's enormus advantage in quality/quantity stats".

                      Obviously it doesn't, at least in this case
                      Chris, this is very interesting, I'll have to look into Parker and Waner more closely. But, there are still other factors to consider. Parker was a great fielder with one hell of an arm. Waner was a good fielder from what I gather, but not really anything great. Parker took over for Clemente and immediately drew comparisons to him in the field. That is a big compliment. He had 26 assists in 1977, and put on a show in the 1979 All Star Game by throwing out two baserunners from the outfield. He also was fast, with good range and a very good baserunner. He won three Gold Gloves in his peak seasons (1977-1979).

                      Parker was the best player in the league for a few years, Waner wasn't. I don't think you can overlook that. Waner may have been better over his career, but I just don't see how he has a better peak.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by csh19792001
                        With Mays it's even more pronounced. Mays was certainly greater in the 50's by comparison. He was robbed of (basically) two entire seasons in 52' and 53', and came back to dominate baseball the next two years. He had a great run in the early 60's, but was finished as a premier player after 1966.
                        Like Mark said, Mays had 6 great seasons in the 50s '54-'59, and 7 great seasons in the 60s '60-'66. Other than those 6 in the 50s, Mays did little else because of his missed war years and that he was still young in '51. After '66 Mays really was still a very, very good player. He had a great year in '68 (probably almost as good as '66), but it just doesn't look as good because that was the year of the pitcher. In '67 and '69 he had good years but I agree not really great. Going into the 70s he had a great OBP year in 1971 with a 160 OPS+ which was actually higher than in '66 or '68.

                        So, what do we want here? 6 great years and basically nothing else or 7 great years, 1 very good one and 2 good ones? Not that close IMO.

                        Aaron isn't even close He's defenitely a 60s player before a 50s one. Aaron had 5 great years in the 50s, half the decade. He was great for every year in the 60s.

                        Looking at Win Shares, they make this no comparison. Mays had 236 Win Shares in the 50s, 35.90 per 162 games. In the 60s, he had 337 Win Shares, 36.44 per 162 games. Aaron had 176 Win Shares in the 50s, 32.18 per 162 games. In the 60s, he had 340 Win Shares (almost twice as much), and 35.77 per 162 games, more than three ful WS per season better.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by 538280
                          Chris, this is very interesting, I'll have to look into Parker and Waner more closely. But, there are still other factors to consider. Parker was a great fielder with one hell of an arm. Waner was a good fielder from what I gather, but not really anything great. Parker took over for Clemente and immediately drew comparisons to him in the field. That is a big compliment. He had 26 assists in 1977, and put on a show in the 1979 All Star Game by throwing out two baserunners from the outfield. He also was fast, with good range and a very good baserunner. He won three Gold Gloves in his peak seasons (1977-1979).
                          I don't think you realize that the Waner brothers were known as much for their defense as their offense, and that, as I said, Paul Waner was known for having the most powerful arm in Pittsburgh history before Clemente came along.

                          You're impressed that Parker had 26 outfield assists in 158 games in the outfield in 1977? Ok; what does it do for you that Big Poison had 28 in 138 outfield games in 1931?

                          Outside of that 26 season, Parker's career high in outfield assists was 15, which he did in 79. Outside of Waner's 28 season, he had at least 15 outfield assists 7 times. What does that do for you?

                          Parker was the best player in the league for a few years, Waner wasn't. I don't think you can overlook that. Waner may have been better over his career, but I just don't see how he has a better peak.
                          So I'll ask again: why don't you talk more about Levi Meyerle or Benny Kauff?
                          "Simply put, the passion, interest and tradition surrounding baseball in New York is unmatched."

                          Sean McAdam, ESPN.com

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by ElHalo
                            So I'll ask again: why don't you talk more about Levi Meyerle or Benny Kauff?
                            Meyerle was in the National Association, Kauff in the Federal League. That's why.

                            With the OF assists, they were more common in Waner's era. Do you realize Parker's total of 26 in 1977 is the highest total ever post WWII, except for one Roberto Clemente season?

                            To see this more clearly, in 1931 when Waner had 28 OF assists, there were five other players in the league who had 20 or more. When Parker had 26 in 1977, he led the league by a full 10 assists.
                            Last edited by 538280; 03-26-2006, 05:45 PM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by 538280
                              Meyerle was in the National Association, Kauff in the Federal League. That's why.
                              Exactly my point. Just being the best in your league doesn't necessarily say much about how good you are. Being the best player in the Federal League doesn't necessarily mean that you'd be a star in the American League at the same time. And just being the best player in the late 70's NL doesn't necessarily mean you'd be a starter in the 30's NL, or on a roster in the 2000's NL.

                              Think of it this way: Julio Lugo is not one of the top 5 base stealers in the majors right now. If, tomorrow night, Jimmy Rollins, Rafael Furcal, Carl Crawford, Juan Pierre, Scott Podsednick, Jose Reyes, and Chone Figgins all died in a plane crash, then Lugo maybe would be the very best base stealer in the majors. Would he be any better of a player under such circumstances?
                              Last edited by ElHalo; 03-26-2006, 06:42 PM.
                              "Simply put, the passion, interest and tradition surrounding baseball in New York is unmatched."

                              Sean McAdam, ESPN.com

                              Comment


                              • --People do tend to forget how good Parker was. He might have been a better player at his best than Waner, but if so it was by a slight amount and Waner was close to his best for longer. I can't see any way to rank Parker higher, either for the 70s vs 30s or for their careers. Waner is a top 10 RF and probably a top 75 player (easily top 100). Parker is probably a 100 (or maybe 200) spots back of that in my rankings, if I ranked that far back.

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X