Announcement

Collapse

Updated Baseball Fever Policy

Baseball Fever Policy

I. Purpose of this announcement:

This announcement describes the policies pertaining to the operation of Baseball Fever.

Baseball Fever is a moderated baseball message board which encourages and facilitates research and information exchange among fans of our national pastime. The intent of the Baseball Fever Policy is to ensure that Baseball Fever remains an extremely high quality, extremely low "noise" environment.

Baseball Fever is administrated by three principal administrators:
webmaster - Baseball Fever Owner
The Commissioner - Baseball Fever Administrator
Macker - Baseball Fever Administrator

And a group of forum specific super moderators. The role of the moderator is to keep Baseball Fever smoothly and to screen posts for compliance with our policy. The moderators are ALL volunteer positions, so please be patient and understanding of any delays you might experience in correspondence.

II. Comments about our policy:

Any suggestions on this policy may be made directly to the webmaster.

III. Acknowledgments:

This document was based on a similar policy used by SABR.

IV. Requirements for participation on Baseball Fever:

Participation on Baseball Fever is available to all baseball fans with a valid email address, as verified by the forum's automated system, which then in turn creates a single validated account. Multiple accounts by a single user are prohibited.

By registering, you agree to adhere to the policies outlined in this document and to conduct yourself accordingly. Abuse of the forum, by repeated failure to abide by these policies, will result in your access being blocked to the forum entirely.

V. Baseball Fever Netiquette:

Participants at Baseball Fever are required to adhere to these principles, which are outlined in this section.
a. All posts to Baseball Fever should be written in clear, concise English, with proper grammar and accurate spelling. The use of abbreviations should be kept to a minimum; when abbreviation is necessary, they should be either well-known (such as etc.), or explained on their first use in your post.

b. Conciseness is a key attribute of a good post.

c. Quote only the portion of a post to which you are responding.

d. Standard capitalization and punctuation make a large difference in the readability of a post. TYPING IN ALL CAPITALS is considered to be "shouting"; it is a good practice to limit use of all capitals to words which you wish to emphasize.

e. It is our policy NOT to transmit any defamatory or illegal materials.

f. Personal attacks of any type against Baseball Fever readers will not be tolerated. In these instances the post will be copied by a moderator and/or administrator, deleted from the site, then sent to the member who made the personal attack via a Private Message (PM) along with a single warning. Members who choose to not listen and continue personal attacks will be banned from the site.

g. It is important to remember that many contextual clues available in face-to-face discussion, such as tone of voice and facial expression, are lost in the electronic forum. As a poster, try to be alert for phrasing that might be misinterpreted by your audience to be offensive; as a reader, remember to give the benefit of the doubt and not to take umbrage too easily. There are many instances in which a particular choice of words or phrasing can come across as being a personal attack where none was intended.

h. The netiquette described above (a-g) often uses the term "posts", but applies equally to Private Messages.

VI. Baseball Fever User Signature Policy

A signature is a piece of text that some members may care to have inserted at the end of ALL of their posts, a little like the closing of a letter. You can set and / or change your signature by editing your profile in the UserCP. Since it is visible on ALL your posts, the following policy must be adhered to:

Signature Composition
Font size limit: No larger than size 2 (This policy is a size 2)
Style: Bold and italics are permissible
Character limit: No more than 500 total characters
Lines: No more than 4 lines
Colors: Most colors are permissible, but those which are hard to discern against the gray background (yellow, white, pale gray) should be avoided
Images/Graphics: Allowed, but nothing larger than 20k and Content rules must be followed

Signature Content
No advertising is permitted
Nothing political or religious
Nothing obscene, vulgar, defamatory or derogatory
Links to personal blogs/websites are permissible - with the webmaster's written consent
A Link to your Baseball Fever Blog does not require written consent and is recommended
Quotes must be attributed. Non-baseball quotes are permissible as long as they are not religious or political

Please adhere to these rules when you create your signature. Failure to do so will result in a request to comply by a moderator. If you do not comply within a reasonable amount of time, the signature will be removed and / or edited by an Administrator. Baseball Fever reserves the right to edit and / or remove any or all of your signature line at any time without contacting the account holder.

VII. Appropriate and inappropriate topics for Baseball Fever:

Most concisely, the test for whether a post is appropriate for Baseball Fever is: "Does this message discuss our national pastime in an interesting manner?" This post can be direct or indirect: posing a question, asking for assistance, providing raw data or citations, or discussing and constructively critiquing existing posts. In general, a broad interpretation of "baseball related" is used.

Baseball Fever is not a promotional environment. Advertising of products, web sites, etc., whether for profit or not-for-profit, is not permitted. At the webmaster's discretion, brief one-time announcements for products or services of legitimate baseball interest and usefulness may be allowed. If advertising is posted to the site it will be copied by a moderator and/or administrator, deleted from the site, then sent to the member who made the post via a Private Message (PM) along with a single warning. Members who choose to not listen and continue advertising will be banned from the site. If the advertising is spam-related, pornography-based, or a "visit-my-site" type post / private message, no warning at all will be provided, and the member will be banned immediately without a warning.

It is considered appropriate to post a URL to a page which specifically and directly answers a question posted on the list (for example, it would be permissible to post a link to a page containing home-road splits, even on a site which has advertising or other commercial content; however, it would not be appropriate to post the URL of the main page of the site). The site reserves the right to limit the frequency of such announcements by any individual or group.

In keeping with our test for a proper topic, posting to Baseball Fever should be treated as if you truly do care. This includes posting information that is, to the best of your knowledge, complete and accurate at the time you post. Any errors or ambiguities you catch later should be acknowledged and corrected in the thread, since Baseball Fever is sometimes considered to be a valuable reference for research information.

VIII. Role of the moderator:

When a post is submitted to Baseball Fever, it is forwarded by the server automatically and seen immediately. The moderator may:
a. Leave the thread exactly like it was submitted. This is the case 95% of the time.

b. Immediately delete the thread as inappropriate for Baseball Fever. Examples include advertising, personal attacks, or spam. This is the case 1% of the time.

c. Move the thread. If a member makes a post about the Marlins in the Yankees forum it will be moved to the appropriate forum. This is the case 3% of the time.

d. Edit the message due to an inappropriate item. This is the case 1% of the time. There have been new users who will make a wonderful post, then add to their signature line (where your name / handle appears) a tagline that is a pure advertisement. This tagline will be removed, a note will be left in the message so he/she is aware of the edit, and personal contact will be made to the poster telling them what has been edited and what actions need to be taken to prevent further edits.

The moderators perform no checks on posts to verify factual or logical accuracy. While he/she may point out gross errors in factual data in replies to the thread, the moderator does not act as an "accuracy" editor. Also moderation is not a vehicle for censorship of individuals and/or opinions, and the moderator's decisions should not be taken personally.

IX. Legal aspects of participation in Baseball Fever:

By submitting a post to Baseball Fever, you grant Baseball Fever permission to distribute your message to the forum. Other rights pertaining to the post remain with the ORIGINAL author, and you may not redistribute or retransmit any posts by any others, in whole or in part, without the express consent of the original author.

The messages appearing on Baseball Fever contain the opinions and views of their respective authors and are not necessarily those of Baseball Fever, or of the Baseball Almanac family of sites.

Sincerely,

Sean Holtz, Webmaster of Baseball Almanac & Baseball Fever
www.baseball-almanac.com | www.baseball-fever.com
"Baseball Almanac: Sharing Baseball. Sharing History."
See more
See less

Ty Cobb General Thread

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

  • #61
    Originally posted by Roy Hobbs
    I'm in the same boat as you (Im assuming)- FINALS. So we'll wait, and those numbers won't change in the meantime, I don't think........

    Although Ill be busy even when this semester is over, it won't be like now, and Ill look into the comparative runs/game and respective stats (for the American League, for their careers) when I have time to take a breath. Team performance is part of it, but entire league performance might give us another part of the picture. Even computing to the Nth degree won't "solve" everything, though- perhaps just the quantifiable part, which the gentlemen poster at another messageboard (named "Barzilla") calls "value". This is as opposed to "greatness".
    Last edited by csh19792001; 03-26-2005, 08:20 PM.

    Comment


    • #62
      Using runs and BI is good, but do we know where in the lineup Cobb hit? Babe was cleanup for lots of years, then third with Gehrig as cleanup. Obviously men on base and protection figure in.

      Comment


      • #63
        Hey Mr. Burgess,

        I've noticed you've been bringing up that 1921 home/away split for the Babe every... oh... single post recently... could you maybe do me a favor, and every time you mention that split, mention the BB/PA analysis I did a couple months back comparing 1910-15 with 1928-32?

        And http://TyCobb.yahoo.com/ doesn't exist. Where exactly is this website? I'd really like to see it.

        And... why do you say Cobb had poor offensive teammates from 1910- 1919?

        Here's the Tigers' AL rank in runs scored for each year of that period. Out of 8 teams:

        1910: 1
        1911: 2
        1912: 3
        1913: 4
        1914: 2
        1915: 1
        1916: 1
        1917: 2
        1918: 4
        1919: 3

        They finished in the first half of the league EVERY SINGLE YEAR in runs scored, leading the league three times in the decade. Are you trying to tell me that it's all Cobb? Without him, they would have finished last every year?
        Last edited by ElHalo; 05-03-2004, 06:46 PM.
        "Simply put, the passion, interest and tradition surrounding baseball in New York is unmatched."

        Sean McAdam, ESPN.com

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by william_burgess@usa.net

          (Bill - You didn't confine yourself to away games, and you also failed to index you final figures, which always favors Ruth. AND YOU KNOW THat!)
          Failing to index, absolutely unforgiveable. Failing to give only away games?

          Ruth, home: .347/.480/.699
          Ruth, away: .338/.463/.682

          So please, I'm begging you. BEGGING you. Why, other than you're strange fixation over what happened during two particular years playing at a stadium that he called home for all 14% of his years in the league, WHY do you claim that Ruth's home stats are invalid?
          "Simply put, the passion, interest and tradition surrounding baseball in New York is unmatched."

          Sean McAdam, ESPN.com

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by william_burgess@usa.net
            I have a request for anyone on this thread. If anyone has a beef with me, keep it to yourself, and go somewhere else. I'm trying hard on this thread to post new stuff, hopefully entertaining stuff, and it does take me a long time to put the material together.

            I search through a vast volume of my material, and to have those who either don't like me, my style, my content or anything else about my stuff, to come into my house to bitch, whine, complain, attack me personally for expressing views with which you don't agree is not only unnecessary, but rude, and boring.

            And I'm referring here specificly to Roy Hobbs in particulay but anyone else who feels as he does.

            It's like some one who hates a certain TV show. Instead of bitching about it to anyone around you, just don't watch it.

            If my stuff bothers Hobbs so much, why does he read me? Just change the channel. Don't hang around and sh_t on the furniture. Just get out and go somewhere else and read those who you admire, or like better.

            I have a mission. I'm an advocate on 1 player, which is not to say I don't have a lot of other issues. I don't usually get this heavy, but I'm fed up with malevalent malcontents, who don't have either the background, courtesy or brains to recognize good historical content if it bit them in the ass. Thank you so much for your kind understanding. And by this rant, I am not referring to my great friends, 2Chance, Eddie Collins, Csh19792001, four tool, Seth, leecemark, PumsieGreen, RuthMayBonds, Imapotato, and so many more. Please forgive the rant, but I'm sick of it.

            Bill Burgess
            Woof, harsh words.

            And I'm sure that you mean this to apply at least partially to me, but please understand something. I have no argument with you as a person. I respect the time and effort you put into researching and presenting your arguments. I have no beef.

            I disagree with you, quite strongly, on two points. Your undervaluing of Babe Ruth, and your overvaluing of Ty Cobb. That's it. Nothing more. I disagree with you on those points, and we argue back and forth. As much as I appreciate your historical work, I'd hope you appreciate my statistical work. Sometimes, quite a lot of time goes into the number crunching that I put forth. Sometimes not so much. But don't think you're the only one working at the arguments. And don't expect everyone to simply agree with you out of hand. I don't. And I don't believe I ever will. But just because people disagree with you doesn't mean you have to pack up your toys and leave. I understand the frustration of being antagonized and being dismissed so summarily by someone who doesn't put the time and effort into their posts. But some of us do.
            "Simply put, the passion, interest and tradition surrounding baseball in New York is unmatched."

            Sean McAdam, ESPN.com

            Comment


            • #66
              Bill, I have a suggestion that might save you some frustration. Make your historical entries on this thread to be shared and enjoyed with those interested and your arguments regardiing Ruth vs Cobb elsewhere. When you mix the two its inevitable that people are going to argue back on the latter. A suggestion for everyone - try to build your case without getting personal. It wouldn't be much fun if we all agreed on everything, but it will be more enjoyable for all if you make your points with well thought out ideas and/or good research. Thanks and I'll put my soapbox away now.

              Comment


              • #67
                Also, I notice a lot of references to ProQuest. You might want to check out the local library and see if it subscribes to any databases.

                I'd recommend:

                The 19th Century Masterfile
                Academic Search Elite*
                ArchivesUSA
                EbscoHost*
                Lexis-Nexis*
                Sports Discuss

                All good databases and they have a lot of stuff that Proquest can miss. Because no database is truly complete. I haven't done much baseball research but I've done tons of other research and typically for whatever reason I can find things in those that I can't in Proquest or vice versa et al. I tend to use Lexis-Nexis, ASE, ProQuest, and EbscoHost the most but the others are valuable resources.

                EbscoHost in particular combines like 34 other databases.

                All that is far too expensive to buy for just recreational purposes, so check your local libraries.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by william_burgess@usa.net
                  I have a request for anyone on this thread. If anyone has a beef with me, keep it to yourself, and go somewhere else. I'm trying hard on this thread to post new stuff, hopefully entertaining stuff, and it does take me a long time to put the material together.

                  I search through a vast volume of my material, and to have those who either don't like me, my style, my content or anything else about my stuff, to come into my house to bitch, whine, complain, attack me personally for expressing views with which you don't agree is not only unnecessary, but rude, and boring.

                  And I'm referring here specificly to Roy Hobbs in particulay but anyone else who feels as he does.

                  It's like some one who hates a certain TV show. Instead of bitching about it to anyone around you, just don't watch it.

                  If my stuff bothers Hobbs so much, why does he read me? Just change the channel. Don't hang around and sh_t on the furniture. Just get out and go somewhere else and read those who you admire, or like better.

                  I have a mission. I'm an advocate on 1 player, which is not to say I don't have a lot of other issues. I don't usually get this heavy, but I'm fed up with malevalent malcontents, who don't have either the background, courtesy or brains to recognize good historical content if it bit them in the ass. Thank you so much for your kind understanding. And by this rant, I am not referring to my great friends, 2Chance, Eddie Collins, Csh19792001, four tool, Seth, leecemark, PumsieGreen, RuthMayBonds, Imapotato, and so many more. Please forgive the rant, but I'm sick of it.

                  I have to say that some of vitriol does make the posts hard to read, please people, no personal stuff. Thanks for saying I'm OK Bill, even though I am in the Ruth camp.
                  Bill Burgess

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Pretty interesting idea. You have at thread for it here or something? I'd like to see the results.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Roy Hobbs
                      Pretty interesting idea. You have at thread for it here or something? I'd like to see the results.
                      No thread. I started with the infield (minus pitcher) and got that done from 1966 back to 1876. Now I'm on the outfield. I started on pitchers but too much to wade through for one award per league so it'll have to wait. Then I'd like to go back and see if there were any questionable awards from 1967 on forward
                      I did find out one interesting thing. From 1913 to 1922 when Veach and Cobb pretty much both played full-time, Cobb was probably not even the best outfielder on his TEAM (though Cobb was in 1924).
                      Last edited by RuthMayBond; 05-05-2004, 12:31 PM.
                      Mythical SF Chronicle scouting report: "That Jeff runs like a deer. Unfortunately, he also hits AND throws like one." I am Venus DeMilo - NO ARM! I can play like a big leaguer, I can field like Luzinski, run like Lombardi. The secret to managing is keeping the ones who hate you away from the undecided ones. I am a triumph of quantity over quality. I'm almost useful, every village needs an idiot.
                      Good traders: MadHatter(2), BoofBonser26, StormSurge

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        I have never really thought Cobb was a great defensive player. Not a liability or anything, but not outstanding either. I've read some contemporary observers who thought Tris Speaker was a better overall player because his defensive edge over Cobb was greater than Cobb's offensive edge over him. Never bought that myself, but wondered how that played out in your statistical analysis. Did Cobb ever deserve a Gold Glove? Was the gap between him and Speaker wide enough to come close to closing the gap at the plate and on the bases?

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          I'd be inclined to think there is some sort of statistical anomoly to Cobb being one of the 3 best defensive outfielders in the AL at age 37 if he didn't have a very strong track record to that point. Most outfielders have lost significant range by then and his declining stolen base totals suggest he was losing speed at a normal rate. In the course of your research have you found many post-35 Gold Glovers at any position?

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by RuthMayBond
                            Definite anomaly but maybe other OFers were bad & Cobb had learned where hitters might hit. What can I say, he was 2nd in PO, very good in A & E & DP that year. I haven't really done an age thing but I'm sure there's few over 35 except maybe pitchers & guys who win forever (Ashburn, McPhee, etc.)
                            I am not sure how you are trying to measure outfield defense, but Baby Face Jacobson was much better in 1924 than Cobb. They are almost tied in fielding % - Cobb .9862 - Jacobson .9861 - but in range factor Jacobson blows him away - 3.26 to 2.77. In defensive win shares Cobb is not even in the top 3 - Jacobson leads with 6.36 - Cobb has 4.72.

                            Who do you have winning in 1911? There is a good case that Cobb should win that year.

                            (Note: Just came back for the BBF HoF voting. I may drop by next month.)
                            Dave Kent

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              For the record it is Baby DOLL Jacobson. Baby FACE Nelson was a famous bank robber of the same era.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by RuthMayBond
                                Originally posted by wrgptfan
                                I am not sure how you are trying to measure outfield defense, but Baby Face Jacobson was much better in 1924 than Cobb. They are almost tied in fielding % - Cobb .9862 - Jacobson .9861 - but in range factor Jacobson blows him away - 3.26 to 2.77. In defensive win shares Cobb is not even in the top 3 - Jacobson leads with 6.36 - Cobb has 4.72.

                                RMB:
                                Correct, that is why Jacobson was by far the best OF in '24 but they award THREE GG per year, so Cobb got the second one & I sorta settled on Goslin for the third one. I have no stats on Win Shares and I'm not even sure if I agree with them or how they could figure them out.

                                Who do you have winning in 1911? There is a good case that Cobb should win that year.

                                RMB:
                                I'm not back near that far, and as I said, Cobb will probably get at least one more, unlike Ruth.
                                The problem, as I see it, with your approach is that is almost a certainty that the 3 outfield gold gloves will go to center fielders - their range factor is much larger than that of RF and LF. Outfield assist and double plays are of some interest, but the number of balls that a outfielder gets to is of primary importance in determining his value. Since there were only 8 regular AL center fielders in Cobb's era, I would find it extremely unlikely that his range factor was such that he could not be one of the top 3 at least a few times.

                                What the hell...I'll check it out.

                                I will check only those players with 100+ G in the OF.

                                1905 - Cobb - only played 41 games
                                1906 - Cobb - only played 96 games
                                1907 - Cobb - RF - 2nd in RF for RF (5 of top 6 were CF)
                                1908 - Cobb - RF - 1st in RF for RF (5 of top 7 were CF)
                                1909 - Cobb - RF - 1st in RF for RF (4 of top 5 were CF)
                                1910 - Cobb - CF mostly- 3rd in RF for OF (top 6 were CF)
                                1911 - Cobb - CF - 1st in RF for OF (7 of top 8 were CF)
                                1912 - Cobb - CF - 4th in RF for OF (top 4 were CF although Amos Strunk split time between LF and CF)
                                1913 - Cobb - CF - 3rd in RF for OF (top 3 were CF)
                                1914 - Cobb - only played 98 games
                                1915 - Cobb - CF - 6th in RF for OF (top 6 primarily CF)
                                1916 - Cobb - CF - 7th in RF for OF (top 5 were CF)
                                1917 - Cobb - CF - 3rd in RF for OF (top 3 were CF)
                                1918 - Cobb only played 95 games in the OF
                                1919 - Cobb - CF - 5th in RF for OF (4 of top 5 were CF)
                                1920 - Cobb - CF - 9th in RF for OF (top 4 were CF)
                                1921 - Cobb - CF - 5th in RF for OF (top 4 were CF)
                                1922 - Cobb - CF - 5th in RF for OF (top 5 were CF)
                                1923 - Cobb - CF - 4th in RF for OF (6 of top 7 were CF - the exception being Ruth who was 3rd in RF)
                                1924 - Cobb - CF - 3rd in RF for OF (top 7 were CF)
                                1925 - Cobb - CF - 7th in RF for OF (top 5 were CF)
                                1926 - Cobb only played 55 G in the OF
                                1927 - Cobb - CF/RF - 18th in RF for OF (5 of top 6 were CF)

                                Looking at the numbers, it seems as if Cobb was a very good RF and a reasonably good CF. He seems to have lost a step in his 30's as who of us hasn't/didn't.

                                I think that you would be better off giving gold gloves to each outfield position, otherwise the LF and RF are going to get shafted. With my very simplistic methodology (i.e. based solely on range factor), Cobb was in the top 3 OFers 5 times - all as a CFer. Meanwhile he was the best RFer in 1908 and 1909 and gets no credit for that.
                                Dave Kent

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X