Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How come Rajah doesn't get enough love?

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

  • #46
    Originally posted by dominik View Post
    BTW: where does the nickname Rajah come from?
    It is basically a half discarded nickname of Babe Ruth`s.One of his many forgotten nicknames was the "Rajah Of Rap".Ruth was also the Maharishi of Mash as well as the Prince Of Punch,the Caliph Of Clout,and Sultan Of Swat,etc.Good thing the sports writers dropped the "Rap''from the nickname when they bestowed it on Hornsby,because nowadays it would have a whole different meaning!LOL
    Last edited by Nimrod; 10-21-2012, 04:00 PM.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by fenrir View Post
      It should be an eye opener that no player today who isn't a steroid user can keep a career OPS+ of 160 or higher. Are these hitters really that inferior to those of yesteryear?
      Stronger the league, the harder it is to put up high OPS+ numbers. Double hard if the strong league also happens to be a very hard era for hitters, such the it was in the mid 60s to early 70s. Literally amazing the OPS+ numbers guys like Mays, Aaron, Robinson, et al were able to put up in that environment.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Nimrod View Post
        It is basically a half discarded nickname of Babe Ruth`s.One of his many forgotten nicknames was the "Rajah Of Rap".Ruth was also the Maharishi of Mash as well as the Prince Of Punch,the Caliph Of Clout,and Sultan Of Swat,etc.Good thing the sports writers dropped the "Rap''from the nickname when they bestowed it on Hornsby,because nowadays it would have a whole different meaning!LOL
        Nimrod is quite correct. I'll just add that Ruth was also known as the Pasha of Pow, the Kaiser of Krash, the Wazir of Wham, and -- to his critics, who thought he struck out too much -- the Pharaoh of Phanning.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by westsidegrounds View Post
          Nimrod is quite correct. I'll just add that Ruth was also known as the Pasha of Pow, the Kaiser of Krash, the Wazir of Wham, and -- to his critics, who thought he struck out too much -- the Pharaoh of Phanning.
          I`ll add just one more,maybe my favorite,The Behemoth of Bust!!

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Joltin' Joe View Post
            Stronger the league, the harder it is to put up high OPS+ numbers. Double hard if the strong league also happens to be a very hard era for hitters, such the it was in the mid 60s to early 70s. Literally amazing the OPS+ numbers guys like Mays, Aaron, Robinson, et al were able to put up in that environment.
            I agree, and that was the point I was trying to make. You have posters like White Knight and Willshad who seem to assume that because today's non steroid using hitters don't post numbers anywhere near at the level that Ruth, Gehrig, Hornsby, etc, did, that it automatically means they are vastly inferior. I personally don't think that's the case. Note how rare 200 OPS+ seasons have become among "clean" hitters. Last time it was done in a full season was by Bonds in 1992 and 1993 (assuming he was clean then). Prior to that it was done by McCovey in 1969, and before that it was done by Mantle and Cash in 1961 in a league that wasn't even fully integrated.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by fenrir View Post
              I agree, and that was the point I was trying to make. You have posters like White Knight and Willshad who seem to assume that because today's non steroid using hitters don't post numbers anywhere near at the level that Ruth, Gehrig, Hornsby, etc, did, that it automatically means they are vastly inferior. I personally don't think that's the case. Note how rare 200 OPS+ seasons have become among "clean" hitters. Last time it was done in a full season was by Bonds in 1992 and 1993 (assuming he was clean then). Prior to that it was done by McCovey in 1969, and before that it was done by Mantle and Cash in 1961 in a league that wasn't even fully integrated.
              Yes correct, clearly the weaker the league, the higher the cream rises to the top. Not just in sports but just about everything in life. Take the smartest senior from a local high school, enroll him in aeronautical engineering at MIT, he may still do well but he isn't going to totally dominate. Put him in a community college and he will totally dominate. Weaker the league or the environment, the easier it is for the elites to dominate over its peers. The stronger the league or the environment, the harder it is for the elites to dominate over its peers. It's just a fact of life.
              Last edited by Joltin' Joe; 10-21-2012, 04:44 PM.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by csh19792001 View Post
                If you could watch Pujols side by side with Hornsby for a game, on opposing teams in the same game, it'd resemble Bill Tilden facing Roger Federer. (There is plenty of footage of Tilden from the 20's, he looks frail, weak, unadroit, and pretty awkward). Most ballplayers did then, too. What I've seen or Hornsby is a guy with an akward stance and approximates average speed to first and on the bases for today's players. (But much faster than average in a league on whites only mainly from the Eastern US). If Albert and Rajah could see them mano a mano in real time for a season, we'd probably all laugh that we constantly perpetuate the fallacy that players from 75 or 100 years ago could hold a candle to today's super athletes.

                Raw numbers mean nothing when comparing players from vastly different eras. All the best anecdotal and statistical evidence we have leads to the conclusion that Albert's 168 OPS+ from 2001-2012 is vastly superior than Hornsby's 175 OPS+ from 1915-37.
                Really?

                So it took humans millions of years to evolve, but then they made some evolutionary leap in just 80 years?

                And your also saying that because minorities didn't play and most players were from the east, that Hornsby couldn't have been as good as Pujols?

                basically, I don't buy anything in your post
                Last edited by JR Hart; 10-21-2012, 06:03 PM.
                This week's Giant

                #5 in games played as a Giant with 1721 , Bill Terry

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by JR Hart View Post
                  Really?

                  So it took humans millions of years to evolve, but then they made some evolutionary leap in just 80 years?

                  And your also saying that because minorities didn't play and most players were from the east, that Hornsby couldn't have been as good as Pujols?

                  basically, I don't buy anything in your post
                  Again with the evolution. I guess it's just a myth that the average height of WWI American soldiers was 5'7". No way we could have evolved to our present size in 95 years. Sheesh.
                  Indeed the first step toward finding out is to acknowledge you do not satisfactorily know already; so that no blight can so surely arrest all intellectual growth as the blight of cocksureness.--CS Peirce

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by JR Hart View Post
                    So it took humans millions of years to evolve,
                    Umm....we have not been around that long, not even close.

                    Originally posted by JR Hart View Post
                    but then they made some evolutionary leap in just 80 years?
                    In certain ways, it does seem so. In strength, speed, and in size as Dave pointed out. One can dismiss the significant improvement of speed and strength to other factors but the significant increase in the average height of humans in the last century is quite significant and an irrefutable fact. Would I call it evolutionary? Probably not but a siginificant jump in a very short time period nonetheless.


                    Originally posted by JR Hart View Post
                    And your also saying that because minorities didn't play and most players were from the east, that Hornsby couldn't have been as good as Pujols?
                    I can't speak for csh but I'm sure the reason he brought those facts up is to point out the fact that the talent pool that MLB drew from back then was much smaller than it is today.
                    Last edited by Joltin' Joe; 10-21-2012, 06:51 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Umm....we have not been around that long, not even close.

                      If you say so, there is certainly opinion to the contrary


                      In certain ways, it does seem so. In strength, speed, and in size as Dave pointed out. One can dismiss the significant improvement of speed and strength to other factors but the significant increase in the average height of humans in the last century is quite significant and an irrefutable fact. Would I call it evolutionary? Probably not but a siginificant jump in a very short time period nonetheless.
                      I'm not buying that people now are superhuman, compared to a century ago. I think that Jim Thorpe and Babe Ruth would be studs today


                      I can't speak for csh but I'm sure the reason he brought those facts up is to point out the fact that the talent pool that MLB drew from back then was much smaller than it is today.
                      How does that affect what of player that Hornsby was?
                      Last edited by JR Hart; 10-21-2012, 07:57 PM.
                      This week's Giant

                      #5 in games played as a Giant with 1721 , Bill Terry

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        The debate about league quality over time has raged on here at BBF for years.
                        Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Joltin' Joe View Post
                          Yes correct, clearly the weaker the league, the higher the cream rises to the top. Not just in sports but just about everything in life. Take the smartest senior from a local high school, enroll him in aeronautical engineering at MIT, he may still do well but he isn't going to totally dominate. Put him in a community college and he will totally dominate. Weaker the league or the environment, the easier it is for the elites to dominate over its peers. The stronger the league or the environment, the harder it is for the elites to dominate over its peers. It's just a fact of life.
                          The problem with this Joe, is the problem I have when many people talk about league quality.

                          First of all. They are all from the same group. You're not taking some Hornsby from a time warp and placing him into the 20's. He's from the same group, had the same circumstances, genetic build and makeup for the time period, technology, knowledge, etc, etc...and he was still able to rise above his peers. Now..how he would compare to future eras, that have benefited from the natural evolution (that Hornsby helped perpetuate), is up for debate, but it's apples to apples when comparing within the era. You can't say that he only dominated because he was in a weaker league or era. He was part of that pool. Not some outsider.

                          Furthermore, players such as Cobb, Hornsby, Foxx, Gehrig...and to a much larger extent Ruth, faced a pitchers superior focus and energy. In a time when fences weren't 330/375/400, when strike zones weren't minuscule, hitter backdrops didn't exist, and players couldn't wear helmets and armor and crowd the plate..the entire lineup couldn't hurt you. These guys faced the pitchers very best every single time up, since they were the rare breed that could actually hurt them with one swing. League quality freaks don't get this. The relative stats of players from back when...should get a boost, or at the least, not receive LQ penalty, given that they faced harder pitching than their peers on average. And for a guy like Ruth it was even more severe.

                          Back to the thread, Rajah was a stud. I think he gets all the props he deserves as the best righty of all time and I put him ahead of Williams as an all around player.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Besides, Rajah rocked. Anyone watching Ichiro can tell you all you need to about a hitters size vs how good they'll be. I guess if smaller players from the past would suck, that means Aaron, Mays Yaz and Yogi wouldnt cut it now. Because we all know Uncle Albert blows away Mays any day.:hyper:

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              My dad, who's 40 years older than I, taught me a valuable lesson about his generation of ball players. He and I are nearly clones of one another; same height, same weight(until I lifted weights), same IQ, etc. All he had for entertainment was bowling and baseball when he was growing up in the 1940s. He played in competitive baseball leagues, but wasn't quite good enough to play semi pro ball as a pitcher. But there were plenty of organized leagues back then, even if he didn't get paid. Everyone, he said, lived and breathed baseball when he grew up. He said my generation was different. During my time, my peer group had bigger biceps and were much better, or so I thought. After getting cut from my high school team, I made the mistake of telling my dad that he couldn't have even made my high school team during his prime, let alone do what he accomplised. My old man had my older brother put on his old catcher's gear and off we went to the diamond we went to see if I could hit him. My older brother said I'd get owned, but I had to prove both of them wrong. What a lesson I learned there. I had never seen a delivery like his. I swear I was facing the Big Train. But he was probably throwing around 75-80 mph with a wicked sidearm delivery, but with pinpoint accuracy and a curve and sinker that appeared to break 2 feet. Needless to say, I whiffed each time until I choked up on the bat and started poking balls back to the pitcher. I could not pickup the ball, mainly due to his confusing delivery. I didn't hit a single safety. The bottom line is that there is no way in Hell that pitchers in Hornsby's era were only tossing 75 mph like some have mentioned on this site. I'm confident that my 5'9" dad at age 56 and 30 years removed from the game was throwing in the mid 70s or faster, based on what my teammates were clocked at. Now granted, they didn't have that control or crazy windup like my dad did. But I hit them better than I hit my dad. We cannot discount those old timers too much. My hunch is that the majority of the old timers threw from 85-90 mph, with very few under 80 and very few over 95. They probably had better control than today's pitchers, but less of a reportoire. The biggest thing I see them missing is a splitter or slider. By tossing a slider and splitter into the mix, the batters now need to shave time off of their swings to compensate; probably a few hundreths of a second. I see Hornsby using a whip handled 32 ounce bat and still doing plenty well against today's pitchers.

                              So to quantify league quality, I see Foxx being equal to Jeff Bagwell. That puts Hornsby around a Frank Thomas/ Pujols quality of hitter, but with less durablity, less power, but a better average. I can see Hornsby challenging Gwynn for the batting title, but with 20-25 HRs per year. I.e, .330 career with 350-400 career HRs over 15 year.s I believe that Pujols will enventually pass Hornsby in career hitting stats. After all, I have Pujols comfortably in front of Foxx as it sits right now.
                              Last edited by pheasant; 10-21-2012, 09:25 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Don't hang everything on OPS+ when comparing "some" past great hitters....OK, we got it OPS+, over and over.
                                It's understood that some past great hitters might not separate them from the rest of the pack in todays game.
                                But when you pick a batter like Hornsby, your speaking of one of a small number of the greatest hitters ever.

                                Are we to believe that there were no hitters in the 1900's- 20's-30's that could keep pace with todays best, greatest.
                                Is that what some are saying, that no hitters from that time could not keep pace with today's best.

                                Notice I did leave out OPS+ which may sadden those that keep tossing that in to the mix.
                                It's not about separation in the league. It's common sense............no hitter from those times could hit at a high level today, not even a dozen or so, who could buy that..
                                Last edited by SHOELESSJOE3; 10-21-2012, 10:19 PM.

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X