Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Better Than the Babe

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

  • Sultan_1895-1948
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • SHOELESSJOE3
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sultan_1895-1948
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • SHOELESSJOE3
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill Burgess
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • ElHalo
    replied
    Originally posted by 538280
    EH, I've told you this a number of times, and you'll probably never understand it. But, you know why you (and most historians really) don't think the 70s and 80s stars are any good? Because the league was so strong.
    Yes, you've said it before, and no, it's not true at all. In much the same way that you could easily name 15 NBA players today who would be better than all but the top 5 of ten years ago, some times talent comes in waves. The 70's and 80's were a particularly low ebb in baseball.

    Leave a comment:


  • 538280
    replied
    Originally posted by csh19792001
    That's a very good question, and I'm the answer is "yes", even if Chris is unwilling to freely admit it. He has an axe to grind with people that think batting average is important, so he takes arguments with guys who hit for poor averages to extremes to try to make his point.
    I'm not against guys with high averages, I don't think BA is completely meaningless. I just end up advocating mostly low average guys because they're the ones who I think are underrated, and I pull for the guys who I think are underrated, naturally.

    Leave a comment:


  • csh19792001
    replied
    Originally posted by ElHalo
    Do you actively have something against guys who can hit for a good average?
    That's a very good question, and I'm the answer is "yes", even if Chris is unwilling to freely admit it. He has an axe to grind with people that think batting average is important, so he takes arguments with guys who hit for poor averages to extremes to try to make his point.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sultan_1895-1948
    replied
    Originally posted by 538280
    That's not true at all, Sultan. Ruth back then had an effect on pitchers similar to the way Barry Bonds did 2001-2004 when he was drawing close to 100 intentional walks in a season. I've seen studies done in which people have researched how many intentional walks Ruth had in each season, and the numbers I've seen were usually around 80, which is just an insane number of IBBs, and he probably had at least 30 or so walks that were "unintentional" intentional walks. He was getting those IBBs because he was always the center of attention, always by FAR the biggest power threat in the league. Ruth would certainly be an elite power hitter in Schmidt's era, he would be along with Schmidt the best in the league. But, his walks would not be nearly as high, and his OBP would be lower.
    Babe would be just as feared, because his production would still be the same. The difference would be that other people in the lineup would be slightly more feared, which wouldn't allow a pitcher to "coast" at any part in the lineup. Over the course of a game and of a season, this would take a toll, and actually increase Babe's numbers. In terms of fear though, make no mistake, he would be the main focus in any lineup, no matter what the approach of the other hitters. His walk totals starting in the middle of '27 on, should tell you something.

    Leave a comment:


  • 538280
    replied
    EH, I've told you this a number of times, and you'll probably never understand it. But, you know why you (and most historians really) don't think the 70s and 80s stars are any good? Because the league was so strong.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sultan_1895-1948
    replied
    Originally posted by 538280

    Plus, it has long been my opinion intensive reasearch on a single player can blind your objective senses.
    On the contrary. Digging deeper allows you to uncover the truth. To be able to laugh at how hollywood portrays Babe or what bogus beliefs people hold, like he couldn't run or field.

    Leave a comment:


  • ElHalo
    replied
    Originally posted by 538280
    I've done a good amount of research on Reggie and Jimmy Wynn, but nothing quite like what you, Bill and Sultan have done with your players. I couldn't imagine being slavishly devoted to a single player either. Seems to take away the fun of learning about a variety of different things.

    Plus, it has long been my opinion intensive reasearch on a single player can blind your objective senses.
    Do you actively have something against guys who can hit for a good average?

    Leave a comment:


  • ElHalo
    replied
    Originally posted by 538280
    Schmidt was the #1 position player in the league according to Win Shares 7 times in his career, Ruth I also think 7 times (or perhaps 8). Schmidt's numbers (even relative to league) don't look nearly as good but he was playing a game that was much harder to dominate. His domination equaled just as many deserved MVPs as Ruth did.
    Right, but look at the league Schmidt was in. If you take 74-87 as Schmidt's prime years, who else was there in the league that he was competing with? Morgan at the very beginning; later Dale Murphy, Pedro Guerrero, Dave Parker, Al Oliver. We'll leave the discussion of Joe Morgan for another day, but those guys are hardly standouts... not a HoF'er in the bunch, and not really any with truly great arguments.

    Babe? From 1918 to 1934 (a period in which, other than his lost 1925 season, his OPS+ never dipped below 160), Babe had to contend with parts of Collins, Speaker, Cobb, and Jackson's careers... and after those guys retired, he had to face Gehrig, Foxx, Cochrane, Gehringer, and Simmons... every single one of those guys is a top 50 player of all time (I also put Joe Cronin in that group, but I'm probably in the minority on that). Other than Morgan and Johnny Bench, what top 50 guys even had a little bit of their peak overlap with Schmidt's peak? The next best guy to probably overlap even a little with Schmidt was Willie Stargell, and he's hardly top 50 material. And outside of those guys, Ruth still had to deal with guys like Averill, Goslin, and Rice, any of whom I'd take in a heartbeat over the likes of Murphy, Guerrero, and Parker.

    Harder to dominate in the 70's? Whatever. But it's much, much harder to be better than Foxx, Gehrig, and Gehringer than it is to be better than Andre Dawson, Reggie Smith, and Steve Garvey.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill Burgess
    replied
    Originally posted by 538280
    Plus, it has long been my opinion intensive reasearch on a single player can blind your objective senses.
    Yes, it certainly can. It is a concern and must be guarded against every moment.

    Blinded by the Light

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill Burgess
    replied
    Originally posted by leecemark
    They were great baseball players, but there are alot of men more worthy of being heroes if you need one.
    Quite right. Ty is only one of my "heroes". He was a role model in terms of his commitment to his goals.

    If I were as committed to mine, I'd have reached them long ago. If I had to choose only 1 hero, it'd be my Dad. That man could love others like I've not seen before or since.

    Bill

    Leave a comment:

Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X