MLB Topics

Started by Mr. Ypsi, February 08, 2008, 06:32:15 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Bombers798891

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on September 27, 2016, 09:11:09 PM

The point I'm trying to make is that the players had no control over the integration of MLB (though BOO to those players who harassed Jackie Robinson and the other path-breakers, and a huge cheer for the player (Pee Wee Reese?) who threw his arms around Jackie when he was heckled in one park), but players did (and do) have a choice about CHEATING.  Comparing era's stats is nearly impossible since the game is always changing (the 'dead ball' era, integration, lowering the pitcher's mound, adding the DH, etc.), but one thing we can TRY to do is keeping CHEATERS out of the 'temple'.

the stats from cheaters are IMO invalid and discarded.

I always find it humorous that writers are working overtime to keep steroid users out of the Hall of Fame, whereas Gaylord Perry can literally write a book admitting that he cheated for decades and of course, no one cares, because apparently some kinds of cheating are not actually cheating, because reasons and stuff.

Mr. Ypsi

Quote from: Bombers798891 on September 28, 2016, 02:37:08 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on September 27, 2016, 09:11:09 PM

The point I'm trying to make is that the players had no control over the integration of MLB (though BOO to those players who harassed Jackie Robinson and the other path-breakers, and a huge cheer for the player (Pee Wee Reese?) who threw his arms around Jackie when he was heckled in one park), but players did (and do) have a choice about CHEATING.  Comparing era's stats is nearly impossible since the game is always changing (the 'dead ball' era, integration, lowering the pitcher's mound, adding the DH, etc.), but one thing we can TRY to do is keeping CHEATERS out of the 'temple'.

the stats from cheaters are IMO invalid and discarded.

I always find it humorous that writers are working overtime to keep steroid users out of the Hall of Fame, whereas Gaylord Perry can literally write a book admitting that he cheated for decades and of course, no one cares, because apparently some kinds of cheating are not actually cheating, because reasons and stuff.

At least not enough voters cared.  He wouldn't be in MY HoF, but they didn't ask me. :P

Jim Dixon

If there was a way to isolate those who used banned drugs and those who did not, then I might agree that doping would be an automatic disqualification.  Unfortunately there is no method to do so and as such should not be an automatic disqualification.

The voters are apparently taking the notion that it is.  Lets face it, Bonds and A-Rod were destine for the Hall and would have put HOF numbers up with or without steroids.  I will be curious in five years,  when Big Poppi is eligible, to see if a popular player can make it in - one that put up HOF numbers only after juicing.

ElRetornodelEspencio

Quote from: Bombers798891 on September 27, 2016, 04:32:26 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on September 26, 2016, 11:33:57 PM

There is a major difference: none of Babe Ruth's opponents played against black players either (and, in fact, based on his looks, some people speculated that the Babe had some 'Negro' ancestry!)  He was not responsible for the racism of his era.  Bonds on the other hand did not play against ALL juicers!  Perhaps I'm naive, but I doubt that even at the worst of the steroid era any more than 25-30% of players were juicing.  Playing in an all-white league was an unchosen 'fact of life'; 'juicing' was a deliberate choice to cheat.

The point is, Ruth's competition was undeniably weaker compared to the players who played post-integration, yet no one seemed in a hurry to talk about how his numbers were somehow less than official or magical. The idea that we have to ignore steroid numbers, but that Ruth's numbers in a white-only league were sacred is laughable.

Babe Ruth was absolutely beyond doubt a great player. He was even more than that. He singlehandedly changed how the game was played. He doubled up the single season home run record that had stood for more than 30 years. The career home run record before him was 138. He had more than that between 1919-1921. He led the league in home runs with 11 in 1918...when he was still a pitcher, which he was well above average at (his career adjusted ERA+ is the same as Justin Verlander). His career WAR is 10% higher than anyone else that ever played. His career OPS+ is over 200, meaning basically he was twice as good as the average player. 2nd best ever is Ted Williams at 190. The curve starts to resemble normality after that. Those two are outliers.

If he hadn't pitched the first 4 years of his career, he would have hit close to 900 home runs, he would still have the record for runs scored, HR and RBI. And the only thing he ever juiced on was hot dogs and beer lol.

You can argue about how great Ruth was, but it's stupid to talk about him like he was some product of his era. He MADE his era, and made the game what it became.

If you ask someone who the greatest hitters of all time are, if Ruth and Williams aren't the first two names they say, just ignore the rest.

ElRetornodelEspencio

Quote from: Jim Dixon on September 29, 2016, 02:59:07 PM
If there was a way to isolate those who used banned drugs and those who did not, then I might agree that doping would be an automatic disqualification.  Unfortunately there is no method to do so and as such should not be an automatic disqualification.

The voters are apparently taking the notion that it is.  Lets face it, Bonds and A-Rod were destine for the Hall and would have put HOF numbers up with or without steroids.  I will be curious in five years,  when Big Poppi is eligible, to see if a popular player can make it in - one that put up HOF numbers only after juicing.

The people in the game know. No isolation necessary.

Bombers798891

Quote from: ElRetornodelEspencio on October 01, 2016, 02:20:54 AM


Babe Ruth was absolutely beyond doubt a great player. He was even more than that. He singlehandedly changed how the game was played. He doubled up the single season home run record that had stood for more than 30 years. The career home run record before him was 138. He had more than that between 1919-1921. He led the league in home runs with 11 in 1918...when he was still a pitcher, which he was well above average at (his career adjusted ERA+ is the same as Justin Verlander). His career WAR is 10% higher than anyone else that ever played. His career OPS+ is over 200, meaning basically he was twice as good as the average player. 2nd best ever is Ted Williams at 190. The curve starts to resemble normality after that. Those two are outliers.

If he hadn't pitched the first 4 years of his career, he would have hit close to 900 home runs, he would still have the record for runs scored, HR and RBI. And the only thing he ever juiced on was hot dogs and beer lol.

You can argue about how great Ruth was, but it's stupid to talk about him like he was some product of his era. He MADE his era, and made the game what it became.

If you ask someone who the greatest hitters of all time are, if Ruth and Williams aren't the first two names they say, just ignore the rest.

I never claimed Ruth was a product of his era, but he was helped by it.

WAR is about how good you are relative to a baseline level of replacement player. The lower the baseline, the more the elite players can clear it by. The baseline in Ruth's era was lower, because the talent pool was just smaller. According to data from April of 2016, 40% of the players on the Opening Day 25-man rosters were not white. (And of course, there are a lot more white people in the U.S. today than there were in 1920, just because the population has tripled in that time) There's just no way around the fact stuff like this has made the overall talent pool deeper than it was in Ruth's era, even with expansion.

Forget the steroid thing for a second. It shouldn't be lost on us that the two players who were 1st and 3rd on the all-time home run list before steroids made it a mess would not have been allowed to play had they been born when Ruth was.

Ruth was an undeniably transcendent player, for all the reasons you listed. But we can't handwave away the demographic differences between baseball in the 1920s and today.

Bombers798891

I want to reiterate something that may have gotten lost in translation.

My point on Ruth is not to dispute his greatness, because that's not possible.

It was in response to Ypsi's point about the validity of a specific thing: Bonds' home run total. My point was simply that, if Bonds' total is going to be discounted because of steroids, it seems pretty silly not to discount Ruth's because systemic racism and discrimination artificially depressed the talent pool of the league he played in.

Mr. Ypsi

I'm not denying that the talent Bonds faced was almost certainly better than what Ruth faced, but there are two factors that at least somewhat decrease the apparent difference.  1.  The talent is now distributed across 30 teams instead of 16.  2.  In Ruth's day, baseball was pretty much the only game in town.  I can't help but wonder how many potential MLB HoFers are instead in the NFL or NBA?  (And don't give me Michael Jordan's failure is his lark in baseball - with his physical talents and competitive spirit, if he had always aimed for baseball I have little doubt he'd be in Cooperstown! ;))

On the flip side, the Babe would nearly always face the same pitcher 3 or 4 times a game; today twice is more the norm before facing a fresh arm (and if you're a superstar it may even be a guy brought in just to face you).  That's the fundamental flaw in trying to have a single, hopefully rational, HoF - no two eras are even playing the same game! :P

Bombers798891

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on October 03, 2016, 06:09:12 PM
I'm not denying that the talent Bonds faced was almost certainly better than what Ruth faced, but there are two factors that at least somewhat decrease the apparent difference.  1.  The talent is now distributed across 30 teams instead of 16.  2.  In Ruth's day, baseball was pretty much the only game in town.  I can't help but wonder how many potential MLB HoFers are instead in theNFL or NBA?  (And don't give me Michael Jordan's failure is his lark in baseball - with his physical talents and competitive spirit, if he had always aimed for baseball I have little doubt he'd be in Cooperstown! ;))

On the flip side, the Babe would nearly always face the same pitcher 3 or 4 times a game; today twice is more the norm before facing a fresh arm (and if you're a superstar it may even be a guy brought in just to face you).  That's the fundamental flaw in trying to have a single, hopefully rational, HoF - no two eras are even playing the same game! :P

Again, Ruth is a deserving Hall of Famer, and a deserving inner circle of the inner circle Hall of Famer. But his 714/60 should be looked at with, at least, an equal amount of skepticism as Bonds 762/73. It's not his fault, of course, that African American players couldn't play in his day, but we can (and should, IMO) make those adjustments for that context.

I mean, there's a million other differences that work for/against players. The ballparks are different, relief pitchers play a key role, there are night games, travel is different, pitchers on the whole throw harder, they throw types of pitches Ruth likely rarely saw—sliders were not terribly common—training methods are different for pitchers and hitters. It's nearly impossible to adjust for all these things (and frankly, I think we go too far with that at times)

IMO, we can acknowledge the greatness of pre-integration players. But it's strange to me to see the numbers from the steroid era so thoroughly scrutinized while the numbers from Ruth's era are generally considered legitimate and pure.

Mr. Ypsi

Bombers,

A great summing up of where the debate stands.  I don't disagree with a thing you said.

I'm not trying to argue the numbers, per se: just TO ME the single season record is 60 for 154 games and 61 for 162 games; the career record is not 714 (no one ever accused Hank Aaron of anything worse than being an African-American [usually in somewhat less polite terminology ::)] who dared to surpass the sainted Babe Ruth) but 755.  I'm not asking for the record books to be changed (that gets into too many issues and conflicts that probably defy rational explication), but I personally choose not to recognize 762 or 73 (or 70 or 66 or any other single season records by known cheaters).

Jim Dixon

Earlier this season, I was bemused by the countdown in Ichiro's combined hits total (Japan and ML) to Pete Rose's record.  Maybe we can solve Mr. Ypsi's home run quandary just by putting Oh at the top home run career list with 868.

The NCAA has a HR/game record and this might be the ticket for disparate seasons.

Mr. Ypsi

Quote from: Jim Dixon on October 05, 2016, 07:49:47 PM
Earlier this season, I was bemused by the countdown in Ichiro's combined hits total (Japan and ML) to Pete Rose's record.  Maybe we can solve Mr. Ypsi's home run quandary just by putting Oh at the top home run career list with 868.

The NCAA has a HR/game record and this might be the ticket for disparate seasons.

I could live with that! ;D  (Though I'm not entirely certain that Japanese baseball is above AAA.)

Like I said, I'm not asking MLB to change any records - too many variables involved to declare some things count and others don't.  But in MY mind, the career record is held by Hank Aaron and the single season record is shared by Babe Ruth (154 games) and Roger Maris (162 games).  (And as a Mickey Mantle fan, I'm still peeved about the batting order in 1961.  What pitcher in his right mind would risk walking Maris with Mantle up next?  Switch #3 and #4 in the batting order and I'd bet Mickey would have the (MY) single-season record! ;))

Bombers798891

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on October 06, 2016, 01:17:23 AM
But in MY mind...the single season record is shared by Babe Ruth (154 games) and Roger Maris (162 games). 

Not being argumentative, simple thought questions based on this statement:

1. Do you consider the all-time hits record to be split between Rose and Cobb*? Rose clearly picked up more than 68 hits during team games 155-162 over the course of his career. (I don't have time to look at each season, but one year, he picked up 12. So I feel confident in that statement)

2. If a modern-day player—say Jose Altuve—was hitting .406 after his team's 154th game, but finished the season at .398, would you consider him a .400 hitter in the same vein as Ted Williams?

3. Is the all-time postseason HR record a three way share between Mantle (18, WS only), Jackson (18, WS/ALCS, one year of ALDS) and Bernie Williams (22, ALDS/ALCS/WS his whole career)? (I know you are disqualifying Manny due to steroids)

4. If Altuve had a 53-game hitting streak after game 154, but extended it to 57 by game 158, is his hitting streak considered the new standard, or is it shared with DiMaggio's?

*To make this simple, let's not include Ichiro's combined totals

Mr. Ypsi

Quote from: Bombers798891 on October 06, 2016, 10:05:43 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on October 06, 2016, 01:17:23 AM
But in MY mind...the single season record is shared by Babe Ruth (154 games) and Roger Maris (162 games). 

Not being argumentative, simple thought questions based on this statement:

1. Do you consider the all-time hits record to be split between Rose and Cobb*? Rose clearly picked up more than 68 hits during team games 155-162 over the course of his career. (I don't have time to look at each season, but one year, he picked up 12. So I feel confident in that statement)

2. If a modern-day player—say Jose Altuve—was hitting .406 after his team's 154th game, but finished the season at .398, would you consider him a .400 hitter in the same vein as Ted Williams?

3. Is the all-time postseason HR record a three way share between Mantle (18, WS only), Jackson (18, WS/ALCS, one year of ALDS) and Bernie Williams (22, ALDS/ALCS/WS his whole career)? (I know you are disqualifying Manny due to steroids)

4. If Altuve had a 53-game hitting streak after game 154, but extended it to 57 by game 158, is his hitting streak considered the new standard, or is it shared with DiMaggio's?

*To make this simple, let's not include Ichiro's combined totals

1. A career is a career.  If Cobb wanted to keep the record forever, he should have postponed retirement! ;D

2.  I'd consider he had a helluva season.  If .400 is THAT important to him, fake an injury while he's still above the line! :P  (I admire tremendously that Williams was right at .400 going into a final day DH and his manager offered to sit him to protect the mark - Teddy Ballgame refused and raised his average to .406!)

3.  I have no interest in postseason overall records - they are mainly a product of how good the TEAMS you played on were.  I assume virtually all the records are held by Yankees from their dominant era.  I'd take Ernie Banks over nearly all of them, except he never got the chance.

4.  In my world the solution is simple: a games streak is a games streak, and the hell with winter.  If Altuve (or I'll substitute Miggy ;)) finishes a season with 33 consecutive games, then starts the next with 24 more, in my eyes he outdid Joe D.  I realize that is not how the MLB record book works, but it is how MY record book works! :D 

Bombers798891

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on October 06, 2016, 11:26:26 PM

1. A career is a career.  If Cobb wanted to keep the record forever, he should have postponed retirement! ;D


That's odd. Why are you only splitting up the single season HR record into 154/162 game records? Didn't Rose get the same advantage Maris did (extra games in the schedule), just more frequently?

I'm trying to understand your logic, but you don't seem to be applying it consistently at all.