Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How come Rajah doesn't get enough love?

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

  • #61
    Saw a video of Hornsby, batting practice. He narrates as the video is playing, explains that he never follows the pitcher's motion, just keeps his eye on the ball............tries to hit through the box using the pitcher as a target.

    The video ends with Hornsby hitting a hard ground ball..................off the pitcher's ankle.
    Last edited by SHOELESSJOE3; 10-21-2012, 09:52 PM.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by SHOELESSJOE3 View Post
      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..
      This entire board revolves around OPS+ It is the holy grail here.

      Seriously, it seems like people here believe that Rube Wadell threw 70 mph and Rogers Hornsby was a midget.

      According to this theory, 50 years from now Albert Pujols will seem like wee man and pitchers will be throwing 130 mph. 100 years from now everybody will be 8 ft tall.
      Last edited by JR Hart; 10-21-2012, 09:59 PM.
      This week's Giant

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

      Comment


      • #63
        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 actually think it is easier to put up high OPS+ numbers in a tough era for hitters, because it takes a lot less in order to stand out. Were Aaron, Robinson, Mays and Mantle really that much better hitters than any clean player from the 1990s, that they could put up OPS+ scores that only guys on steroids could match? To me, a 157 OPS+, such as Aaron produced, is about equal to a 'clean' OPS+ of about 143 in the steroid era. I see Aaron as more of an A-rod type than a Frank Thomas type.

        I see 'league quality' as moving randomly up and down throughout time, but overall about the same.
        Last edited by willshad; 10-21-2012, 10:35 PM.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by JR Hart View Post
          Seriously, it seems like people here believe that Rube Wadell threw 70 mph and Rogers Hornsby was a midget.
          The sad thing is, you ARE serious.
          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


          • #65
            I have stated this before..the entire theory that the best players of the 30s couldn't hack it today is pretty much squashed by one simple fact: The majority of great players were still able to produce at a high level, and match the best of the succeeding era, even when they were past their prime; while at the same time the quality of the league was supposedly getting higher. If the league quality was increasing at such a fast rate, how could an old Foxx keep up with a young Ted Williams? How could an old Ted do better than a young Mantle? How could and old, broken down Mantle still be the best hitter in the league? How could Aaron still be among the best in the 70s, when he stared in the 50s? How could Schmidt likewise be among the best in the late 80s, when he started when Aaron was still around? How could Gwynn still be among the best of the steroid era, when he started in the early 80s? How could Chipper and Thome still be among the best in the game in their late 30s? This type of linear progression pretty much serves as proof that Foxx would indeed still be a dominant hitter today.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Jackaroo Dave View Post
              The sad thing is, you ARE serious.
              ASo the sad thing thing is, I'm right
              This week's Giant

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

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by willshad View Post
                I have stated this before..the entire theory that the best players of the 30s couldn't hack it today is pretty much squashed by one simple fact: The majority of great players were still able to produce at a high level, and match the best of the succeeding era, even when they were past their prime; while at the same time the quality of the league was supposedly getting higher. If the league quality was increasing at such a fast rate, how could an old Foxx keep up with a young Ted Williams? How could an old Ted do better than a young Mantle? How could and old, broken down Mantle still be the best hitter in the league? How could Aaron still be among the best in the 70s, when he stared in the 50s? How could Schmidt likewise be among the best in the late 80s, when he started when Aaron was still around? How could Gwynn still be among the best of the steroid era, when he started in the early 80s? How could Chipper and Thome still be among the best in the game in their late 30s? This type of linear progression pretty much serves as proof that Foxx would indeed still be a dominant hitter today.
                Who said that he wouldn't?

                There is a big difference between being "dominant" and posting the video game like numbers that some of these players did. Numbers that only the steroid users of today could match.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by willshad View Post
                  I actually think it is easier to put up high OPS+ numbers in a tough era for hitters, because it takes a lot less in order to stand out. Were Aaron, Robinson, Mays and Mantle really that much better hitters than any clean player from the 1990s, that they could put up OPS+ scores that only guys on steroids could match? To me, a 157 OPS+, such as Aaron produced, is about equal to a 'clean' OPS+ of about 143 in the steroid era. I see Aaron as more of an A-rod type than a Frank Thomas type.

                  I see 'league quality' as moving randomly up and down throughout time, but overall about the same.
                  well stats really don't support your claim. almost all super high OPS+ scores come from high scoring eras. ruth and williams would hit in any era but there were a whole lot of other hitters putting up huge OPS+ numbers between 1920 and the 50s or so.

                  and in the 90s and 2000s which are supposedly the toughest era to seperate yourself from the pack we were again seeing a lot of huge OPS+ seasons (steroid aided but if anyone used it should actually be harder to seperate yourself).

                  on the other hand willie mays was the best player of the majors for over a decade and still he never managed to put up a huge OPS+ season.

                  I would exclude ruth from this as he was a once in a million talent but do we really believe that guys like hornsby or gehrig were that much better than willie mays who many believe is the second best player ever?
                  I now have my own non commercial blog about training for batspeed and power using my training experience in baseball and track and field.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by dominik View Post
                    well stats really don't support your claim. almost all super high OPS+ scores come from high scoring eras. ruth and williams would hit in any era but there were a whole lot of other hitters putting up huge OPS+ numbers between 1920 and the 50s or so.

                    and in the 90s and 2000s which are supposedly the toughest era to seperate yourself from the pack we were again seeing a lot of huge OPS+ seasons (steroid aided but if anyone used it should actually be harder to seperate yourself).

                    on the other hand willie mays was the best player of the majors for over a decade and still he never managed to put up a huge OPS+ season.

                    I would exclude ruth from this as he was a once in a million talent but do we really believe that guys like hornsby or gehrig were that much better than willie mays who many believe is the second best player ever?
                    Well one thing about OPS+, is that you are not going to really get a 'super high' score unless you walk a lot. Guys like Aaron and Mays were relative free swingers, so this limits how high their on base percentage is going to go. In the steroid era, they would be A-rod or Vlad Guerrero, not Frank Thomas or Barry Bonds.

                    Whoever said Gehrig and Hornsby were much better than Mays? Mays ran better and had much more fielding value, as well as a longer career. if he could hit as well as those guys, then he would be by far the greatest player ever. The fact that he was a notch or two below them at the plate does not make him worse than them.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by willshad View Post
                      Well one thing about OPS+, is that you are not going to really get a 'super high' score unless you walk a lot. Guys like Aaron and Mays were relative free swingers, so this limits how high their on base percentage is going to go. In the steroid era, they would be A-rod or Vlad Guerrero, not Frank Thomas or Barry Bonds.

                      Whoever said Gehrig and Hornsby were much better than Mays? Mays ran better and had much more fielding value, as well as a longer career. if he could hit as well as those guys, then he would be by far the greatest player ever. The fact that he was a notch or two below them at the plate does not make him worse than them.
                      Outside of his 1994 season, Mays, Aaron, and Thomas are very comparable as hitters. Despite walking a lot, Thomas only surpassed a 200 OPS+ once, and it was in a season shortened by the strike.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        I like to look at Batting Wins. Players with more than one year with 6.5+ Batting Wins since 1917:
                        Code:
                        Rk                    Yrs From   To   Age
                        1           Babe Ruth  11 1919 1932 24-37
                        2         Barry Bonds   8 1992 2004 27-39
                        3        Ted Williams   8 1941 1957 22-38
                        4          Lou Gehrig   8 1927 1937 24-34
                        5      Rogers Hornsby   7 1920 1929 24-33
                        6         Stan Musial   5 1943 1951 22-30
                        7       Mickey Mantle   4 1956 1961 24-29
                        8         Jimmie Foxx   4 1932 1938 24-30
                        9       Albert Pujols   3 2003 2009 23-29
                        10       Frank Thomas   3 1991 1994 23-26
                        11       Jason Giambi   2 2000 2001 29-30
                        12   Carl Yastrzemski   2 1967 1970 27-30
                        13         Hank Aaron   2 1959 1963 25-29
                        14        Ralph Kiner   2 1949 1951 26-28
                        In the past decade only three guys (Bonds, Pujols and Cabrera) have had a season with 6.5 Batting Wins.

                        A similar list, players with more than one year with 65+ WAR Batting Runs since 1917:
                        Code:
                        Rk                    Yrs From   To   Age
                        1           Babe Ruth  12 1919 1932 24-37
                        2          Lou Gehrig  10 1927 1937 24-34
                        3        Ted Williams   7 1941 1957 22-38
                        4         Barry Bonds   6 1993 2004 28-39
                        5      Rogers Hornsby   6 1921 1929 25-33
                        6         Jimmie Foxx   5 1932 1938 24-30
                        7       Albert Pujols   4 2003 2009 23-29
                        8         Stan Musial   4 1946 1951 25-30
                        9        Frank Thomas   3 1991 1997 23-29
                        10      Mickey Mantle   3 1956 1961 24-29
                        11     Alex Rodriguez   2 2005 2007 29-31
                        12       Jason Giambi   2 2000 2001 29-30
                        13       Jeff Bagwell   2 1994 1999 26-31
                        14   Carl Yastrzemski   2 1967 1970 27-30
                        15        Ralph Kiner   2 1949 1951 26-28
                        16       Tris Speaker   2 1920 1923 32-35
                        ARod joins the other three in reaching this mark in the past decade.
                        Si quaeris peninsulam amoenam, circumspice.

                        Comprehensive Reform for the Veterans Committee -- Fixing the Hall continued.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          I like to look at Batting Wins. Players with more than one year with 6.5+ Batting Wins since 1917:
                          Code:
                          Rk                    Yrs From   To   Age
                          1           Babe Ruth  11 1919 1932 24-37
                          2         Barry Bonds   8 1992 2004 27-39
                          3        Ted Williams   8 1941 1957 22-38
                          4          Lou Gehrig   8 1927 1937 24-34
                          5      Rogers Hornsby   7 1920 1929 24-33
                          6         Stan Musial   5 1943 1951 22-30
                          7       Mickey Mantle   4 1956 1961 24-29
                          8         Jimmie Foxx   4 1932 1938 24-30
                          9       Albert Pujols   3 2003 2009 23-29
                          10       Frank Thomas   3 1991 1994 23-26
                          11       Jason Giambi   2 2000 2001 29-30
                          12   Carl Yastrzemski   2 1967 1970 27-30
                          13         Hank Aaron   2 1959 1963 25-29
                          14        Ralph Kiner   2 1949 1951 26-28
                          In the past decade only three guys (Bonds, Pujols and Cabrera) have had a season with 6.5 Batting Wins.

                          A similar list, players with more than one year with 65+ WAR Batting Runs since 1917:
                          Code:
                          Rk                    Yrs From   To   Age
                          1           Babe Ruth  12 1919 1932 24-37
                          2          Lou Gehrig  10 1927 1937 24-34
                          3        Ted Williams   7 1941 1957 22-38
                          4         Barry Bonds   6 1993 2004 28-39
                          5      Rogers Hornsby   6 1921 1929 25-33
                          6         Jimmie Foxx   5 1932 1938 24-30
                          7       Albert Pujols   4 2003 2009 23-29
                          8         Stan Musial   4 1946 1951 25-30
                          9        Frank Thomas   3 1991 1997 23-29
                          10      Mickey Mantle   3 1956 1961 24-29
                          11     Alex Rodriguez   2 2005 2007 29-31
                          12       Jason Giambi   2 2000 2001 29-30
                          13       Jeff Bagwell   2 1994 1999 26-31
                          14   Carl Yastrzemski   2 1967 1970 27-30
                          15        Ralph Kiner   2 1949 1951 26-28
                          16       Tris Speaker   2 1920 1923 32-35
                          ARod joins the other three in reaching this mark in the past decade.
                          Si quaeris peninsulam amoenam, circumspice.

                          Comprehensive Reform for the Veterans Committee -- Fixing the Hall continued.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by fenrir View Post
                            Outside of his 1994 season, Mays, Aaron, and Thomas are very comparable as hitters. Despite walking a lot, Thomas only surpassed a 200 OPS+ once, and it was in a season shortened by the strike.
                            That was kind of my point...Aaron and Mays were able to put up the same OPS+ scores as Thomas only because they played in a 'tough' era to hit. Put them into the 1990s, and they would be more along the lines of A-rod.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by willshad View Post
                              I don't know what's more impressive: the fact that you own a time machine and have actually seen Pujols and Hornsby in the same game, or the fact that human evolution is so fast that men went from frail and weak, to super athletes in just 80 years! I shudder to think how frail and weak the guys from the 1870s were, compared to Hornsby. It's a wonder they had the strength to even get out of bed! Look at Gehrig and Foxx, those weaklings couldn't even make contact with today's fastball! They can't hold a candle to the heavily muscled, super conditioned top hitters of today, such as Prince Fielder , Miguel Cabrera, and Pablo Sandoval.
                              This is all hyperbole. And you're using the players in the worst shape as examples in an attempt to buttress a facile argument.

                              Players are vastly better trained, bigger, faster, stronger. The average player has gotten progressively better as time has gone on. Baseball is a science now and a 365 day per year job; 75 or 100+ years ago guys had side jobs in the off season. And they were all white, and drawn from a much smaller relative talent pool than today's (global) game.

                              Would Cobb, Ruth, Gehrig, Foxx be tremendous and adapt? Of course. Would they dominate nearly as much? No good empirical or other data/information suggest that they could have been able to.

                              Hell, even Willie Mays' career ended 40 years ago, and his best years were 50-60 years ago. How much has the quality of the average player improved since THEN? How much has the game evolved?
                              Last edited by csh19792001; 10-23-2012, 12:36 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by fenrir
                                That's my point. These men put up superhuman stats that haven't been matched yet with the exception of one steroid user. It just seems odd to me that statistically all of the best hitters of all-time came during the pre integration era. Is it possible that is the case? Sure, but I could see the argument that they were talented hitters who happened to dominate weaker leagues.
                                Well said. Food for thought...

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X