Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Better Than the Babe

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

  • Originally posted by 538280
    Plus, it has long been my opinion intensive research on a single player can blind your objective senses.
    Would you say the same thing about a scientist who confined their research to a small area, like viruses. Would that blind them to other things, or simply give them deeper knowledge about their subject.

    I would think any biographer would disagree with you. Were Smelser/Creamer "blinded to other players"?

    Was Walter Johnson's grandson, who wrote his biography, (it took him 20 years) blinded to other pitchers? Or did his research make him more aware of other players of the era?

    In researching Ty, I found it absolutely necessary to research the Babe at the same time. And I ended up researching all their supporters, to give me deeper insight. And I had to research their peers, like Jackson, Speaker, Johnson, Collins, Crawford, Veach, etc.

    And the research on the sports writers led me to compile a sports writers index, the only one I'm aware of, and is now posted on SABR's site. Over 600 guys, with a chronology of their careers.

    Still think my objective senses are "blinded"? Just curious.

    My original decision to study the "Cobb Consensus", eventually led me to an overall study of baseball history, by studying the credentials of all the "witness supporters" of Ty/Babe.

    Sometimes, honest research leads to related areas, and the researcher goes subject to subject, like a bee to flowers, extracting the substance where ever it leads you.

    Just one more of your ill-considered remarks.

    Bill
    Last edited by Bill Burgess; 03-21-2006, 07:38 PM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by 538280
      Yeah, we all know Ruth was much better compared to league. No doubt he was. But, Ruth was playing an offensive position. The league averages for an RFer in his prime (1920-1929) were .321/.379/.469, while Ruth was at .355/.485/.740 (numbers courtesy of The Diamond Appraised). That's less separtion that he has to the league. His relative line compared to other RFers is 111/128/158.
      Why not look at more years a bigger sample, a broader picture of how they compared to others at their positions

      What you chose to use. Ruth 1920-1929 and Schmidt 1974-1983 their numbers compared to others at the same position in their league.
      -----------------------------------------Ba.---------OBA-------SLG.
      Schmidt--------------------------------.269---------.388-------.548
      Position 3b-----------------------------.265---------.336-------.400
      Points over others at 3B ------------ + 4-------- + 52----- + 148------------------
      Ruth-----------------------------------.355---------.485--------.740
      Pos. RF--------------------------------.321---------.379--------.469
      Points over others in RF---------------+ 34------- + 106-------+ 271

      I then took in a longer period of time. Ruth from 1919 to 1934. That was his first season where he played a good deal in the outfield

      Schmidt from 1973 to 1988. He played only 13 games in 1972 and only 42 games in 1989. This is a fair match up, covers the same amount of years for both in that time span, 16 seasons. They were close in age at the start at and finish. Ruth 24 in 1919 and Mike 23 in 1973.

      --------------------------------------Ba.------------OBA---------Slg.
      Schmidt-----------------------------.269------------.382---------.531
      Pos. 3b-----------------------------.264------------.336---------.403
      Points over others at his position--- + 5------------ + 46-------+ 128

      ------------------------------------Ba.-------------OBA-------- Slg.
      Ruth-------------------------------.347------------.482---------.708
      Pos. RF----------------------------.305------------.378---------.457
      Points over other RF's----------- + 42---------- + 104------- + 251

      As one can see Ruth was far more dominant over a long period. Do we diminish his lead over the others in Slugging because he was one of the few going for the long ball. OK we can consider that. But what about his 42 points over other RF's in batting average, thats hugh and there were a good number of outfielders who were not swinging for the fence as often as Ruth. Yet he puts a 42 point gap between himself and them in batting average.
      More impressive, Ruth the slugger going for the long ball hits for 56 points over the league, full of contact hitters, .347 Ruth, .291 league.
      Last edited by Bill Burgess; 03-22-2006, 07:37 AM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by SHOELESSJOE3
        Why not look at more years a bigger sample, a broader picture of how they compared to others at their positions
        lol, Joe great work, that must have took some time. Chris will just retort back with the usual. Claim that Ruth couldn't run the bases because of his SB%, or because he got thrown out to end the '26 Series. He'll say that Schmidt was faster than Babe, or that his position is so much tougher. There's no conceding on his part, although deep down he has to know that the Schmidt/Ruth comparison is shady at best, no matter how many distorted adjustments, or inaccurate depictions of his other skills he might make.
        Last edited by Bill Burgess; 03-21-2006, 10:13 PM.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Sultan_1895-1948
          lol, Joe great work, that must have took some time. Chris will just retort back with the usual. Claim that Ruth couldn't run the bases because of his SB%, or because he got thrown out to end the '26 Series. He'll say that Schmidt was faster than Babe, or that his position is so much tougher. There's no conceding on his part, although deep down he has to know that the Schmidt/Ruth comparison is shady at best, no matter how many distorted adjustments, or inaccurate depictions of his other skills he might make.

          He might just do that but he did post some offensive numbers on Mike and Babe and that was my reply. BTW I hope this does not give the impression that I attempt to diminish Mike, this guy was some hitter, some slugger, one of the best in my time. There was never a combo hitter/slugger over a whole career like Ted Williams or Babe Ruth, not over a whole career, Gehrig close.

          Some proof off this. Barry Bonds tearing the cover off the ball for the last 4 seasons, unbelievable numbers would need a few seasons of slugging .900, carrying an OBA of .600 to even challenge Ruth in those career numbers and Williams also. Barry high on the list but has got to go some to catch Ted or Ruth, time is running out. Thats how consistent Ted and Babe were.

          Longevity and consistency carry a lot of weight in my book.
          Last edited by SHOELESSJOE3; 03-21-2006, 10:37 PM.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by SHOELESSJOE3
            He might just do that but he did post some offensive numbers on Mike and Babe and that was my reply. BTW I hope this does not give the impression that I attempt to diminish Mike, this guy was some hitter, some slugger, one of the best in my time. There was never a combo hitter/slugger over a whole career like Ted Williams or Babe Ruth, not over a whole career, Gehrig close.
            Dude, tell me about it, I love Schmiddy; have him ranked like 15th or somethin' which is more than fair, bordering on bias. He was a stud, but gotta call bs when it's there, and comparing him to Babe...hell Schmidt himself would get a chuckle outta this.
            Last edited by Bill Burgess; 03-22-2006, 07:37 AM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by SHOELESSJOE3
              Why not look at more years a bigger sample, a broader picture of how they compared to others at their positions
              Joe, you just did the exact same thing I did in the earlier post, except you put in in chart form and presented the linear difference (player-league) instead of the percentage one (player/league).

              Your numbers on Schmidt are different from the ones I had though. I had the league average 3B 1974-1983 hitting .268/.336/.403, slightly different from you, and I had Schmidt hitting .271/.390/.579. I could be wrong though, it took me quite some time to do that and I could have made an error along the way. I'm just interested where you got the numbers from.

              I don't see how consistency is a bad point for Schmidt against Ruth either. Schmidt had one not so great year (1978), but other than that he was extremely consistent, even more so than Ruth. He was one of the greatest players in the league (actually the greatest player in the league over the period) for 15 years 1974-1987.

              Ruth was certainly consistent, but he did have two years (1922 and 1925) when he showed up out of shape and not in a condition to play. He normally didn't play in as high a percentage of games as Schmidt either. He strugged to play 140 games late in his career.

              (BTW, Sultan, I don't really have Schmidt above Ruth, but I do think it is much closer than many people realize. Schmidt does have a good argument, but I'm just playing like a devil's advocate for this thread, trying the best I can with the Schmidt case.)
              Last edited by 538280; 03-22-2006, 04:42 PM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by 538280
                Ruth was certainly consistent, but he did have two years (1922 and 1925) when he showed up out of shape and not in a condition to play. He normally didn't play in as high a percentage of games as Schmidt either. He strugged to play 140 games late in his career.

                (BTW, Sultan, I don't really have Ruth above Schmidt, but I do think it is much closer than many people realize. Schmidt does have a good argument, but I'm just playing like a devil's advocate for this thread, trying the best I can with the Schmidt case.)
                I know Chris, and you're doing a good job presenting Schmidt. I have him ranked fairly high myself. Comparing him to Ruth though, you had to know going in, that it would take a wild imagination and the math tweaking ability of Good Will Hunting to even make a case.

                The problem is that it requires you to make outlandish claims about Ruth that just aren't true. Wasn't consistent? Chris, save me the finger energy and just pretend that I copy and pasted his years from baseball-reference.com. How was he not consistent? I agree with you about '22 and '25, although in '22 he was 230 pounds and in good shape. It was '25 where he let himself go and weighed just over 250 at the time of his collapse in January.

                Not really sure how you can hold it against him that he didn't play in many games. From '26 - '33 Gehrig played in 1235 games. Babe played in 1152 over that same stretch. In fact, I'm pretty sure if you check, Babe played in the largest percentage of Yankee games out of everyone but Gehrig. Chris, I hate to keep bringing up that you haven't done your homework on Babe, but you really haven't.

                He was known for coming back from injury very quickly, and for playing through injuries. It's one of the reasons his 1920 season is so impressive, because he played through many injuries all season long. Maybe you missed that post I made in the Babe Ruth thread about it. He could easily have had 60 homers that year if not for the injuries. 1921 would have been another 60 homer season if he didn't have a homerun called a double that a fan knocked back into the field of play. Another season he should have had 50 but had two taken away at Shibe Park. I believe that was in '31. Anyway, I'm getting off track.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by 538280
                  Joe, you just did the exact same thing I did in the earlier post, except you put in in chart form and presented the linear difference (player-league) instead of the percentage one (player/league).

                  Your numbers on Schmidt are different from the ones I had though. I had the league average 3B 1974-1983 hitting .268/.336/.403, slightly different from you, and I had Schmidt hitting .271/.390/.579. I could be wrong though, it took me quite some time to do that and I could have made an error along the way. I'm just interested where you got the numbers from.
                  If I recall I did not feature league average for my numbers. I may have tossed in Ruth compared to the league a bit but for the most part I compared Babe and Mike to others at their positions RF and third basemen.


                  Here is what I have for Mike 1974-1983. This is from a software program called Sabermetric Baseball Encyclopedia.

                  1974-1983--------------------------Ba.---------OBA--------Slg.
                  Mike-------------------------------.269--------.388--------.548
                  League numbers 3rd basemen-------.265--------.336--------.400
                  Entire League numbers--------------.265-------.332--------.388

                  I've seen this before, numbers that vary some, usually slight, different sources. Even at that, it's rare, most sources are right on with the others.

                  It does not specify but I'm assuming that when they list stats for positions they list them for that same league the player mentioned played in.

                  Comment


                  • Can't really alibi for the Babe for that 1922 season, what hurt him was his own doing, barnstorming after the 1921 season. He was suspended for part of the 1922 season and did not play his first game until May 22. Add to that in that 1922 season he was suspended 5 or 6 times on top of that first 6 weeks.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Sultan_1895-1948
                      I know Chris, and you're doing a good job presenting Schmidt. I have him ranked fairly high myself. Comparing him to Ruth though, you had to know going in, that it would take a wild imagination and the math tweaking ability of Good Will Hunting to even make a case.

                      The problem is that it requires you to make outlandish claims about Ruth that just aren't true. Wasn't consistent? Chris, save me the finger energy and just pretend that I copy and pasted his years from baseball-reference.com. How was he not consistent? I agree with you about '22 and '25, although in '22 he was 230 pounds and in good shape. It was '25 where he let himself go and weighed just over 250 at the time of his collapse in January.
                      Sultan, I wouldn't call Ruth inconsistent but I wouldn't call him particularly consistent either. Two off years right in the middle of his prime isn't really that consistent. Most truly great players never have an off year.

                      Schmidt had a not so great 1978 season, but I wouldn't dock him so much for that, because 1.He still was playing every single day that year, 2.He still won a Gold Glove that year as the league's best defensive third baseman, and 3.It's not like he was a bad hitter that year. 122 OPS+ is still good. I think Schmidt's off year (1978) was a much more valuable year than Ruth's off years.



                      Not really sure how you can hold it against him that he didn't play in many games. From '26 - '33 Gehrig played in 1235 games. Babe played in 1152 over that same stretch. In fact, I'm pretty sure if you check, Babe played in the largest percentage of Yankee games out of everyone but Gehrig. Chris, I hate to keep bringing up that you haven't done your homework on Babe, but you really haven't.
                      Sultan, the fact Ruth played the second amount of Yankee games after Gehrig doesn't mean anything, except that Ruth was A)On the Yankees every year 1926-1933, and B)His teammates just didn't play as many games. Just because Ruth's teammates weren't playing that many games doesn't make it okay for Ruth to do it. Ruth as he got older was playing 140 games a year instead of 150. Schmidt was still playing about 155 games a year as he aged. Not saying Ruth wasn't durable, but it is true he missed more games than Schmidt. That's not a huge thing, but it means at least a little bit.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by 538280
                        Sultan, the fact Ruth played the second amount of Yankee games after Gehrig doesn't mean anything, except that Ruth was A)On the Yankees every year 1926-1933, and B)His teammates just didn't play as many games. Just because Ruth's teammates weren't playing that many games doesn't make it okay for Ruth to do it. Ruth as he got older was playing 140 games a year instead of 150. Schmidt was still playing about 155 games a year as he aged. Not saying Ruth wasn't durable, but it is true he missed more games than Schmidt. That's not a huge thing, but it means at least a little bit.
                        1. Babe was remarkably consistent. Simply a matter of record.

                        2. Schmidt had infinitely more technology to help him stay in the lineup. Imagine if Babe had the high-tech whirlpools, heat, ice, icey hot, vibration devices, medical stuff like orthoscopic, Tommy John, etc.

                        All Babe had was massage, hot towels, and Artie McGovern to help him pre-season. Not a level playing field at all! And you must know that Chris. You just must.

                        Bill

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by 538280
                          Sultan, I wouldn't call Ruth inconsistent but I wouldn't call him particularly consistent either. Two off years right in the middle of his prime isn't really that consistent. Most truly great players never have an off year.

                          Schmidt had a not so great 1978 season, but I wouldn't dock him so much for that, because 1.He still was playing every single day that year, 2.He still won a Gold Glove that year as the league's best defensive third baseman, and 3.It's not like he was a bad hitter that year. 122 OPS+ is still good. I think Schmidt's off year (1978) was a much more valuable year than Ruth's off years.

                          Sultan, the fact Ruth played the second amount of Yankee games after Gehrig doesn't mean anything, except that Ruth was A)On the Yankees every year 1926-1933, and B)His teammates just didn't play as many games. Just because Ruth's teammates weren't playing that many games doesn't make it okay for Ruth to do it. Ruth as he got older was playing 140 games a year instead of 150. Schmidt was still playing about 155 games a year as he aged. Not saying Ruth wasn't durable, but it is true he missed more games than Schmidt. That's not a huge thing, but it means at least a little bit.
                          Christopher, how does playing in the second most games after the IRON MAN, not mean anything? Keep in mind what ages Ruth was during that 8 year span, and he only played in 83 less games than Lou. Babe's outfield play took more of a toll than Schmidt camping out at third base. A tad easier on the legs don't ya think. Also, did Schmidt play in exhibition games during the season? That's the thing I rarely hear you consider. You make league adjustments and this and that, but you never consider other factors that made things much tougher for oldtimers.

                          The travel was brutal and the schedule was even more brutal. Many double headers and rarely ever getting a day off. Babe and Gehrig couldn't just simply not play in these exhibition games because they were tired. They were the main reason the games were being put on. People from towns all over who never got to see them play wanted to see them play, so they couldn't take the day off. Now, later on, Babe did play first base some in these games to save his legs, while Lou played the outfield, but still. Imagine the toll it would take during an already grueling season.

                          I can't fathom how you can say he wasn't consistent? Not only was he consistent, but he was consistent in his dominance.
                          Last edited by Bill Burgess; 04-08-2006, 10:59 PM.

                          Comment


                          • Yoo hoo, Christopher.....you were saying?

                            Comment


                            • Superman? Or frequently out of shape?

                              Originally posted by 538280
                              Out of those, seven (Mays, Bonds, Schmidt, Wagner, Aaron, Cobb, and Morgan) were consistent year in and year out, always having a good year, no exceptions. When we're talking about the all time greats, that's consistent. Great every single year, always. Ruth certainly was consistent, but he has two years right in the middle of his prime when he showed up out of shape, missed a ton of games, and just didn't do what was expected of him. When being compared to these guys, that ruins his status as amazingly consistent IMO. That's what I was saying when I referred to Ruth as not consistent.
                              Once Ruth joined the Yankees in 1920 and became a full-time position player (no longer used as a pitcher) he missed 12 or fewer games (in a 154-game schedule) only three times in a span of 12 seasons (from age 25 thru age 36).

                              Ruth compares pretty well with Joe Morgan -- who from 1969 (age 25) thru 1980 (age 36) missed more than 15 games (out of 162 game schedule) in 6 of 12 prime-year seasons (1970, 1975, 1976, 1978, 1979 and 1980).
                              Or with Barry Bonds, who from 1989 (age 24) thru 2001 (age 36) -- but excluding the strike-shorted 1994 season -- missed 15 or more games in 4 of 12 seasons (1992, 1995, 1999 and 2000).

                              In fact, Ruth played in 150 or more games in six of his ten seasons between age 25 and age 34. Morgan played in 150 or more games out of 162) only three times (1971, 1973 and 1977) in his entire career.

                              Bonds has played 150 or more games eight times in his career, but five of those seasons were less than 154 games (out of 162).

                              And certainly no player can match Ruth's output (Runs - HR - RBI) in those seasons when he did play 140 or more games!
                              Last edited by Appling; 04-09-2006, 08:15 PM.
                              Luke

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Appling
                                Once Ruth joined the Yankees in 1920 and became a full-time position player (no longer used as a pitcher) he missed 12 or fewer games (in a 154-game schedule) only three times in a span of 12 seasons (from age 25 to age 36.

                                Ruth compares pretty well with Joe Morgan -- who from 1969 (age 25) thru 1980 (age 36) missed more than 15 games (out of 162 game schedule) in 6 of 12 prime-year seasons (1970, 1975, 1976, 1978, 1979 and 1980).
                                Or with Barry Bonds, who from 1989 (age 24) thru 2001 (age 36) -- but excluding the strike-shorted 1994 season -- missed 15 or more games in 4 of 12 seasons (1992, 1995, 1999 and 2000).

                                In fact, Ruth played in 150 or more games in six of his ten seasons between age 25 and age 34. Morgan played in 150 or more games out of 162) only three times (1971, 1973 and 1977) in his entire career.

                                Bonds has played 150 or more games eight times in his career, but five of those seasons were less than 154 games (out of 162).

                                And certainly no player can match Ruth's output (Runs - HR - RBI) in those seasons when he did play 140 or more games!
                                Good points. But did Barry or Joe ever miss just about half a season like Ruth did twice? Joe got injured in 1968, but other than that always played a full season. Barry had one year in 1999 when he played only 102 games, but other than that always played a full season, until 2005 which is likely to start a decline phase.

                                Neither of those guys played only half the season right in the middle of their prime.

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X