Multi-Subject Poll:

[Bill Burgess]

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?

Chris,

I think you're missing the point of the exercise. My point was that black ink is not a profound measurement of greatness. And Babe Herman's 1930 season is the classic test case proving that. I'd think that Gehrig's 1927 season & Sam Crawford's 1911 season would be the confirming proofs.

The point was - Black Ink is an unreliable test of greatness. One could have a very great year, and not show due to someone else having an even better year.

Babe Herman's 1930 stat line - 1.51----1.26-----1.29 - of relative stats proves his case beyond any shadow of doubt. Those are very hard relative stats to beat.

My chart was made around 1965, Chris. That is when I was a 14 yr. old baseball nerd like you, and I was simply trying to identify the best hitting years, not overall years. And since then, I added a few modern seasons.

I have not tried to revise it comprehensively. My point in showing it was to show a lot of the best hitting seasons in comparison of themselves.

I did not promote it as a comprehensive listing, since so many modern seasons didn't go under my examination.

But it still represents a whale of a lot of work, and you'd do well to copy it as a good, handy tool for older seasons, and simply add in your own modern ones. It's a good starting place for comparisons.

Chris. Here is my original post, which encompasses a ton of work. Took days to compile. You might want to use it as a good starting point, while adding in all the other seasons you feel apply.

http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.p...&postcount=176

By using it as a starting point, you'll be saving yourself a lot of time.

Bill

[538280]

Chris,

I think you're missing the point of the exercise. My point was that black ink is not a profound measurement of greatness. And Babe Herman's 1930 season is the classic test case proving that. I'd think that Gehrig's 1927 season & Sam Crawford's 1911 season would be the confirming proofs.

The point was - Black Ink is an unreliable test of greatness. One could have a very great year, and not show due to someone else having an even better year.

Babe Herman's 1930 stat line - 1.51----1.26-----1.29 - of relative stats proves his case beyond any shadow of doubt. Those are very hard relative stats to beat.

My chart was made around 1965, Chris. That is when I was a 14 yr. old baseball nerd like you, and I was simply trying to identify the best hitting years, not overall years. And since then, I added a few modern seasons.

I have not tried to revise it comprehensively. My point in showing it was to show a lot of the best hitting seasons in comparison of themselves.

I did not promote it as a comprehensive listing, since so many modern seasons didn't go under my examination.

But it still represents a whale of a lot of work, and you'd do well to copy it as a good, handy tool for older seasons, and simply add in your own modern ones. It's a good starting place for comparisons.

Chris. Here is my original post, which encompasses a ton of work. Took days to compile. You might want to use it as a good starting point, while adding in all the other seasons you feel apply.

http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.p...&postcount=176

By using it as a starting point, you'll be saving yourself a lot of time.

Bill

Bill, I still don't think Babe Herman's season was truly great (big hitting league, weak league, horrible defense). Like I said before, though, I do agree with your premise though. Ink tests are not a good way to judge the greatness of a season. They will always be arbitrary, no matter how hard you work to correct them.

I must compliment you, though, if you were indeed calculating relative stats in 1965, before anyone really even knew what they were and before the first real comprehensive Baseball Encyclopedia (1969). And you say you're not a stat person!

Still, though, I would like it if you tried to revise your chart, adding in more modern seasons post 1965. From just the first few years after you made your chart, here are some great seasons that come to mind that really should be on your chart:

F.Robinson '66
Yastrzemski '68
McCovey '69
R.Jackson '69
Bench '70
Allen '72
Stargell '73

That's just a starting point.

[Bill Burgess]

I must compliment you, though, if you were indeed calculating relative stats in 1965, before anyone really even knew what they were and before the first real comprehensive Baseball Encyclopedia (1969). And you say you're not a stat person!

Still, though, I would like it if you tried to revise your chart, adding in more modern seasons post 1965. From just the first few years after you made your chart, here are some great seasons that come to mind that really should be on your chart:

F.Robinson '66
Yastrzemski '68
McCovey '69
R.Jackson '69
Bench '70
Allen '72
Stargell '73

That's just a starting point.

Chris,

Time to fess up. In 1965, I had chosen all the years I thought were really fantastic. Selected them was not hard.

Started with BA, then hits over 220/season, and most of them were famous. I went through lists, looking for seasons where someone led his league in a lot of categories.

Also, I didn't know about relative stats until I got my interest back in baseball sometime in the mid 80's. I didn't follow baseball from 1966-mid-80's. When I read Bill James books, I learned about relative stats, and how to compare eras. So I did the relative stats in the 80's, but when I found Fever in 2003, I used baseball-reference to check my relative numbers.

Because, if I'm not mistaken, baseball-reference used league numbers which are indexed for home parks. So they are not "pure".

I do have Yaz's 1967 season. Do you think his '68 season is better.

I have an idea, Chris. I am right now busy doing my photos thing. Why don't you look up all the post-1966 seasons and add them to my chart. How's that?

I am NOT a statman. I use TRADITIONAL stats. I now consider relative stats traditional, just like SA, Onbase ave. I'm now absorbing OPS+ as one of my traditional stats. Doesn't require a formula. Know what I mean.

And for pitchers, ERA+ and relative onbase ave. are my new "traditional stats".

I don't think that makes me a stat guy. But you must understand, Chris. Every single traditional historian/researcher type, MUST use stats, whether they like it or not.

We call this the History Forum, but have you noticed that every single one of us use numbers profusely. Some just use more than others, and some use high-powered formulas. Some folks are just naturally comfortable with math skills. Are not intimidated. I, regrettably, am not a member of this group.

I think we are nicely positioned between the statmen and the non-statmen. And I sometimes have a challenge keeping the two camps from throwing rocks at each other, and lobbing verbal hand grenades at the other camps trenches. I have made a commitment to this site. We will have peace. We will get along. And both sides have a place here, and we do not coerce the statmen to stay in the Stats Forum. We realize it's more fun to argue in the History Forum. And we like that and can accommodate lively exchanges, and even fierce lobbying of one's opinions. We simply do not let anyone insult anyone else, regardless.

Oh, and BTW - you're still wrong about Babe Herman. See how many modern seasons you can find that match his stat line of relative stats. Bet there won't be too many. Some yes, but not lots.

Bill Burgess

[Bill Burgess]

Has everyone voted?

[The Big C]

I just now did.

[Bill Burgess]

Would anyone like to discuss how John Lloyd got so low-ranked? I don't bring his name up too often, because it seems that not too many feel comfortable discussing Negro League players.

But I really feel disappointed in his continued low profile on Fever. I tried to build up his name recognition a couple of years ago, but stopped due to a nebulous feeling of resistance.

Is the resistance waning somehow, over time? Do you think it ever will?

Not trying to be argumentative or 'difficult'. Just curious.

Bill Burgess

[SHOELESSJOE3]

I suspect he very well may be, but I have nothing to go by that would warrant an absolute spot. It's unfortunate I know. My heart knows he belongs, but my head won't let me. I was looking for a third option regarding Negro Leaguers that would express that viewpoint, but there wasn't. So I just chose the "no" option.

This is the same as my line of thinking. If one leads with the heart or emotion Josh could very well be top 3. If logic rules I see no way he can be given an exact or near exact position all time. It never happened, through no fault of his own he never played MLB. He belongs on the list exactly where I do not know. How do we know, how do we judge when it never happened. How do we measure his worth, his position, word of mouth, reputation is not enough.

[Mattingly]

I've just voted based upon what little I may know about those players.

How do we tell who has voted for which players, since this is a public poll?

[Bill Burgess]

I've just voted based upon what little I may know about those players.

How do we tell who has voted for which players, since this is a public poll?

Thanks, Brad. Simply click onto the numbers on the right side. It will then reveal the names of the offenders.

Bill

[jalbright]

Several of these selections are right about where I pick these guys. Morgan's 3rd or 4th, Reggie Jackson is 49-51, Charleston's right around 10, Lloyd might be top 30, but I choose to be conservative, Mathewson's 5th or 6th.

[LouGehrig]

Dear Bill,

I am simple and try to keep things simple.

The greatest 3 players at each position, and the top five pitchers, regardless of the idiotic term "role," are as follows:

1B Gehrig
Sisler
Foxx

2B Hornsby
Lajoie
Mr. Robinson

3B Schmidt
Robinson (not MR. Robinson, simply Brooksie)
Traynor

SS Wagner
Rodriguez
Banks

OF Ruth, Speaker, and Cobb
Jackson ("Okay kid, it ain't so"), DiMaggio, and Williams
Musial, Mays, and Robinson (Skipper Frank)

C Dickey, Berra, Bench

P Johnson (not the one who should retire)
Mathewson
Koufax
Grove
Alexander

[Honus Wagner Rules]

As far as I am concerned, the two had virtually identical careers in terms of length. While in the Negro Leagues, it is not like Jackie was a car salesman- he was still playing baseball. And if EVER someone deserved points beyond what is visible on the stat sheet, it is Jackie, IMO.

My top 2Bman:

1) Rogers Hornsby
2) Eddie Collins
3) Napoleon Lajoie
4) Jackie Robinson
5) Joe Morgan
6) Charlie Gehringer

Mark

I believe Jackie only played one season of Negro League basball in 1945 and it was only about 50 games.

[RuthMayBond]

Dear Bill,

I am simple and try to keep things simple.

The greatest 3 players at each position, and the top five pitchers, regardless of the idiotic term "role," are as follows:

2B Hornsby
Lajoie
Mr. Robinson

A top 3 without Collins or Morgan

<3B Schmidt
Robinson (not MR. Robinson, simply Brooksie)
Traynor>

A top 3 without Mathews or Brett

[Bill Burgess]

Dear Bill,

I am simple and try to keep things simple.

The greatest 3 players at each position, and the top five pitchers, regardless of the idiotic term "role," are as follows:

Thanks, Lou! So much. I like that you're a traditionalist, like me. So few of us left! Old school LIVES.

Bill Burgess

[Bill Burgess]

I'd like more voters.