Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Uniform numbers / performance

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

  • redbuck
    replied
    Originally posted by Brooklyn
    The nuimber 4 seems to have a plethora of talent,too.

    Do you know of a downloadable data base that has uniform numbers? I was thinking of looking at uniform numbers, too, but couldn't find enough easily accessible data. The Lehman data base doesn't (or at least I don't think it does), but baseball-almanac has it in player profiles, so I know it exists.
    Baseball Almanac (http://baseball-almanac.com) has them if you just type a player's name in the search space and look at the bottom of the player profile pages. It lists uniform numbers by year.

    MLB.com also has them under historical stats

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Originally posted by redbuck
    I realize there is no reason for there to be any correlation, but has anyone ever done any studies on uniform numbers versus player performance?

    Obviously there should be no trend since the two are completely unrelated, but I have always been curious as to what number has been historically most successful.

    I did some stats on data from 2005 and found that for position players, the numbers 5, 24 and 29 were the most successful. I only used numbers for which there was a large enough number of players with that number to keep the result from being too skewed by one player. 9 and 1 I found were the worst numbers.
    So that is why I stink on the diamond (besides not washing myself... ).

    Leave a comment:


  • Ubiquitous
    replied
    No I said there was probably some correlation, I didn't say it was absolute.

    Leave a comment:


  • RuthMayBond
    replied
    Originally posted by Ubiquitous
    Human beings capable of free will?
    And destroying the correlation theory

    Leave a comment:


  • Ubiquitous
    replied
    Human beings capable of free will?

    Leave a comment:


  • RuthMayBond
    replied
    Originally posted by Ubiquitous
    There should be some correlation to uniform number and quality of player. When numbers first came into use players got a number based on their spot in the batting order. Then future players used the same numbers as a way to emulate or honor those players that they admired as youngsters.
    What would that make Barry Zito, Carlton Fisk, Drysdale, Randy Johnson, Ichiro, Aaron, Reggie, McCovey?

    Leave a comment:


  • Ubiquitous
    replied
    Originally posted by Brooklyn
    The nuimber 4 seems to have a plethora of talent,too.

    Do you know of a downloadable data base that has uniform numbers? I was thinking of looking at uniform numbers, too, but couldn't find enough easily accessible data. The Lehman data base doesn't (or at least I don't think it does), but baseball-almanac has it in player profiles, so I know it exists.
    The almanac has them but they require you to purchase them if you wish to have a copy of them, and there is a book called Baseball by the numbers that also list the numbers through the mid 90's.
    Last edited by Ubiquitous; 03-31-2006, 09:26 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ubiquitous
    replied
    There should be some correlation to uniform number and quality of player. When numbers first came into use players got a number based on their spot in the batting order. Then future players used the same numbers as a way to emulate or honor those players that they admired as youngsters. Thats why catchers where #8, great players had #3 and #4 since that was where basically a teams best players hit in the lineup. Of course some of this is dampened when they retire a players number on a team.

    Leave a comment:


  • RuthMayBond
    replied
    How about #8:
    Mathewson, YBerra, Yastrzemski, Dickey, JMorgan, Radcliffe, Stargell, CRipken, GCarter, Dawson, RFerrell, Lombardi

    Leave a comment:


  • RuthMayBond
    replied
    3 wasn't too bad:
    Ruth, Killebrew, JFoxx, Cochrane, Averill, Klein, SRice, Bottomley, Terry, Frisch, Cuyler, Baines, DaMurphy, Manush, Trammell

    Leave a comment:


  • Brooklyn
    replied
    The nuimber 4 seems to have a plethora of talent,too.

    Do you know of a downloadable data base that has uniform numbers? I was thinking of looking at uniform numbers, too, but couldn't find enough easily accessible data. The Lehman data base doesn't (or at least I don't think it does), but baseball-almanac has it in player profiles, so I know it exists.

    Leave a comment:


  • Chisox
    replied
    Not necessarily.
    Players tend to wear the numbers of their favorite players growing up, and also they want to be like them, including imiting their style of play and position.

    Barry Bonds wore number 24 with the Pirates in honor of his Godfather Willie Mays. He had to switch it to 25 when he went to the Giants. Mark McGwire wore 25 throughout. Many Latin players, including Sammy Sosa, wore 21 in honor of Roberto Clemente. Before 42 was retired, there were those who wore it in honor of Jackie Robinson, including Mariano Rivera. I forgot what number Pedro Martinez wears, but I believe he picked a number to honor someone. I for one, would be very interested to see a study on this. You might have to take it from the fifties, though, (maybe forties) to be sure you exclude line-up order driven numbers from the Ruth's Gehrig's time.
    Also, there is the psychological factor. Athletes are VERY superstisiuos, and wearing the "wrong" number could have a factor on their performance that way.

    Leave a comment:


  • redbuck
    started a topic Uniform numbers / performance

    Uniform numbers / performance

    I realize there is no reason for there to be any correlation, but has anyone ever done any studies on uniform numbers versus player performance?

    Obviously there should be no trend since the two are completely unrelated, but I have always been curious as to what number has been historically most successful.

    I did some stats on data from 2005 and found that for position players, the numbers 5, 24 and 29 were the most successful. I only used numbers for which there was a large enough number of players with that number to keep the result from being too skewed by one player. 9 and 1 I found were the worst numbers.

Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X