Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Multi-Subject Poll:

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

  • #76
    Sultan, as Bill said I'm giving 12 points for leading the league rather than 10 in BA, OBP, and SLG (that stemmed from your idea of giving a bigger boost for leading the league), and I'm also giving 20 points to the OPS+ leader rather than 15.

    Comment


    • #77
      I did some of my personal favorties' seasons with my new ink method:

      Heinie Groh '17-44
      Reggie Jackson '69-59
      Dick Allen '72-76
      Joe Morgan '75-54
      Joe Morgan '76-82 (absoultely amazing. This from a modern 2B. BILL!)
      Mike Schmidt '81-78
      Barry Bonds '93-88 (pre steroids. SULTAN!)
      Barry Bonds '01-75
      Last edited by 538280; 03-25-2006, 07:19 PM.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by 538280
        Sultan, as Bill said I'm giving 12 points for leading the league rather than 10 in BA, OBP, and SLG (that stemmed from your idea of giving a bigger boost for leading the league), and I'm also giving 20 points to the OPS+ leader rather than 15.
        Yeah I gotcha. I read it wrong when you wrote down all the stuff. When it said "10 point scale" I just assumed first place got 10. Gotta redo mine then. At least now I can satisfy my curiosity of how much ink Babe took from Gehrig. Your new system isn't black or grey ink though, right. It's just INK in general.

        Comment


        • #79
          Ok Chris, here's some data for ya

          I did not award any points for PA or playing in all team games; seems pointless to me, but feel free to add those totals if you must.

          Also, could you come up with a pitching version so I could add it to Babe's early years. It won't be much, basically a few points here and there for '16 and '17. Maybe ERA+, H/9, whip, CG, whatever you feel is best.

          Each of their top 10 seasons are in red just for visual separation purposes.


          Chris' Method

          Babe’s Career Ink

          1918 – 62
          1919 – 73
          1920 – 78
          1921 – 83
          1922 – 51
          1923 – 85
          1924 – 84
          1925 – 9
          1926 – 80
          1927 – 70
          1928 – 68
          1929 – 56
          1930 – 75
          1931 – 80
          1932 – 58
          1933 – 39
          1934 – 23

          Total: 1074 (before pitching ink)

          Top Ten: 776


          Cobb’s Career Ink

          1906 – 12
          1907 – 79
          1908 – 74
          1909 – 92
          1910 – 85
          1911 – 71
          1912 – 72
          1913 – 58
          1914 – 56
          1915 – 79
          1916 – 60
          1917 – 89
          1918 – 67
          1919 – 58
          1920 – 6
          1921 – 41
          1922 – 40
          1923 – 14
          1924 – 12
          1925 – 44
          1926 - 0
          1927 – 8

          Total: 1117

          Top Ten: 766


          lol, were these two close or what.

          A couple thoughts Chris..

          Babe basically had no points for triples, doubles, stolen bases, or hits. Cobb wasn't exempt from any categories with his style, except for walks. He would have 7 homers and still get 8 points, while Babe could outhomer an entire team and only get 12. I almost think homers should be on the same scale as OPS+, or if not, at least some type of relative thing thrown in, where dominance would be considered. Tell ya what though, going through these guys' numbers like this, never fails to blow the mind.
          Last edited by Sultan_1895-1948; 03-27-2006, 04:43 AM.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Sultan_1895-1948
            Babe basically had no points for triples, doubles, stolen bases, or hits. Cobb wasn't exempt from any categories with his style, except for walks. He would have 7 homers and still get 8 points, while Babe could outhomer an entire team and only get 12. I almost think homers should be on the same scale as OPS+, or if not, at least some type of relative thing thrown in, where dominance would be considered. Tell ya what though, going through these guys' numbers like this, never fails to blow the mind.
            Whoa! If we give that kind of bonus points for HRs, then pre-Babe sluggers will clean up TOO well, while just leading their leagues by 2-3 homers. Not well-thought out.

            Why should all-round players be punished for excelling in many skills? Maybe Babe should be credited for dominace in out-homering teams, but the method should be more wisely crafted. Doncha' think? I once showed that Ty also out-homered some teams. Sometimes he'd hit 9, and the Senators would only hit 5 as a team.

            Bill

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by [email protected]
              Whoa! If we give that kind of bonus points for HRs, then pre-Babe sluggers will clean up TOO well, while just leading their leagues by 2-3 homers. Not well-thought out.

              Why should all-round players be punished for excelling in many skills? Maybe Babe should be credited for dominace in out-homering teams, but the method should be more wisely crafted. Doncha' think? I once showed that Ty also out-homered some teams. Sometimes he'd hit 9, and the Senators would only hit 5 as a team.

              Bill
              You're right Bill. Perhaps I was too weary from 2 hours of staring at numbers when I wrote that. The OPS+ scale would be too extreme, but something should be considered. No worries, ink isn't really used to judge much of anything, it's just a fun little exercise.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Sultan_1895-1948
                You're right Bill. Perhaps I was too weary from 2 hours of staring at numbers when I wrote that. The OPS+ scale would be too extreme, but something should be considered. No worries, ink isn't really used to judge much of anything, it's just a fun little exercise.
                That's another thing that I, as the creator of this ink system, should probably mention. It is meant to be used as nothing but a thumbnail sketch as to how much a player dominated his league.

                The system is better and more carefully crafted than the black/gray ink systems, but that doesn't mean it should really be used as a specific player evaluation tool. It's my system, and even I don't see myself using it all that much.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by 538280
                  That's another thing that I, as the creator of this ink system, should probably mention. It is meant to be used as nothing but a thumbnail sketch as to how much a player dominated his league.

                  The system is better and more carefully crafted than the black/gray ink systems, but that doesn't mean it should really be used as a specific player evaluation tool. It's my system, and even I don't see myself using it all that much.
                  We all agree. Ink isn't profound enough to take us where we need to go. Take Babe Herman for example. Had a phenomenal season in 1930, but got NO black ink. Hit .393, 36 homers, etc. But Hack Wilson, Chuck Klein and Bill Terry got all the league leads. By black ink standards, Ducky Medwick apears to have had the greatest season ever in 1937. Lots of stat illusions, but it's still 'fun'.

                  Bill

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by [email protected]
                    We all agree. Ink isn't profound enough to take us where we need to go. Take Babe Herman for example. Had a phenomenal season in 1930, but got NO black ink. Hit .393, 36 homers, etc. But Hack Wilson, Chuck Klein and Bill Terry got all the league leads. By black ink standards, Ducky Medwick apears to have had the greatest season ever in 1937. Lots of stat illusions, but it's still 'fun'.

                    Bill
                    I agree with the jist of your post, Bill, but Babe Herman's 1930 season really wasn't phenominal, and the fact he got no ink hints at why.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by 538280
                      That's another thing that I, as the creator of this ink system, should probably mention. It is meant to be used as nothing but a thumbnail sketch as to how much a player dominated his league.

                      The system is better and more carefully crafted than the black/gray ink systems, but that doesn't mean it should really be used as a specific player evaluation tool. It's my system, and even I don't see myself using it all that much.
                      Agreed Chris. There are many flaws and issues that could either add ink, or take it away when unwarranted. It's just a fun little thing. What would you do for pitchers? Any updated thoughts or tweaks you would do to your system as of now?

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by 538280
                        I agree with the jist of your post, Bill, but Babe Herman's 1930 season really wasn't phenominal, and the fact he got no ink hints at why.
                        We disagree. Behold the hard numbers, Chris.

                        Some of the Greatest Hitting Seasons Ever: Listed according to PCA.

                        Code:
                        ----------------Rel.SLG-Rel.OBP--Rel.BA.-OPS+-INK--PCA-----WS--TPR
                        Ruth, 1920-------2.08----1.47-----1.27---256---16--28.83---51--10.0
                        Ruth,1921--------2.07----1.43-----1.29---239---16--24.79---53---9.8
                        Mantle,1956------1.78----1.36-----1.35---210---18--22.96---49---8.8
                        Ruth, 1923-------1.96----1.55-----1.39---239---16--22.2----55--11.2
                        Williams, 1941---1.88----1.61-----1.52---235---16--22.1----42---8.8
                        Bonds, 2004------1.83----1.76-----1.32---260---09--21.8----53--12.5
                        Bonds, 2001------2.04 ---1.57-----1.27---262---09--20.82---54--12.2
                        Ruth, 1924-------1.86----1.43-----1.30---220---16--20.8----45---8.5
                        Cobb,1911--------1.73----1.38-----1.53---196---22--20.74---47---6.4
                        Bonds, 2002------1.96----1.77-----1.45---275---09--20.6----49--11.2
                        Hornsby,1922-----1.78----1.31-----1.37---207---23--20.37---42---9.2
                        Musial,1948------1.83----1.35-----1.44---200---20--20.30---46---7.3
                        Cobb, 1917-------1.78----1.39-----1.54---209---16--19.7----46---8.4
                        Lajoie, 1901-----1.53----1.38-----1.73---200---23--18.94---42---7.4
                        Foxx,1932--------1.85----1.35-----1.31---205---14--18.54---40---7.2
                        Wagner,1908------1.76----1.38-----1.48---205---19--18.42---59--10.2
                        Speaker, 1912----1.44----1.39-----1.54---188---06--18.13---51---7.1
                        Medwick, 1937----1.37----1.24-----1.42---180---24--17.47---40---5.2
                        Cash, 1961-------1.41----1.46-----1.37---201---07--17.30---42---8.3
                        T.Williams,1949--1.71----1.38-----1.30---192---19--17.24---40---6.6
                        Gehrig,1927------1.91----1.34-----1.30---221---07--17.17---44---9.1
                        J.Jackson, 1911--1.49----1.38-----1.49---193---00--17.13---39---6.8
                        Yaz,1967---------1.77----1.38-----1.38---195---21--16.81---42---6.5
                        F.Robinson, 1966-1.28----1.31-----1.68---199---18--16.48---41---6.8
                        H.Duffy, 1894----1.42----1.26-----1.58---177---20--16.44---33---4.0
                        Delahanty, 1899--1.44----1.33-----1.59---189---16--16.36---41---5.4
                        Babe Herman,1930-1.51----1.26-----1.29---170---00--16.26---32---3.5
                        Wagner, 1900-----1.36----1.28-----1.56---175---10--16.05---34---4.3
                        Hack Wilson,1930-1.61----1.26-----1.17---178---13--15.81---35---4.9
                        Carew, 1977------1.45----1.35-----1.40---178---10--15.74---37---6.3
                        Vaughan, 1935----1.38----1.48-----1.31---190---09--15.72---39---7.6
                        Kiner, 1951------1.18----1.31-----1.60---184---12--15.64---35---5.1
                        Sisler,1920------1.63----1.29-----1.43---181---08--15.40---33---7.6
                        Al Rosen, 1953---1.28----1.23-----1.60---180---14--15.33---42---6.5
                        Burkett, 1901----1.42----1.35-----1.49---181---11--15.21---38---5.8
                        Aaron, 1959------1.36----1.24-----1.59---181---10--15.21---38---7.2
                        Mize, 1937-------1.33----1.24-----1.55---172---00--14.95---34---3.3
                        Terry, 1930------1.32----1.25-----1.38---158---07--14.46---32---5.5
                        Klein,1930-------1.53----1.21-----1.27---159---06--14.17---28---5.6
                        Sisler, 1922-----1.49----1.34-----1.47---170---13--14.08---29---5.2
                        Zimmerman, 1912--1.36----1.19-----1.54---169---16--13.16---34---5.0
                        Ott, 1929--------1.11----1.22-----1.49---165---02--13.15---31---5.8
                        Simmons,1930-----1.68----1.20-----1.32---176---07--12.94---36---4.5
                        Averill, 1936----1.30----1.16-----1.48---159---04--12.86---27---4.0
                        DiMaggio,1937----1.62----1.16-----1.32---168---07--12.78---39---5.9
                        Clemente, 1967---1.13----1.24-----1.52---170---07--12.59---35---5.6
                        Brett, 1980------1.44----1.38-----1.66---202---07--12.43---36---7.4
                        Greenberg, 1937--1.19----1.22-----1.60---172---04--12.38---33---5.5
                        Snider, 1954-----1.28----1.20-----1.58---170---03--12.33---39---4.2
                        J.Robinson, 1949-1.30----1.23-----1.35---159---06--12.22---36---6.5
                        Heilmann, 1921---1.34----1.24-----1.51---167---07--12.13---28---3.4
                        Mays, 1954-------1.30----1.22-----1.63---175---08--12.11---40---6.8
                        Rose, 1969-------1.39----1.27-----1.38---158---07--11.94---37---3.7
                        B.Williams, 1970-1.24----1.10-----1.49---147---07--11.88---29---3.5
                        O'Doul, 1929-----1.35----1.30-----1.46---159---07--11.83---31---5.1
                        T.Davis, 1962----1.31----1.13-----1.34---148---11--11.70---36---3.6
                        Crawford, 1911---1.38----1.23-----1.46---163---00--11.49---32---2.2
                        Keeler, 1897-----1.42----1.28-----1.49---164---07--11.28---32---4.0
                        Manush, 1928-----1.34----1.15-----1.44---154---00--11.08---35---2.9
                        Lindstrom, 1930--1.25----1.07-----1.28---132---00--10.78---32---4.7
                        Z.Wheat, 1924----1.32----1.25-----1.40---163---00--10.67---35---4.5
                        Z.Wheat, 1925----1.22----1.13-----1.30---142---00--10.61---27---2.5
                        P.Waner, 1927----1.27----1.22-----1.33---155---13--10.45---36---3.4
                        Gehringer, 1936--1.22----1.15-----1.31---142---02--10.37---34---5.9
                        Reiser, 1941-----1.32----1.18-----1.54---165---13--10.22---34---4.7
                        Colavito, 1961---1.13----1.17-----1.46---157---01--10.10---33---4.0
                        J.Rice, 1978-----1.20----1.08-----1.55---158---17--10.08---36---4.0
                        KiKi Cuyler,1930-1.13----1.15-----1.17---133---03---9.82---29---3.0
                        Trosky, 1936-----1.14----1.01-----1.46---148---04---9.66---21---1.9
                        Oliva, 1964------1.30----1.10-----1.45---150---12---9.43---27---3.2
                        K.Williams, 1922-1.16----1.13-----1.57---164---08---8.95---30---4.3
                        J.Tobin, 1921----1.20----1.05-----1.19---119---02---8.24---25---0.5

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by [email protected]
                          By black ink standards, Ducky Medwick apears to have had the greatest season ever in 1937.
                          How could he possibly have more black ink than Musial '48 or Dunlap '84 or Hornsby '22?
                          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


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by RuthMayBond
                            How could he possibly have more black ink than Musial '48 or Dunlap '84 or Hornsby '22?
                            He led in:

                            BA
                            SLG
                            OPS
                            G
                            AB
                            R
                            H
                            2B
                            TB
                            HR
                            RBI

                            Hornsby didn't lead in G or AB.
                            Musial didn't lead in G, AB, or HR.
                            Dunlap didn't lead in G, AB, 2B, or RBI.
                            "Simply put, the passion, interest and tradition surrounding baseball in New York is unmatched."

                            Sean McAdam, ESPN.com

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Black Ink Leaders, Single Seasons

                              24 - Medwick(1937) -----------R, H, D, HR, RBI, BA, SLG, G
                              23 - Hornsby(1922)------------R, H, D, HR, RBI, GA, SLG
                              23 - Cobb(1909)--------------R, H, HR, RBI, BA, SLG, SB
                              23 - Lajoie(1901)--------------R, H, D, HR, RI, GA, SLG
                              22 - Cobb(1911)--------------R, H, D, T, RBI, BA, SLG, SB
                              21 - Yaz(1967)---------------R, H, HR, RBI, BA, SA
                              21 - Hornsby(1921)-----------R, H, D, T, RBI, BA, SLG, G
                              20 - T. Williams(1942)--------R, HR, RBI, W, BA, SLG
                              20 - T. Williams(1947)--------R, HR, RBI, W, BA, SLG
                              20 - Klein(1933)--------------H, D, HR, RBI, BA, SLG
                              20 - Musial(1948)------------R, H, D, T, RBI, BA, SLG
                              19 - Wagner(1908)----------H, D, T, RBI, BA, SLG, SB
                              19 - Williams(1949)----------R, D, HR, RBI, W, SLG, G
                              18 - Mantle(1956)-----------R, HR, RBI, BA, SLG
                              18 - F. Robinson(1966)------R, HR, RBI, BA, SLG
                              17 - Hornsby(1924)---------R, H, D, W, BA, SLB
                              17 - Cobb(1908)-----------H, D, T, RBI, BA, SLG
                              16 - Cobb(1907)-----------H, RBI, BA, SLG, SB
                              16 - Musial(1946)----------R, H, D, T, BA, SLG
                              16 - Gehrig(1934)----------HR, RBI, BA, SLG, G
                              16 - Ruth(1921)------------R, HR, RBI, W, SLG
                              16 - T. Williams(1941)-------R, HR, W, BA, SLG
                              15 - Cobb(1917)-----------H, D, T, BA, SLG, SB
                              15 - Hornsby(1925)--------HR, RBI, BA, SLG
                              15 - Klein(1932)------------R, H, HR, SLG, SB
                              14 - Foxx(1932)------------R, HR, RBI, SLG
                              12 - Cobb(1915)------------R, H, BA, SB
                              11 - Cobb(1912)------------H, BA, SLG
                              13 - Wilson(1930)----------HR, RBI, W, SLG
                              10 - Cobb(1910)------------R, BA, SLG,
                              10 - Wagner(1900)---------D, T, BA, SLG
                              08 - Sisler(1920)-----------H, BA, G
                              07 - Gehrig(1927)----------D, RBI, G
                              07 - Simmons(1930)-------R, BA
                              07 - DiMaggio(1937)-------HR, SLG
                              00 - Babe Herman(1930)---00

                              This has been quite instructive. Some of the greatest offensive stat seasons were achieved without leading the league much, and appear at the bottom. A prime example, would be Babe Herman's great 1930 campaign, where he couldn't lead his league in ANYTHING, due to Hack Wilson and Chuck Klein garnering all the leads to themselves. And yet, Herman had a fantastic season. With stats such as BA -.393, R - 143, H - 141, HR - 35, RBI - 130, OBP - .455, SLG - .678. Amazing.

                              Summary: Black Ink is not a very revealing, incisive stat. A more useful stat would be a combo of Black/Grey ink. If you're Gehrig, Ruth absorbs all your ink. Gehrig's '27 campaign, one of the most impressive ever, garners 7 points. Dreadful.

                              This was not comprehensive. I didn't do Ruth's seasons. But Babe never exceeded 16 in any of his seasons. We also need to do pitchers.
                              Last edited by Bill Burgess; 03-28-2006, 07:23 AM.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Bill, Babe Herman was a horrible outfielder, playing in a great hitter's park, in perhaps the highest offensive period in history. It was a very good season, not one of the truly great seasons, and I think your chart shows that. By the way, you're missing a ton of seasons on there. I can't possibly imagine those are the top ones according to PCA. I believe Joe Morgan in 1975 had over 20 PCA, and Reggie in '69 I know had at least 19. Plus, probably 75% of the seasons on there are pre 1950. I see hardly any from the past 36 years (70s, 80s, 90s, 00s.). All I can see from then is three Bonds years, one Carew year, one Billy Williams, and one Jim Rice. I don't think there's anything from a whole 20 years of baseball (and two decades), 1980-1999. Do you expect me to take your chart seriously when you leave so many things off?
                                Last edited by Bill Burgess; 03-28-2006, 04:11 PM.

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X