Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ty Cobb discussion

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

  • Floyd Gondolli
    replied
    Originally posted by AstrosFan View Post
    Re: Correlation between BB rate and Iso

    I ran the numbers for 1903-18 and for 1919-35, which gave me two samples of about equal size: 5,318 and 5,202.

    I calculated BB rate as BB/AB, which is what I usually see, though I have posted a question on that stat's calculation in the sabermetrics forum.

    I used the CORREL function in Excel to make these calculations.

    The correlation (r) for the deadball era was about .006. For the lively era, it was about .049.

    The test statistic is calculated as r/sqrt((1-r^2)/(n-2)), where n is the sample size. N-2 represents the degrees of freedom in calculating the test statistic for correlation.

    Since I am making no assumption on whether the data is positively or negatively correlated before making the calculations, I am using the two-tailed alternative hypothesis. The null hypothesis is simply that the two are not related.

    The critical value for a two-tailed alternative is +/- 3.182

    The test statistic for the deadball era is about .418. For the lively era, it is about 3.55.

    Given that information, we would fail to reject the null for the deadball era, and reject it for the lively era. That suggests there was not a relationship between walk rate and iso in the deadball era, and there was one during the first 17 years of the live ball era.
    This is outstanding work!!!

    Leave a comment:


  • Floyd Gondolli
    replied
    Originally posted by Toledo Inquisition View Post

    I've mentioned this power factor specifically before in my defense of Honus Wagner as the greatest RH hitter of all time (in my opinion). Bluesky has discussed this phenomenon with regards to Nap Lajoie also.

    In my mind it makes perfect sense, since unless players played in unique bandbox (or rarely in a park conducive to inside the park homers), the homerun ball wasn't in their arsenal. Therefore the power hitters couldn't utilize the homer and had to rely on doubles and triples to provide the isolated power separation between them and the more common hitters. Since they only had the opportunity to garnish one or two extra bases for big clouts, as opposed to potentially three for later generations, their ability to distinguish greatness was in a smaller "pool" of potentiality so to speak.
    This is very insightful and nuanced. Well said, per your usual, Toledo!!!

    Leave a comment:


  • Floyd Gondolli
    replied
    Wagner, Crawford, Lajoie were the three best sluggers of their generation. Their raw slugging exploits are very well documented. They maxed out at a 150 career OPS+ (Wagner, who had an extremely long decline phase).

    If the relative statistics were adjusted properly, given drastically lower relative walk rates for sluggers, it would stand to reason that they’d be on roughly par with Hornsby (175) and Gehrig (179). Both of whom had no real decline phase (Hornsby, broken ankle that never healed), and Gehrig, ALS.

    Thoughts?

    Leave a comment:


  • brett
    replied
    I agree it was harder to separate in batting metrics, but part of that is because with the live ball, new players were able to be productive who didn't have the defensive or basepaths skills, but were able to compete for value when the live ball came along. Wagner would have dominated more if there was a live ball when he played, and if the players stayed the same, but the fact that there was not a payoff in home runs in his time kept meant that the game itself would select more for other skills and exclude players who might have raised the ceiling on isolated power. Why play a slugger to hit 10 home runs instead of a an all around player to hit 4? With the live ball you might take a guy to hit 35 over someone with 14 though since the payoff would be 250% greater. Maybe a guy could have put up a 240 OPS+ with the deadball, but the payoff wouldn't be worth the loss of other skills in that era where they were more important.

    Leave a comment:


  • Toledo Inquisition
    replied
    Originally posted by Floyd Gondolli View Post


    It appears that deadball sluggers have a huge disadvantage in OPS+, wRC+, and vis a via, WAR.

    #1.

    --For the top 30 players (min 5000 PA) 1900-1919, sorted by highest BB rate, the wRC+ was 103.

    --For 1920-1950, same criteria, it was 137.


    #2.

    --The average ISO+ of the top 30 in BB rate 1900-1919 was 106.

    --The average ISO of the top 30 in BB rate 1920-1939 was 137. If you remove Babe Ruth, it's still 132.

    Deadball sluggers simply could not separate from the pack nearly as much as liveball sluggers. They weren't pitched around remotely as much, ergo deflating their relative statistics compared to Liveball sluggers..

    Hence, they are all underrated vis a via OPS+, wRC+, and WAR.

    Thoughts?
    I've mentioned this power factor specifically before in my defense of Honus Wagner as the greatest RH hitter of all time (in my opinion). Bluesky has discussed this phenomenon with regards to Nap Lajoie also.

    In my mind it makes perfect sense, since unless players played in unique bandbox (or rarely in a park conducive to inside the park homers), the homerun ball wasn't in their arsenal. Therefore the power hitters couldn't utilize the homer and had to rely on doubles and triples to provide the isolated power separation between them and the more common hitters. Since they only had the opportunity to garnish one or two extra bases for big clouts, as opposed to potentially three for later generations, their ability to distinguish greatness was in a smaller "pool" of potentiality so to speak.

    Leave a comment:


  • PVNICK
    replied
    I asked something along those lines as a relative newbie. I seem to have referenced the HR issue but have no idea where to find such conversation. I would think it has to deflate things.


    https://www.baseball-fever.com/forum...s-above-league

    Leave a comment:


  • Floyd Gondolli
    replied
    Originally posted by AstrosFan View Post
    Re: Correlation between BB rate and Iso

    I ran the numbers for 1903-18 and for 1919-35, which gave me two samples of about equal size: 5,318 and 5,202.

    I calculated BB rate as BB/AB, which is what I usually see, though I have posted a question on that stat's calculation in the sabermetrics forum.

    I used the CORREL function in Excel to make these calculations.

    The correlation (r) for the deadball era was about .006. For the lively era, it was about .049.

    The test statistic is calculated as r/sqrt((1-r^2)/(n-2)), where n is the sample size. N-2 represents the degrees of freedom in calculating the test statistic for correlation.

    Since I am making no assumption on whether the data is positively or negatively correlated before making the calculations, I am using the two-tailed alternative hypothesis. The null hypothesis is simply that the two are not related.

    The critical value for a two-tailed alternative is +/- 3.182

    The test statistic for the deadball era is about .418. For the lively era, it is about 3.55.

    Given that information, we would fail to reject the null for the deadball era, and reject it for the lively era. That suggests there was not a relationship between walk rate and iso in the deadball era, and there was one during the first 17 years of the live ball era.

    It appears that deadball sluggers have a huge disadvantage in OPS+, wRC+, and vis a via, WAR.

    #1.

    --For the top 30 players (min 5000 PA) 1900-1919, sorted by highest BB rate, the wRC+ was 103.

    --For 1920-1950, same criteria, it was 137.


    #2.

    --The average ISO+ of the top 30 in BB rate 1900-1919 was 106.

    --The average ISO of the top 30 in BB rate 1920-1939 was 137. If you remove Babe Ruth, it's still 132.

    Deadball sluggers simply could not separate from the pack nearly as much as liveball sluggers. They weren't pitched around remotely as much, ergo deflating their relative statistics compared to Liveball sluggers..

    Hence, they are all underrated vis a via OPS+, wRC+, and WAR.

    Thoughts?

    Leave a comment:


  • csh19792001
    replied
    Neutralized Batting

    All seasons are converted to 162-game seasons &
    average team scoring of 716 total runs (4.42 R/G)


    Code:
    Year 	Age 	 G 	PA 	AB 	R 	H 	2B 	3B 	HR 	RBI 	SB 	BB 	SO     	BA 	OBP 	SLG 	OPS 	RC 	Gact
    1905 	18 	43 	179 	163 	25 	43 	7 	0 	1 	20 	2 	12 	24 	.264 	.314 	.325 	.639 	17 	41
    1906 	19 	104 	432 	391 	56 	132 	18 	6 	1 	42 	27 	22 	42 	.338 	.379 	.422 	.801 	61 	98
    1907 	20 	158 	702 	660 	120 	247 	33 	16 	6 	147 	62 	28 	58 	.374 	.405 	.500 	.905 	131 	150
    1908 	21 	156 	692 	630 	113 	222 	43 	24 	5 	138 	46 	40 	44 	.352 	.397 	.521 	.918 	128 	150
    1909 	22 	163 	719 	630 	148 	257 	39 	12 	11 	137 	90 	57 	47 	.408 	.463 	.560 	1.023 	161 	156
    1910 	23 	144 	632 	539 	124 	217 	39 	15 	9 	106 	73 	72 	47 	.403 	.476 	.581 	1.057 	148 	140
    1911 	24 	154 	671 	607 	141 	246 	47 	24 	8 	122 	82 	44 	45 	.405 	.452 	.601 	1.054 	162 	146
    1912 	25 	146 	642 	583 	129 	241 	32 	25 	7 	89 	65 	46 	31 	.413 	.461 	.590 	1.051 	157 	140
    1913 	26 	128 	549 	466 	83 	191 	21 	18 	5 	80 	58 	66 	33 	.410 	.488 	.564 	1.052 	126 	122
    1914 	27 	100 	447 	369 	83 	145 	25 	13 	2 	69 	40 	65 	23 	.393 	.492 	.547 	1.039 	97 	98
    1915 	28 	163 	745 	597 	159 	226 	34 	14 	3 	110 	104 	128 	45 	.379 	.496 	.497 	.993 	145 	156
    1916 	29 	151 	689 	583 	136 	229 	35 	11 	6 	82 	77 	89 	40 	.393 	.475 	.521 	.996 	144 	145
    1917 	30 	158 	736 	642 	135 	265 	52 	28 	7 	128 	65 	72 	35 	.413 	.476 	.614 	1.089 	186 	152
    1918 	31 	142 	647 	572 	135 	240 	28 	21 	4 	104 	51 	61 	27 	.420 	.478 	.563 	1.041 	154 	111
    1919 	32 	143 	647 	589 	118 	235 	44 	16 	1 	89 	34 	47 	25 	.399 	.444 	.533 	.977 	140 	124
    1920 	33 	118 	514 	446 	86 	146 	29 	8 	2 	63 	15 	59 	29 	.327 	.408 	.442 	.850 	80 	112
    1921 	34 	135 	588 	515 	113 	189 	35 	15 	12 	92 	21 	54 	20 	.367 	.430 	.563 	.993 	124 	128
    1922 	35 	143 	632 	544 	100 	215 	43 	16 	4 	100 	9 	56 	25 	.395 	.455 	.555 	1.010 	137 	137
    1923 	36 	153 	671 	578 	102 	192 	41 	7 	6 	87 	9 	67 	15 	.332 	.404 	.458 	.863 	106 	145
    1924 	37 	163 	745 	644 	109 	208 	37 	10 	4 	75 	23 	84 	19 	.323 	.402 	.430 	.832 	112 	155
    1925 	38 	127 	495 	422 	89 	151 	30 	12 	12 	94 	13 	63 	13 	.358 	.447 	.571 	1.018 	105 	121
    1926 	39 	83 	283 	242 	47 	80 	18 	5 	4 	61 	9 	26 	2 	.331 	.398 	.496 	.894 	47 	79
    1927 	40 	139 	577 	495 	93 	166 	30 	7 	5 	83 	21 	64 	13 	.335 	.417 	.455 	.871 	92 	133
    1928 	41 	100 	402 	363 	51 	112 	27 	4 	1 	38 	6 	33 	17 	.309 	.373 	.413 	.786 	55 	95
    162 Game Avg. 	162 	707 	618 	126 	232 	40 	16 	6 	109 	51 	68 	36 	.374 	.441 	.523 	.964 	142 	3034
    24 Yrs 	        3214 	14036 	12270 	2495 	4595 	787 	327 	126 	2156 	1002 	1355 	719 	.374 	.441 	.523 	.964 	2815 	3034

    This, I think, is a tremendous testament to Cobb. I see it as vindication of sorts also for his legacy as a hitter with Rose vaingloriously referring to himself for the last 28 years as "The Hit King".

    Leave a comment:


  • Cobbfan75
    replied
    Hot damn! now that's an answer!!!

    Leave a comment:


  • Honus Wagner Rules
    replied
    Originally posted by Victory Faust View Post
    In the mid-80s, a player named Mike Felder had a split grip, and I remember thinking he was going to set the world on fire.
    I remember Felder in is brief stop with the Giants!

    t92697f.jpg

    Leave a comment:


  • csh19792001
    replied
    Article: "Cobb Stepping in For Ruth" (The Sporting News, 12/27/1961)
    Last edited by csh19792001; 02-07-2012, 05:25 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Victory Faust
    replied
    Does anyone know what Hotel Cobb stayed in when he first came to Detroit?

    Leave a comment:


  • Victory Faust
    replied
    Originally posted by Iowanic View Post
    That recent film clip they had on 'diamond demos' displayed Cobb taking a cut; moving both hands down.

    Makes me wonder why no batters use that grip today. Just not neccasary, maybe?

    In the mid-80s, a player named Mike Felder had a split grip, and I remember thinking he was going to set the world on fire.

    Leave a comment:


  • Iowanic
    replied
    That recent film clip they had on 'diamond demos' displayed Cobb taking a cut; moving both hands down.

    Makes me wonder why no batters use that grip today. Just not neccasary, maybe?

    Leave a comment:


  • Victory Faust
    replied
    I always thought Ty Cobb was the greatest all around offensive player, while Ruth, with his pitching, was the greatest all-around player.

    Here's one stat that might bolster the argument for Cobb: When he retired, Cobb held far more records than Ruth. And Ruth's career ended a mere 7 years after Cobb, so it's not like there's a huge gap.

    Either way, you can't go wrong. It's all a matter of what skills or stats you value more. I won't argue with anyone who says Ruth is the greatest, although I give Cobb a slight edge....very slight, at least for offensive base ball.

    Leave a comment:

Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X