Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mike Piazza vs Josh Gibson

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

  • This Randy. This had a very strict criteria.

    For purposes of this database, the Negro League Researchers and Authors Group established a strict set of criteria for inclusion on this data set. Data is only included for league sanctioned games from 1920 to 1948 for which a published boxscore or credible scorebook existed. Statistics gleaned from game accounts alone without a supporting boxscore were not included in this study.
    Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Honus Wagner Rules View Post
      This Randy. This had a very strict criteria.

      For purposes of this database, the Negro League Researchers and Authors Group established a strict set of criteria for inclusion on this data set. Data is only included for league sanctioned games from 1920 to 1948 for which a published boxscore or credible scorebook existed. Statistics gleaned from game accounts alone without a supporting boxscore were not included in this study.
      Ok sweet, thanks Adam. So if a boxscore is "published" it won't contain any of the many common errors mentioned within boxscores?
      Last edited by Sultan_1895-1948; 02-13-2015, 08:19 PM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Honus Wagner Rules View Post
        This Randy. This had a very strict criteria.

        For purposes of this database, the Negro League Researchers and Authors Group established a strict set of criteria for inclusion on this data set. Data is only included for league sanctioned games from 1920 to 1948 for which a published boxscore or credible scorebook existed. Statistics gleaned from game accounts alone without a supporting boxscore were not included in this study.
        Thats fine HWR, good news they are doing it the right way.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by GiambiJuice View Post
          Wow, this was tough...I love Foxx and Piazza and Thomas but I couldn't in good conscious keep Mays and Aaron out of the first tier, considering their longevity and LQ.

          I don't feel comfortable ranking the super old timers, so I replaced Orr, Anson, Delahanty, Brouthers and Browning with Sheffield, Winfield, Jeter, Ernie Banks and Joe Medwick

          Only considering hitting...


          Tier 1
          Hornsby
          Mays
          Aaron
          Pujols
          Dimaggio


          Tier 2
          Thomas
          Foxx
          Piazza
          Wagner
          Manny

          Tier 3
          Arod
          FRobinson
          Heilmann
          Greenberg
          Simmons

          Tier 4
          Schmidt
          McGwire
          Cabrera
          Lajoie
          Killebrew

          Tier 5
          VGuererro
          EMartinez
          Bagwell
          Kiner
          DAllen

          Tier 6
          Clemente
          Rickey
          Sheffield
          Belle
          EBanks


          Tier 7
          FHoward
          Sosa
          Winfield
          Jeter
          Medwick
          Dang man. I knew that wouldn't be easy. You did a great job!

          Comment


          • Originally posted by SHOELESSJOE3 View Post
            It seems your intent, your attempt is to convince that MLB stats were as scant as or close to what we have in the history of black baseball, you fail.
            Wow, that's a really tall straw man you have there. I never said MLB stats were as "scant" as NeL stats. I said they had errors and missing data. If you want to deal with what I said, how refreshing would that be?
            I can't fail when you build your own straw man and then knock him down. As exciting as it may be to witness, the failure isn't on me.

            Originally posted by SHOELESSJOE3 View Post
            Since many speak about scant stats in black baseball, your going diminish the accuracy in MLB stats.
            Originally posted by Badge714 View Post
            I have both the Macmillan Baseball Encyclopedia and Total Baseball Second Edition by John Thorne and Pete Palmer. I'm always astounded at the amount of data compiled. It's mind boggling. They do find an error occasionally, but essentially they are a complete and accurate accounting of MLB that is truly monumental.

            "In some cases, the results from play-by-play data will contradict results in the official record. The official record has many, many errors, but we have not undertaken to reconcile those errors. Pitch-by-pitch data should not be taken as completely accurate, though we believe it to be as accurate as is currently possible."
            http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/


            But let's actually not be vague. Let's put some meat on the bones.

            "In the next release, we will be including the discrepancy file for the 1922 NL so this might be a good example. There are a total of 1223 discrepancies in that file. 356 of them are differences between the box score files and the official dailes (in other words, instances where we can be confident there IS an error in the official view of things). But the other 867 are not as clear-cut."
            http://sabr.org/latest/retrosheet-cr...crepancy-files

            Retro sheet had---this was in 2011---one file with 1,223 discrepancies of which at least 356, but perhaps far more, were statistical errors in one season for one league. This is after years and years of correcting errors and collecting tons of data.
            Last edited by drstrangelove; 02-14-2015, 04:20 AM.
            "It's better to look good, than be good."

            Comment


            • [QUOTE=drstrangelove;2407909]Wow, that's a really tall straw man you have there. I never said MLB stats were as "scant" as NeL stats. I said they had errors and missing data. If you want to deal with what I said, how refreshing would that be?
              I can't fail when you build your own straw man and then knock him down. As exciting as it may be to witness, the failure isn't on me.

              Never claimed you said that MLB stats were as scant as in black baseball.
              Only pointing out that there is no comparison.
              Those MLB errors cover a great number of games, players. Spread out, little effect on any one player.
              In black baseball, entire games are not accounted for, more of an effect on any one player.
              Obviously Gibson and other black players played far more games, many more at bats than have been found at this time.
              So many more games with no account for, at bats, hits, home runs and so much more. [Quote]

              Comment


              • Very possible all those missing games, at bats, results could work in Gibson's favor.
                They may display what a great hitter he was, some numbers we have not seen.
                I doubt very much if we had them that it would have a negative effect on Josh, he was too great a hitter.
                Again no doubt he would have made his mark in MLB given the chance
                It keeps coming back, we just don't know enough.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Honus Wagner Rules View Post
                  This Randy. This had a very strict criteria.

                  For purposes of this database, the Negro League Researchers and Authors Group established a strict set of criteria for inclusion on this data set. Data is only included for league sanctioned games from 1920 to 1948 for which a published boxscore or credible scorebook existed. Statistics gleaned from game accounts alone without a supporting boxscore were not included in this study.
                  Hopefully, this will stick. It has been said many, many times before. Give it a day or two, and somebody will be back on here laughing about "barnstorming" stats again. It is pretty sad.
                  Last edited by Herr28; 02-14-2015, 07:25 AM. Reason: Forgot the second period.
                  "It ain't braggin' if you can do it." Dizzy Dean

                  Comment


                  • Well stated and spot on. Gibson was a great player (see stats below from seamheads). Statistics may be incomplete but over the course of time they'll revert to a norm.

                    http://www.seamheads.com/NegroLgs/player.php?ID=1676

                    Originally posted by SHOELESSJOE3 View Post
                    Very possible all those missing games, at bats, results could work in Gibson's favor.
                    They may display what a great hitter he was, some numbers we have not seen.
                    I doubt very much if we had them that it would have a negative effect on Josh, he was too great a hitter.
                    Again no doubt he would have made his mark in MLB given the chance
                    It keeps coming back, we just don't know enough.
                    ". . . the Ruth, the whole Ruth and nothing but the Ruth . . ."

                    Comment


                    • Here is Gary Ashwill on the Seamheads.com Negro Leagues Database including Description and Criteria:

                      http://www.seamheads.com/NegroLgs/about.php
                      ". . . the Ruth, the whole Ruth and nothing but the Ruth . . ."

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Herr28 View Post
                        Hopefully, this will stick. It has been said many, many times before. Give it a day or two, and somebody will be back on here laughing about "barnstorming" stats again. It is pretty sad.
                        Didn't get a response so I'll ask you Herr.

                        In post #304 it describes many, many issues they've come across with boxscores.

                        In the quote, it says "Data is only included for league sanctioned games from 1920 to 1948 for which a published boxscore or credible scorebook existed."

                        What exactly does published mean?

                        If a boxscore is "published" does that mean it's guaranteed NOT to contain any of those common errors mentioned?

                        Comment


                        • Good questions Sultan. I'm not trying to be contentious. "Sad" as I am, I'm seeking clarity. I don't deny for a second that Gibson was a fantastic player. From the seamheads.com site I clearly see that Gibson slugged .833 in 1930. I assume from a previous post (specifically citing seamheads.com) that this was the highest SA for a season in the Negro Leagues. Perhaps I'm wrong here, maybe the highest ever referred to in that post was the career highest in the Negro Leagues, Gibson's .645? [This is an edit - I confirmed that it was the .645 for a career based on the years 1930-36.] My data is from seamheads and all I can find for Gibson are stats for the years 1930-1936. In any case fine, but if that .833 was the highest SA for a season ever that's based on 66 plate appearances in only 16 games. Does anyone know if there was a minimum number of plate appearances required to win a slugging award in the negro leagues? By-the-by, I voted for Piazza over Gibson, but now I'm not so sure. Gibson was phenomenal.



                          Originally posted by Sultan_1895-1948 View Post
                          Didn't get a response so I'll ask you Herr.

                          In post #304 it describes many, many issues they've come across with boxscores.

                          In the quote, it says "Data is only included for league sanctioned games from 1920 to 1948 for which a published boxscore or credible scorebook existed."

                          What exactly does published mean?

                          If a boxscore is "published" does that mean it's guaranteed NOT to contain any of those common errors mentioned?
                          Last edited by Badge714; 02-14-2015, 04:24 PM.
                          ". . . the Ruth, the whole Ruth and nothing but the Ruth . . ."

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Badge714 View Post
                            Good questions Sultan. I'm not trying to be contentious. "Sad" as I am, I'm seeking clarity. I don't deny for a second that Gibson was a fantastic player. From the seamheads.com site I clearly see that Gibson slugged .833 in 1930. I assume from a previous post (specifically citing seamheads.com) that this was the highest SA for a season in the Negro Leagues. Perhaps I'm wrong here, maybe the highest ever referred to in that post was the career highest in the Negro Leagues, Gibson's .645? [This is an edit - I confirmed that it was the .645 for a career based on the years 1930-36.] My data is from seamheads and all I can find for Gibson are stats for the years 1930-1936. In any case fine, but if that .833 was the highest SA for a season ever that's based on 66 plate appearances in only 16 games. Does anyone know if there was a minimum number of plate appearances required to win a slugging award in the negro leagues? By-the-by, I voted for Piazza over Gibson, but now I'm not so sure. Gibson was phenomenal.
                            By all accounts Gibson was indeed phenomenal. And if the stats are legit (which I question the wording of that "published boxscore" statement. I'm thinking if a boxscore had flawed data for others, but it was eligible for certain famous Negro Leaguers, they would count it. That's fine, honestly in my opinion all that matters is that he put his numbers up in the same environment as his competition. Adjustments can come later but relative to peers is extremely important.

                            That 16 game stretch. I hadn't heard that one before, just 66 PA Badge.

                            Pretty sure Piazza put up extremely high numbers in a longer span and that's against specialized relief with a tough home park.

                            Just glancing, June of 1997 bbref has him at .431/.475/.752 for the month.

                            But I looked game by game using their game logs and it came to .435/.496/.759. He had 5 hitless games in the month and two of those were 0-2 with 2 BB.

                            He missed some games in May 1995 (after May 10th until June 4th) but from 5/5/95 to 6/29/95 he played 30 games. In that stretch Piazza went .405/.457/.793.

                            So if Piazza played against much lesser competition and had league games that lasted half of that particular span, would it be any shock that he could post a .900 SA? Not to me.
                            Last edited by Sultan_1895-1948; 02-14-2015, 07:15 PM.

                            Comment


                            • By the stats I trust the most, Piazza is a top 40-50 hitter. Even Sultan, one of his biggest supporters here, doesn’t claim he’s in the top ten. So here’s a simple question for everyone who voted for Piazza:

                              Do you really think that no one in the history of the Negro Leagues would have been a top 10 hitter in MLB history? Because Gibson was the consensus best hitter in the NeL, and if he wasn’t better than Piazza, then I guess no one was, and that means no one was in the top 10.

                              During this period, African-Americans made up about 10% of the American population. Given the discrimination they faced in seeking employment, they were much more likely to become professional athletes than whites, a trend that continues even today, when they have become vastly more integrated into the population. Yet somehow, no one in that entire community during that period would have been a top 10 hitter?

                              One of the most interesting things I found in one of the articles posted in the Gibson thread in the Negro Leagues forum is that most of the games played in these leagues didn’t count towards the standings. I knew before that we had somewhat documented stats for a portion of Gibson’s career, maybe 20-30%, but I thought that the large majority of remaining games were played outside the Negro Leagues. My understanding now is that they weren’t, that most of Gibson’s games were played against Negro League competition, even if many of them were exhibitions, in the sense that they didn't count towards the standings. That makes the Negro League stats that we do have all the more representative of his entire career.

                              How representative? Pollsters know that one can get a very reliable estimate of voting trends by polling a relatively small sample, 500-1000 voters. The size of the actual voting population is irrelevant—it can be hundreds of millions—as long as the sample is truly random. The same general logic applies to Gibson. To the extent that the 500 or so games and 2000 or so PA for which we have fairly reliable stats constitute a random sample, they should provide a fairly precise indication of his production. And if these games are a sample taken at fairly regular intervals over his entire career—the weekend games that counted--they ought to be fairly random.

                              When you add the fact that he did very well against white players in those relatively rare times that he had the chance to; that his documented distances of some HR are greater than any that Piazza or for that matter just about any but maybe a handful of white players ever hit; and all the great African-American players who came into MLB when they were fairly allowed to; it seems to me the case for Gibson is really strong.
                              Last edited by Stolensingle; 02-14-2015, 08:48 PM.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Stolensingle View Post
                                The size of the actual voting population is irrelevant—it can be hundreds of millions—as long as the sample is truly random.
                                Umm no, that is not true. The actual size of the voting population is VERY relevant. Random sampling is of course a must but randomly asking millions of people WILL give you more valid data than just hundreds.
                                "The first draft of anything is crap." - Ernest Hemingway

                                There's no such thing as an ultimate stat.

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X