Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Better Than the Babe

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

  • 538280
    replied
    Originally posted by SHOELESSJOE3
    Where do you see Schmidt dominating his league as Ruth did, am I missing something.
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • 538280
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill Burgess
    replied
    Originally posted by Sultan_1895-1948
    No hard feelings Mark. I know you weren't intending to call Ruth a retard, it just came off that way. You simply meant that he lacked social graces, and the sophistication of most. Of course, most didn't go through what he did as a child, and then have the spotlight shine so bright for so long. On the surface, they were merely baseball players, you're correct.
    Randy,

    Good Friend. You must by now be realizing that even on a site like Fever, comprised of deeply informed, and even some compulsively, obsessed baseball geeks/nerds, you and I are rare. Few have our passion for a single player. Few would want to. And even fewer would be inclined to do the years long kind of deep research we have done. Wesley Frick is one of us. He's done the work like we have. He's a Cobb man. ShoelessJoe is also one of us. He's a Babe man. We are a tiny, hardy tribe.

    The way our inner minds function is so rare as to be almost non-existent. Folks like RuthMayBonds, ElHalo, Mark, both Chris', Chancellor, Ubi, SABR Matt, are all VERY compulsive baseball men. They have read tons about the game. But if they were told they had to devote years to one player, they'd probably feel as if they were sentenced to prison. Might hate it and turn against the game.

    But we have done this voluntarily, and happily! So I am not surprised that you feel so aggrieved when members come to a different conclusion than your life's work have taught you. I am not scolding you. I am just the same. We are rare even for Fever fans!

    We simply need to take it easy, exhale, relax and have fun with the guys. They're a great bunch and actually want to exchange with us. We're like family.

    Bill

    Leave a comment:


  • ElHalo
    replied
    Originally posted by leecemark
    Besides on the rare occasions when El Halo and I agree on something it pretty much has to be true .
    Absolutely.

    Leave a comment:


  • 538280
    replied
    Originally posted by Sultan_1895-1948
    3. Chris stated the pitchers would no longer be as afraid to pitch to Ruth, if others were trying for the homer. False. It would have no bearing on how they approached Ruth, he'd be doing his thing no matter what. He always got the opposing pitchers best stuff because with a few other hitters they could "coast." If they weren't able to "coast" at anytime, then they would be more mentally and physically worn down when Babe did come up, so his numbers might have actually increased if anything.
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sultan_1895-1948
    replied
    Originally posted by leecemark
    --Bill is absolutely right when he says I don't have the passion for any player that he has for Cobb or Sultan has for Ruth. I really can't even begin to comprehend how anybody can get such a close personal tie to any ballplayer, nuch less one they never even saw play. They were great baseball players, but there are alot of men more worthy of being heros if you need one.
    No hard feelings Mark. I know you weren't intending to call Ruth a retard, it just came off that way. You simply meant that he lacked social graces, and the sophistication of most. Of course, most didn't go through what he did as a child, and then have the spotlight shine so bright for so long. On the surface, they were merely baseball players, you're correct.

    Leave a comment:


  • leecemark
    replied
    --Bill is absolutely right when he says I don't have the passion for any player that he has for Cobb or Sultan has for Ruth. I really can't even begin to comprehend how anybody can get such a close personal tie to any ballplayer, nuch less one they never even saw play. They were great baseball players, but there are alot of men more worthy of being heros if you need one.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sultan_1895-1948
    replied
    Originally posted by [email protected]
    While this is true, and I'm glad I was able to show the members this profound truth, we must also always balance this out by mentioning that Babe's Rel. BA would have soared, because he wouldn't have had the sea of contact hitters, like Cobb, Speaker, Heilmann, Collins, Manush, Simmons, Cochrane to over-inflate the collective league BA.

    I imagine Babe's Rel. SA would have come down to still first ever, but his Relative BA would have climbed to maybe top 15th, from its present 29th.

    Bill
    Completely agree. Logic tells us that if more were "trying" for the HR that Babe's relative power numbers wouldn't be what they currently are.

    1. Just how much the gap would close is speculation. Certainly would remain higher than Schmidt's which Chris said it wouldn't have been.

    2. The fact that others would have been taking the same approach as him, tells us his relative BA would have increased, likely more than his relative SA would have decreased.

    3. Chris stated the pitchers would no longer be as afraid to pitch to Ruth, if others were trying for the homer. False. It would have no bearing on how they approached Ruth, he'd be doing his thing no matter what. He always got the opposing pitchers best stuff because with a few other hitters they could "coast." If they weren't able to "coast" at anytime, then they would be more mentally and physically worn down when Babe did come up, so his numbers might have actually increased if anything.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill Burgess
    replied
    Originally posted by 538280
    If Ruth played in Schmidt's era, and didn't have the advantage of others hitting with a different approach, his rel. SLG may be lower than Schmidt's. His rel. OBP may be about the same too because the pitchers wouldn't be so terrified of pitching to him.
    While this is true, and I'm glad I was able to show the members this profound truth, we must also always balance this out by mentioning that Babe's Rel. BA would have soared, because he wouldn't have had the sea of contact hitters, like Cobb, Speaker, Heilmann, Collins, Manush, Simmons, Cochrane to over-inflate the collective league BA.

    I imagine Babe's Rel. SA would have come down to still first ever, but his Relative BA would have climbed to maybe top 15th, from its present 29th.

    Bill

    Leave a comment:


  • Sultan_1895-1948
    replied
    Originally posted by 538280

    But Ruth has an artificial advantage because he was the only one going for HRs. According to again The Diamond Appraised, the average RFer in the same amount of playing time as Ruth 1920-1929 would have hit 87 home runs. Ruth hit 467. That's just a crazy advantage (437%) over the average (311 points of slugging percentage) and that is the only time in history when anyone could possibly have a dispartiy like that, because the game was in transition. There's no way he would have had that differentiation in Schmidt's era. It was just impossible. Make Ruth hit the average number of HRs and his slugging percentage is .429, below average.
    This is laughable. He was the only one going for home runs. As if others could have done what he did had they only tried. lol, gimme a break Chris. Were they only throwing the clean white balls to Ruth too. When the others came up, they switched out the ball? Others simply realized they couldn't do what he was doing, plain and simple. For them, it was a choice. Either power or average. For Ruth, he could do both. And you punish him for that? Wow, the lengths you will go. And bringing up his position as a right fielder, as an "offensive" position and saying "well if he hit the avg number of homers for a right fielder of the time.." Unbelievable. You're a smart kid, but you're really reaching. Doesn't matter what others did at their positions, it matters what HE DID when he was at the plate.

    Leave a comment:


  • 538280
    replied
    Originally posted by SHOELESSJOE3
    Still a big gap between Ruth and the league and Schmidt and the league, Ruth still far ahead. We keep hearing about the home runs and Ruth being so far ahead of the league because he was the forerunner of the long ballers. OK I'll give you that one but look at Ruth's and Schmidts batting average versus the league average.

    Ruth-------.342
    League----.288 Ruth + 54 over the league
    Position---.299 Ruth + 43 over position

    Schmidt----.267
    League---.264 Schmidt + 3 over the league
    Position--.264 Schmidt + 3 over the league

    Not even close. Especially when you consider Ruth swinging from the heels and most of his competition was made up of contact hitters, going the plate with one thought in mind make contact, shorten up with two strikes, don't strike out. Even with Ruth's long balling and the leagues making contact he] separates himself from the rest of the league in batting average by such a wide margin, Schmidt barely over the league average] SHOELESSJOE3
    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.

    Then I ran the same thing with Schmidt using the year by year positional averages since 1972 at Baseball Prospectus. I used Schmidt's prime years 1974-1983. Schmidt ended up with a relative line compared to other 3Bmen of 101/116/144. The BA isn't good but the OBP and SLG are both great, and the SLG is only 14 points behind Ruth (14 points of rel. SLG is a lot closer than 12 points of rel. OBP).

    But Ruth has an artificial advantage because he was the only one going for HRs. According to again The Diamond Appraised, the average RFer in the same amount of playing time as Ruth 1920-1929 would have hit 87 home runs. Ruth hit 467. That's just a crazy advantage (437%) over the average (311 points of slugging percentage) and that is the only time in history when anyone could possibly have a dispartiy like that, because the game was in transition. There's no way he would have had that differentiation in Schmidt's era. It was just impossible. Make Ruth hit the average number of HRs and his slugging percentage is .429, below average.

    If Ruth played in Schmidt's era, and didn't have the advantage of others hitting with a different approach, his rel. SLG may be lower than Schmidt's. His rel. OBP may be about the same too because the pitchers wouldn't be so terrified of pitching to him.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sultan_1895-1948
    replied
    Originally posted by 538280
    Anyway, in response to your comments, Sultan. Schmidt is quite clearly the better baserunner than Ruth. Schmidt WAS very fast in his younger days, one of the fastest in the league, and although Ruth was no doubt pretty fast I don't think he was ever the fastest in the league.
    Quite clearly the better baserunner? Babe was not the fastest in the league, and neither was Schmidt. Again, you're continuing to show your age and actual baseball experience level when you equate "speed" with baserunning ability. Two separate issues Chris. Albert Pujols is a great baserunner right now, but he's not as fast as Babe as in his younger days, and according to you not as fast as Schmidt either. Doesn't mean he's not a great baserunner.

    I don't think Ruth was a particularly smart baserunner either. There is absolutely no reason to think this is true looking at the statistical record. You mention how Ruth was agressive, but I think that may be a negative thing, and it may explain why his SB% are so bad. The Baseball Page calls Ruth very reckless on the basepaths, while Baseball Library notes Schmidt for being a very intelligent baserunner.

    Why are Ruth's SB%s meaningless? When you're stealing bases at a 51% clip, you're just not giving your team any value. In fact, stealing bases at that percentage has a negative run value.
    You continue to bring up SB% as if it means something. It's a minor detail, a sidenote to Ruth's career. It means nothing when talking about his greatness.

    You have no reason to think he was a great runner based on his statistical record? What record might that be? His runs scored? Nah that can't be it. His extra base hits? Nah, that can't be it. Oh, we're back to SB % which has NOTHING TO DO with actual baserunning. It was not his role. He did not work on the art of stealing bases. You should read that again. It was not his role. He did not work on the art of stealing bases.

    Do you know how many of those caught stealings were on hit and runs that the batter swung through? Do we know how many of those were pickoffs? Not sure your "statistics" will tell you that. Once again, you don't want to consider any truth, but rather just go by one CS number.

    I am being realistic about this. I mentioned in an earlier post that his aggressiveness at times was his worst enemy, but it also it was made him an exceptional baserunner DESPITE not having blazing speed. His instincts in the field and on the bases were tremendous, his decision making was stellar, he did not hesitate, he just reacted naturally. That is how he could go first to third as well as speedy little centerfielders because he was an overall great baserunner.

    The baseball page can say whatever they want, it doesn't prove anything. Do you really believe everything you read on every website. Gee, wonder how much studying they did of Ruth. Apparently not enough.

    Third base is not an easy position either. It has gotten easier, mostly because bunting is dissapearing as a common strategy, but it does require a very strong arm (you need to have a rocket to dive on a ground ball to your right and still throw out the runner, and you need to be able to throw from your knees as well). Great reaction time is also a must, and a great 3B like Schmidt often helps the shortstops by ranging to balls on his left as well. The fielding edge between Schmidt and Ruth is a huge one.
    I played third and short up through high school. Third base is not as hard a position as you make it out to be. A strong arm is not required, it's a bonus that comes in handy maybe once every 10 games at the most. It's all about reactions, not footspeed, although you're taught to take anything you can from the shortstop. It's not a tough position, especially now with bunts being nonexistent. The fielding edge is not huge imo.

    Leave a comment:


  • 538280
    replied
    Originally posted by Sultan_1895-1948
    Chris,

    Valiant effort. That's an uphill struggle, but you seemed to tweak stats and make certain questionable adjustments that would at least bring Schmidt within sniffing distance.
    I have a lot of things to get back on. My computer has had some problems and hasn't been working since yesterday afternoon, so I've missed this whole thread since my Schmidt post.

    Anyway, in response to your comments, Sultan. Schmidt is quite clearly the better baserunner than Ruth. Schmidt WAS very fast in his younger days, one of the fastest in the league, and although Ruth was no doubt pretty fast I don't think he was ever the fastest in the league.

    I don't think Ruth was a particularly smart baserunner either. There is absolutely no reason to think this is true looking at the statistical record. You mention how Ruth was agressive, but I think that may be a negative thing, and it may explain why his SB% are so bad. The Baseball Page calls Ruth very reckless on the basepaths, while Baseball Library notes Schmidt for being a very intelligent baserunner.

    Why are Ruth's SB%s meaningless? When you're stealing bases at a 51% clip, you're just not giving your team any value. In fact, stealing bases at that percentage has a negative run value.

    Third base is not an easy position either. It has gotten easier, mostly because bunting is dissapearing as a common strategy, but it does require a very strong arm (you need to have a rocket to dive on a ground ball to your right and still throw out the runner, and you need to be able to throw from your knees as well). Great reaction time is also a must, and a great 3B like Schmidt often helps the shortstops by ranging to balls on his left as well. The fielding edge between Schmidt and Ruth is a huge one.
    Last edited by Bill Burgess; 03-21-2006, 04:23 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill Burgess
    replied
    Originally posted by Appling
    I find it hard to pick just one "top player" but my top three would still be the top vote-getters in that very first HOF election: Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth and Honus Wagner all got over 95% of those votes. The other two elected that year were decent players as well -- Walter Johnson and Christy Mathewson.

    Call me "old-fashioned" but I still rank Cobb-Ruth-Wagner as the best players ever -- ahead of Ted Williams or Willie Mays or Hank Aaron or ...
    Roger that, old friend.

    Bill

    Leave a comment:


  • Appling
    replied
    Originally posted by [email protected]
    I don't know why others loved Babe, but I certainly do know why I love him. ... And I felt this way since the 1950's. I only got into this problem because the post 1970's BB community raised him over Ty.
    Bill
    I find it hard to pick just one "top player" but my top three would still be the top vote-getters in that very first HOF election: Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth and Honus Wagner all got over 95% of those votes. The other two elected that year were decent players as well -- Walter Johnson and Christy Mathewson.

    Call me "old-fashioned" but I still rank Cobb-Ruth-Wagner as the best players ever -- ahead of Ted Williams or Willie Mays or Hank Aaron or ...

    Leave a comment:

Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X