Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mays vs Aaron

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

  • #61
    "All of the available evidence supports the supposition that Bonds used"
    v
    "Nobody can ever prove that he used, so logically, we can't say that he did"


    check out post #66 in this thread
    "you don't have to burn books to destroy a culture. just get people to stop reading them." -ray bradbury

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by 538280
      Sorry if I'm hijacking this thread, but this confirms my belief that Mel Ott is one of the most overrated players of all time. I once wrote this on Reggie Jackson versus Ott (I added a bit to it):

      I've always had him over Ott, which is a minority opinion. Maybe it is a bias working, but I think there is good evidence. When you look at Ott's stats, the first thing that jumps out are his power numbers, particularly his home run numbers. I don't think Ott was really a great home run hitter. The Polo Grounds made him something he wasn't. He may have not even hit 400 HRs in his career. The common argument against that is that the Polo Grounds were actually a bad contact hitting park. But, think about it, would Ott's average go up or down if he played elsewhere? To me, that's an easy question. It would have gone down. Those hundreds of cheap HRs would mostly turn into outs, not doubles as is the belief. The foul poles at the Polo Grounds were about 250 feet. In most parks, a 250-300 foot fly ball is an out. Probably at least half of those HRs would have been outs, which would greatly reduce his value.

      Reggie was a great home run hitter, one of the greatest of all time. He played in a much stronger league. His 1969 was far better than any of Ott's years. The career rate stats have a huge gap, but Reggie had a long decline that dilluted them. The peak OPS+ is about the same, which is saying a real lot considering the league quality and park differences. Reggie was better.


      I saw your top 100 list on another thread, BoSox. You have Reggie 70th! How is this possible, Ott 57 spots ahead?
      unless we know how far all of his HR's were at the polo grounds were, you can't say "Probably at least half of those HRs would have been outs"

      "probably" doesn't cut it.

      you are obsessed with reggie. he was only a HR hitter. his averages sucked, (.262 career avg) he hit .300 a whopping 1 time in 21 years. he struck out the most times in MLB history. the most hits he ever had in a season is 158.

      Ott beats Reggie in almost every offensive category. now we're going to hear the "oh, reggie played in a tougher era blah blah blah
      http://www.blackbetsy.com/movies/joeatbat.mpg

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by History Of Baseball Fan
        unless we know how far all of his HR's were at the polo grounds were, you can't say "Probably at least half of those HRs would have been outs"

        "probably" doesn't cut it.
        So you think we shouldn't make any adjustment for the fact Ott hit at the Polo Grounds, just because we aren't completely 100% certain that they didn't become outs. We do know he hit 58% of his career HRs there.

        you are obsessed with reggie. he was only a HR hitter. his averages sucked, (.262 career avg) he hit .300 a whopping 1 time in 21 years. he struck out the most times in MLB history. the most hits he ever had in a season is 158.

        Ott beats Reggie in almost every offensive category. now we're going to hear the "oh, reggie played in a tougher era blah blah blah
        What sucked about his averages? The fact they were consistenly 10% above league average? A .280 average when the league average was .250 is a very good average.

        He was also a very good fielder in his prime. But I'm sick of debating about Reggie.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by 538280
          But I'm sick of debating about Reggie.
          Thank God.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by 538280
            So you think we shouldn't make any adjustment for the fact Ott hit at the Polo Grounds, just because we aren't completely 100% certain that they didn't become outs. We do know he hit 58% of his career HRs there.
            .280 avg doesn't cut it. it was still ******.

            so what if 58% of his HRs were at the Polo Grounds. what if 90% of those HR's were 350 feet shots ? what then ? your argument would be worthless.
            Last edited by KHenry14; 01-11-2006, 09:32 PM. Reason: profanity
            http://www.blackbetsy.com/movies/joeatbat.mpg

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by History Of Baseball Fan
              .280 avg doesn't cut it. it was still ******.

              so what if 58% of his HRs were at the Polo Grounds. what if 90% of those HR's were 350 feet shots ? what then ? your argument would be worthless.
              If all his HRs were 350 foot shots, he wouldn't be hitting 58% of his HRs at the Polo Grounds.

              A .280 average is a good average when the league average is .250. It's just as good as .300 when the league average is .270. If he played in the 1930s, Reggie would be a consistent .300 hitter.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by 538280
                The fact they were consistenly 10% above league average? A .280 average when the league average was .250 is a very good average.

                But I'm sick of debating about Reggie.
                Not really, Chris. You consistently assert that 10% above league ave. is very good. So, I have reposted the little chart below, to remind you what very good seasons REALLY look like.

                In the below chart, even the worst seasons are 1.17 above league average. So, Reggie was consistently below what very good seasons truly are. 10% doesn't cut it for the truly great players. 10% above league BA is alright for the better journeymen, but you have always alleged that Reggie was a great player, and his 10% above L. BA is a contributory part of that.

                So I hope you see that so many of the less than great players players posted significantly above 10% of L. BA. That part of your Reggie case is his weakest link. You would no doubt do much better if you had focused on his Rel. Slg.
                --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Some of the Greatest Hitting Seasons Ever: Listed according to PCA.

                Code:
                ----------------Rel.SLG-Rel.OBP--Rel.BA.-OPS+-INK--PCA-----WS--TPR
                Ruth, 1920-------2.08----1.47-----1.27---256---16--28.83---51--10.0
                Ruth,1921--------2.07----1.43-----1.29---239---16--24.79---53---9.8
                Mantle,1956------1.78----1.36-----1.35---210---18--22.96---49---8.8
                Ruth, 1923-------1.96----1.55-----1.39---239---16--22.2----55--11.2
                Williams, 1941---1.88----1.61-----1.52---235---16--22.1----42---8.8
                Bonds, 2004------1.83----1.76-----1.32---260---09--21.8----53--12.5
                Bonds, 2001------2.04 ---1.57-----1.27---262---09--20.82---54--12.2
                Ruth, 1924-------1.86----1.43-----1.30---220---16--20.8----45---8.5
                Cobb,1911--------1.73----1.38-----1.53---196---22--20.74---47---6.4
                Bonds, 2002------1.96----1.77-----1.45---275---09--20.6----49--11.2
                Hornsby,1922-----1.78----1.31-----1.37---207---23--20.37---42---9.2
                Musial,1948------1.83----1.35-----1.44---200---20--20.30---46---7.3
                Cobb, 1917-------1.78----1.39-----1.54---209---16--19.7----46---8.4
                Lajoie, 1901-----1.53----1.38-----1.73---200---23--18.94---42---7.4
                Foxx,1932--------1.85----1.35-----1.31---205---14--18.54---40---7.2
                Wagner,1908------1.76----1.38-----1.48---205---19--18.42---59--10.2
                Speaker, 1912----1.44----1.39-----1.54---188---06--18.13---51---7.1
                Medwick, 1937----1.37----1.24-----1.42---180---24--17.47---40---5.2
                Cash, 1961-------1.41----1.46-----1.37---201---07--17.30---42---8.3
                T.Williams,1949--1.71----1.38-----1.30---192---19--17.24---40---6.6
                Gehrig,1927------1.91----1.34-----1.30---221---07--17.17---44---9.1
                J.Jackson, 1911--1.49----1.38-----1.49---193---00--17.13---39---6.8
                Yaz,1967---------1.77----1.38-----1.38---195---21--16.81---42---6.5
                F.Robinson, 1966-1.28----1.31-----1.68---199---18--16.48---41---6.8
                H.Duffy, 1894----1.42----1.26-----1.58---177---20--16.44---33---4.0
                Delahanty, 1899--1.44----1.33-----1.59---189---16--16.36---41---5.4
                B.Herman,1930----1.51----1.26-----1.29---170---00--16.26---32---3.5
                Wagner, 1900-----1.36----1.28-----1.56---175---10--16.05---34---4.3
                Wilson,1930------1.61----1.26-----1.17---178---13--15.81---35---4.9
                Carew, 1977------1.45----1.35-----1.40---178---10--15.74---37---6.3
                Vaughan, 1935----1.38----1.48-----1.31---190---09--15.72---39---7.6
                Kiner, 1951------1.18----1.31-----1.60---184---12--15.64---35---5.1
                Sisler,1920------1.63----1.29-----1.43---181---08--15.40---33---7.6
                Al Rosen, 1953---1.28----1.23-----1.60---180---14--15.33---42---6.5
                Burkett, 1901----1.42----1.35-----1.49---181---11--15.21---38---5.8
                Aaron, 1959------1.36----1.24-----1.59---181---10--15.21---38---7.2
                Mize, 1937-------1.33----1.24-----1.55---172---00--14.95---34---3.3
                Terry, 1930------1.32----1.25-----1.38---158---07--14.46---32---5.5
                Klein,1930-------1.53----1.21-----1.27---159---06--14.17---28---5.6
                Sisler, 1922-----1.49----1.34-----1.47---170---13--14.08---29---5.2
                Zimmerman, 1912--1.36----1.19-----1.54---169---16--13.16---34---5.0
                Ott, 1929--------1.11----1.22-----1.49---165---02--13.15---31---5.8
                Simmons,1930-----1.68----1.20-----1.32---176---07--12.94---36---4.5
                Averill, 1936----1.30----1.16-----1.48---159---04--12.86---27---4.0
                DiMaggio,1937----1.62----1.16-----1.32---168---07--12.78---39---5.9
                Clemente, 1967---1.13----1.24-----1.52---170---07--12.59---35---5.6
                Brett, 1980------1.44----1.38-----1.66---202---07--12.43---36---7.4
                Greenberg, 1937--1.19----1.22-----1.60---172---04--12.38---33---5.5
                Snider, 1954-----1.28----1.20-----1.58---170---03--12.33---39---4.2
                J.Robinson, 1949-1.30----1.23-----1.35---159---06--12.22---36---6.5
                Heilmann, 1921---1.34----1.24-----1.51---167---07--12.13---28---3.4
                Mays, 1954-------1.30----1.22-----1.63---175---08--12.11---40---6.8
                Rose, 1969-------1.39----1.27-----1.38---158---07--11.94---37---3.7
                B.Williams, 1970-1.24----1.10-----1.49---147---07--11.88---29---3.5
                O'Doul, 1929-----1.35----1.30-----1.46---159---07--11.83---31---5.1
                T.Davis, 1962----1.31----1.13-----1.34---148---11--11.70---36---3.6
                Crawford, 1911---1.38----1.23-----1.46---163---00--11.49---32---2.2
                Keeler, 1897-----1.42----1.28-----1.49---164---07--11.28---32---4.0
                Manush, 1928-----1.34----1.15-----1.44---154---00--11.08---35---2.9
                Lindstrom, 1930--1.25----1.07-----1.28---132---00--10.78---32---4.7
                Z.Wheat, 1924----1.32----1.25-----1.40---163---00--10.67---35---4.5
                Z.Wheat, 1925----1.22----1.13-----1.30---142---00--10.61---27---2.5
                P.Waner, 1927----1.27----1.22-----1.33---155---13--10.45---36---3.4
                Gehringer, 1936--1.22----1.15-----1.31---142---02--10.37---34---5.9
                Reiser, 1941-----1.32----1.18-----1.54---165---13--10.22---34---4.7
                Colavito, 1961---1.13----1.17-----1.46---157---01--10.10---33---4.0
                J.Rice, 1978-----1.20----1.08-----1.55---158---17--10.08---36---4.0
                Cuyler, 1930-----1.13----1.15-----1.17---133---03---9.82---29---3.0
                Trosky, 1936-----1.14----1.01-----1.46---148---04---9.66---21---1.9
                Oliva, 1964------1.30----1.10-----1.45---150---12---9.43---27---3.2
                K.Williams, 1922-1.16----1.13-----1.57---164---08---8.95---30---4.3
                J.Tobin, 1921----1.20----1.05-----1.19---119---02---8.24---25---0.5
                -------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Away Games Only, indexed to League Averages.
                
                --------------------Rel.SLG-------Rel.OBP---------Rel.BA.
                Musial,1948----------2.03----------1.43------------1.59
                Gehrig,1927----------2.01----------1.39------------1.38
                Ruth,1921------------1.89----------1.34------------1.21
                Hornsby,1922---------1.73----------1.31------------1.36
                Wagner,1908----------1.71---------no-data----------1.38
                DiMaggio,1937------- 1.71----------1.11------------1.23
                Mantle,1956----------1.68----------1.33------------1.28
                Foxx,1932------------1.68----------1.22------------1.23
                Cobb,1911----------- 1.67----------1.36------------1.54
                Yaz,1967-------------1.61----------1.34------------1.36
                T.Williams,1949------1.56----------1.32------------1.27
                Klein,1930-----------1.45----------1.18------------1.19
                Sisler,1920----------1.29----------1.13------------1.20
                
                Wilson,1930---------no-data-------no-data----------no-data
                Simmons,1930--------no-data-------no-data----------no-data
                B. Herman,1930------no-data-------no-data----------no-data
                Bonds, 2001---------no data-------no data----------no data
                ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                [code]
                name, yr.-----------home HRs-----away HRs------home Slg-----away slg.
                Ruth, 1920------------29-------------25----------.985----------.736
                Ruth, 1923------------19-------------22----------.805----------.728
                Gehrig, 1927----------24-------------23----------.722----------.805
                Hornsby, 1922---------24-------------18----------.741----------.703
                Sisler, 1920----------15--------------4----------.760----------.503
                DiMaggio, 1937--------19-------------27----------.631----------.711
                Klein, 1930-----------26-------------14----------.794----------.578
                Foxx, 1932------------31-------------27----------.820----------.682
                Mantle, 1956----------27-------------25----------.746----------.664
                Williams, 1949--------23-------------20----------.710----------.595
                Ott, 1929-------------20-------------22----------.575----------.692
                Musial, 1948----------16-------------23----------.618----------.780
                The home/away splits were located at Total Baseball, Vol. 1, ed. by John Thorn & Pete Palmer with David Reuther, 1989, pp. 2200-2213.
                [/code]
                Last edited by Bill Burgess; 01-11-2006, 07:30 PM.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by DoubleX
                  My rankings are always in flux, but Mays is routinely in the top 3, Aaron in the top 7 or 8 and Frank Robinson in the top 12 or 13. I think any discussion that has Mays and Aaron also should mention Frank Robinson.
                  Absolutely agree. Include pitchers in that and those are almost my identical rankings.
                  03.Mays (3)
                  08.Aaron (6)
                  14.Robinson (10)

                  I think we really should examine how Mays, Robinson, and Aaron compare to those inbetween. I really don't get how 10 players can be in-between when those are the players who seperated themselves out more than anyone else. Wouldn't the difference between 1 and 10 be like that of between 50 and 100 at least?
                  Johnson and now Goligoski gone.
                  I hope that's all.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by [email protected]
                    Not really, Chris. You consistently assert that 10% above league ave. is very good. So, I have reposted the little chart below, to remind you what very good seasons REALLY look like.

                    Bill, that list is exactly what you said it was, the greatest hitting seasons ever. All of those guys were great average hitters and great power hitters for that year. A rel. BA of 110 (which Reggie consistently posted) wasn't truly great but was good, especially considering he played in the 1970s. Just because his BAs weren't quite up to the standard of the greatest ever doesn't make his contact hitting "suck". I was replying to a member who said Reggie's averages "sucked".

                    I'm not arguing Reggie was an all time great contact hitter, I'm arguing he was a good contact hitter, good enough with his fabulous slugging that he was one of the best hitters ever.
                    Last edited by 538280; 01-12-2006, 06:42 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by 538280
                      If all his HRs were 350 foot shots, he wouldn't be hitting 58% of his HRs at the Polo Grounds.

                      A .280 average is a good average when the league average is .250. It's just as good as .300 when the league average is .270. If he played in the 1930s, Reggie would be a consistent .300 hitter.
                      considering how he only hit over .280 five times in 21 years, that statement you made is useless. he only hit .262 for his entire career. now that terrible.
                      http://www.blackbetsy.com/movies/joeatbat.mpg

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        --I once did a post where I translated all Reggie's BAs into the context of Ott's time and place. Ott came out slightly ahead, but it was close and Reggie had the higher average in nearly half the seasons (Jackson WAS a terrible contact hitter in his last years and that dragged his career BA down). If you give Jackson's numbers just a 10% boost for the higher level of competition he faced, he actually comes out ahead of Ott in batting average in that experiment. It is important to remember that Jackson played in a time where league BAs were low and in parks that suppressed his even more. Oakland was perhaps the worst park for BA in either league and Yankee Stadium wasn't that much better.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by BoSox Rule
                          My top 20 goes like this.
                          1. Babe Ruth
                          2. Barry Bonds
                          3. Willie Mays
                          4. Ted Williams
                          5. Ty Cobb
                          6. Honus Wagner
                          7. Stan Musial
                          8. Walter Johnson
                          9. Eddie Collins
                          10. Rogers Hornsby
                          11. Hank Aaron
                          12. Nap Lajoie
                          13. Mel Ott
                          14. Tris Speaker
                          15. Mickey Mantle
                          16. Alex Rodriguez
                          17. Lou Gehrig
                          18. Roger Clemens
                          19. Arky Vaughan
                          20. Joe Morgan

                          This list is not complete, because I do rank Roger Clemens over Walter Johnson for reasons other than total value. Roger Clemens pitched in an era a lot harder to pitch in, no matter what ANY era adjustments say, and I trust BP enough to know that nearly 90% of their era adjustments are reliable, just not with most pitchers.

                          Their actual pitching (ERA, perhipherals) adjustments show Clemens to be far better.
                          That's a pretty good list BoSox rule, but i'm just wondering if you considered Shoeless Joe Jackson on that list on top 20. I mean, when he was banned from baseball, I think he had a .367 lifetime BA. He is also extremely underrated if we are talking about underated players.
                          "It kills me to lose. If I'm a troublemaker, and I don't think that my temper makes me one, then it's because I can't stand losing. That's the way I am about winning, all I ever wanted to do was finish first."

                          -Jackie Robinson

                          55 and 56 chmps.... The two headed monster

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by History Of Baseball Fan
                            considering how he only hit over .280 five times in 21 years, that statement you made is useless. he only hit .262 for his entire career. now that terrible.
                            You know, I'm sick of talking to you. You're so ignorant it's unbelieveable. Do you even recognize that different eras of baseball had different levels of offense? When Reggie batted .250 in 1968, the league average was .232. When the league isn't scoring many runs, every run Reggie creates is all that much more important. It's the same with BAs. When the league BA is that low, Reggie can still bat .250 or .260 and have a good contact hitting season.

                            Here are Reggie's relative BAs 1968-1982, before his decline phase (if you don't get this then I don't know what to say). 100 is average, so a 108 rel. BA means his BA was 8% better than league:

                            1968-108
                            1969-110
                            1970-94
                            1971-109
                            1972-110
                            1973-115
                            1974-115
                            1975-99
                            1976-111
                            1977-108
                            1978-106
                            1979-111
                            1980-112
                            1981-93
                            1982-104

                            Now that is not horrible! As a matter of fact, it is good, especially given the era and parks it was done in!

                            Baseball stats cannot be placed on a linear level where you can definitively state that a player with a .300 average had a better BA than a guy with a .270 BA. The guy with the .300 BA may have done it in 1930 or 1894 when the league BA was above .300. The guy who batted .270 may have done it in 1968 when the league BA was about .230. The former is a dissapointing performance, the latter is impressive. You fail to realize that baseball stats must be indexed to put everyone on the same plane.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by 55 chmps
                              That's a pretty good list BoSox rule, but i'm just wondering if you considered Shoeless Joe Jackson on that list on top 20. I mean, when he was banned from baseball, I think he had a .367 lifetime BA. He is also extremely underrated if we are talking about underated players.
                              Joe Jackson doesn't make my top 70.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by 55 chmps
                                That's a pretty good list BoSox rule, but i'm just wondering if you considered Shoeless Joe Jackson on that list on top 20. I mean, when he was banned from baseball, I think he had a .367 lifetime BA. He is also extremely underrated if we are talking about underated players.
                                Joe Jackson had a .356 BA in under 5,000 AB over 13 seasons.
                                He is extremely over-rated.
                                Johnson and now Goligoski gone.
                                I hope that's all.

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X