Official 8th Baseball ATD Discussion thread

[ImporterExporter]

Before comparing era's i always go back to the tried and true method of how did player A stack up against his peers of whatever era they played in. Then you can start criss-crossing players from different decades. There are a lot of amazing advanced analytics for baseball and it is very interesting to dive into all of it to come to different conclusions. Sometimes you can only hypothesize what a player might have done had he not gotten hurt, or for example missed nearly 5 years due to multiple wars (Ted Williams).

Williams missed 5 PRIME years due to military service. There is little doubt in my mind that he would have pushed 700 HR's and easily cleared 3000 hits, among other major hitting marks, had he not missed all that time. But we can't truly give him those official marks. Had he played straight through, i think there would be a real debate on who was the greatest hitter of all time. Him vs Ruth.

 

[Porn*]

Ted Williams may be available for the right price... but a fair warning... it won't be cheap.

 

[Fish on The Sand]

Before comparing era's i always go back to the tried and true method of how did player A stack up against his peers of whatever era they played in. Then you can start criss-crossing players from different decades. There are a lot of amazing advanced analytics for baseball and it is very interesting to dive into all of it to come to different conclusions. Sometimes you can only hypothesize what a player might have done had he not gotten hurt, or for example missed nearly 5 years due to multiple wars (Ted Williams).

Williams missed 5 PRIME years due to military service. There is little doubt in my mind that he would have pushed 700 HR's and easily cleared 3000 hits, among other major hitting marks, had he not missed all that time. But we can't truly give him those official marks. Had he played straight through, i think there would be a real debate on who was the greatest hitter of all time. Him vs Ruth.

I think its highly unlikely that Williams reaches 700 home runs if he played those seasons. He would have had to averaged 36 homers per season missed, a number he only ever exceeded three times in his career after serving, however only once by a significant margin.

 

[Fish on The Sand]

The Brooklyn Bridegrooms select SP Lefty Grove

I realize this is a slight reach for Lefty, but need to ensure I grab an ace while I can. So, like last draft, I've decided to draft arguably the greatest LHP in the history of baseball.

300-141
3.06 ERA (148 ERA+)
2,266 Ks
8 20-win seasons
9 ERA titles
1931 MVP

Lefty had a great career but his peak performance was even more ridiculous. Between 1928 and 1933 he went 152-41 with a 2.67 ERA (167 ERA+).

Also really good in World Series appearances going 4-2 with a 1.75 ERA over 51.1 IP.

I actually disagree with you on this being a reach. Bill James has made a strong argument for him being the better than Johnson. It really comes down to whether you value longevity over peak performance.

 

[Porn*]

I think its highly unlikely that Williams reaches 700 home runs if he played those seasons. He would have had to averaged 36 homers per season missed, a number he only ever exceeded three times in his career after serving, however only once by a significant margin.

after serving is the key... had he not served there would have been no reason to doubt him. war is a hell of a thing. messes people up. not to mention that he would have been 4 years older by then...

 

[ImporterExporter]

I think its highly unlikely that Williams reaches 700 home runs if he played those seasons. He would have had to averaged 36 homers per season missed, a number he only ever exceeded three times in his career after serving, however only once by a significant margin.

Look at 1942 and 1946. He hit 36 and 38 home runs those two seasons. The 3 in between was spent serving in the military during WWII. I don't think it's unrealistic to peg him down for 35 a year for those 3 seasons. We're talking ages 24 to 26. Those are PRIME seasons. That bumps his total up 105, which would be 626.

In 1951 he hit 30 and in 54 he hit 29, although that was in just 117 games. He would have been well over 30 and probably around 40 that season had he played a full slate. He hit 38 in 1957 as a 38 year old. The season that really sticks out was 1953 (missed most of that being overseas again). He had a ridiculous 13 HR's in just 91 at bats. That's a HR every 7 AB's, which over the course of a 500 AB season would be 71. Now again, this is all based on hypothesis but if you give him his 3 seasons that he missed during WWII and then the 2 he essentially missed during Korea at 35x3 and 30x2 you come out to 686 total HR's. I'd say you could add another 600-700 hits which would put him over the 3200 mark and possibly more. And around another 600 RBI's which would push him to 2400+.

Just ballparking it based on his averages in years before and after the time he missed but yeah Williams would have had superior numbers in many categories to Ruth.

Now you could also add some numbers to the Babe if you had him playing the field his entire career. So you'd have to consider that as well if using hypotheticals.

 

[Elvis P]

I think its highly unlikely that Williams reaches 700 home runs if he played those seasons. He would have had to averaged 36 homers per season missed, a number he only ever exceeded three times in his career after serving, however only once by a significant margin.

Agreed. Williams only hit more than 30 once after 1949. Arguing that he could hit 36 in 52 and 53 is just silly.

 

[Elvis P]

I actually disagree with you on this being a reach. Bill James has made a strong argument for him being the better than Johnson. It really comes down to whether you value longevity over peak performance.

Bill James and a guy using his methods disagree with you.

When Bill James ranked pitchers a decade ago in his "New Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract," he had Walter Johnson at the top of his list,

http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/31469/hall-of-100-best-pitcher-of-all-time

Thinking that way, I think I would forget about the eras and positions and do what the founders of the HOF did -- draft the best available player: Babe Ruth and Walter Johnson.

http://www.billjamesonline.com/the_five/

Game Score is a metric devised by Bill James to determine the strength of a pitcher in any particular baseball game. ... Walter Johnson had the most 100-point game scores with four apiece. Johnson had two in 1918, one in 1919, and a fourth in 1926;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_score

I’ve spent the last three weeks listing and discussing the best major league everyday players since 1900 using a special version of Bill James’ Win Shares called Win Shares Above Bench. ... As before, I will rely heavily upon Fangraphs and Baseball Reference for little factoids about each player. I’ll also be referring to some basic pitching stats, such as strikeouts, walks, ERA and something called Batting Average on Ball in Play (the proportion of batted balls that fall in for hits, not including home runs).

The Top Ten

1. Walter Johnson (387 WSAB/560 WS): In this year’s Hardball Times Annual, David Gassko ranked the all-time best pitchers using something called Pitching Wins Above Replacement. David’s system is similar to Win Shares Above Bench, but it differs in one significant way: it adjusts for the increasing level of competition over time. It gives current pitchers credit for succeeding in a tougher environment (better training, medical support and a larger pool of talent to draw upon).

As far as I know, that is the only legitimate way you can develop a system that doesn’t place the Big Train first among the post-1900 pitchers (Johnson is second in PWAR). Pitching from 1907 through 1927, he was among the top three league leaders in strikeouts fifteen times, ERA twelve times and shutouts eleven times. He placed in the top 10 youngest players twice at the beginning of his career, and the top 10 oldest players four times at the end of his career. I won’t bother quoting all the superlatives associated with the man; he was simply awesome, dude.

http://www.hardballtimes.com/the-all-time-best-pitchers/

 

[JaysCyYoung]

My favourite Walter Johnson statistic may be that in the 1916 season he pitched 369.2 innings and didn't give up a single home run. He may have pitched the vast majority of his career (at least two-thirds) in the Dead Ball Era, but that statistic is simply other-worldly at face value. It's beyond comprehension.

He was also recognized as a quality hitter, recording 547 career hits and 24 career home runs. In the 1925 season, at 37 years old, Johnson hit a ludicrous .433 as a pitcher, with 42 hits in 97 at bats and 107 plate appearances.

 

[Fish on The Sand]

after serving is the key... had he not served there would have been no reason to doubt him. war is a hell of a thing. messes people up. not to mention that he would have been 4 years older by then...

I don't think you can use the argument that the mental affects of war hurt is stats. The statistical record showed he picked up where he left off. You could however argue that serving in the military, possibly with cushy assignments, may have prolonged his career. In this case though you are essentially saying that had he not missed those 5 seasons Williams would have had 5 of his 6 best home run seasons to reach 700. That seems unrealistic to me.

 

[Fish on The Sand]

Bill James and a guy using his methods disagree with you. http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/31469/hall-of-100-best-pitcher-of-all-time

http://www.billjamesonline.com/the_five/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_score

http://www.hardballtimes.com/the-all-time-best-pitchers/

I have the book where James made the rankings. While he did have Johnson ranked forst, he showed that a strong case could be made for Grove, which is what I was saying. Not that James himself had Grove 1st. Sorry if I wasn't more clear.

 

[le_sean]

My favourite Walter Johnson statistic may be that in the 1916 season he pitched 369.2 innings and didn't give up a single home run. He may have pitched the vast majority of his career (at least two-thirds) in the Dead Ball Era, but that statistic is simply other-worldly at face value. It's beyond comprehension.

He was also recognized as a quality hitter, recording 547 career hits and 24 career home runs. In the 1925 season, at 37 years old, Johnson hit a ludicrous .433 as a pitcher, with 42 hits in 97 at bats and 107 plate appearances.

Babe Ruth pitched 323.2 innings in that same season and didn't give up a HR either. That was at the age of 21. Now that shows you just how good of an athlete the Babe was.

Also, of the 38 games Johnson started in 1916, he completed 36 of them.

 

[Winger for Hire]

I, personally, give Teddy Ballgame extra points for being John Glenn's wing-man in Korea

 

[Pwnasaurus]

I have the Top 4 that just went as my personal Top 4 as well (though I have Johnson #2 and Mays #3 but it's close as Jays mentioned). I used to have another player #4 and Williams 5 but recently I flip flopped them after a lot of study.

 

[Fish on The Sand]

I have Bonds ahead of Mays myself. Bonds literally did everything better than Mays. Better power, better base running, better patience, better at getting on base etc. The only advantage I can really think of is that he played CF instead of LF, however I can't put that much emphasis on positional value when we are talking about two outfielders. Its not like Mays played shortstop or something to make positional value a trump card.

 

[JaysCyYoung]

I, personally, give Teddy Ballgame extra points for being John Glenn's wing-man in Korea

Ted Williams is officially in the Holy Triumvirate of Manliness with Frank Sinatra and Ernest Hemingway.

 

[JaysCyYoung]

I have Bonds ahead of Mays myself. Bonds literally did everything better than Mays. Better power, better base running, better patience, better at getting on base etc. The only advantage I can really think of is that he played CF instead of LF, however I can't put that much emphasis on positional value when we are talking about two outfielders. Its not like Mays played shortstop or something to make positional value a trump card.

Bonds would rank higher on most lists were it not for the steroid element (which WILL scare voters off in our format and should not be ignored) and if he played a position of greater defensive value. The career WAR difference between the two is negligible.

Had Bonds done everything cleanly, he'd have a compelling argument to rank ahead of Ruth. I dispute that he had greater unassisted power than Mays though. Willie hit 52 homers playing half of his home games in the same ballpark as Bonds would during the first half of his Giants career, in a period where home runs were more difficult to come by, while Bonds hit a non-steroid peak of 46 in 1993 at Candlestick.

 

[Fish on The Sand]

Bonds would rank higher on most lists were it not for the steroid element (which WILL scare voters off in our format and should not be ignored) and if he played a position of greater defensive value. The career WAR difference between the two is negligible.

Had Bonds done everything cleanly, he'd have a compelling argument to rank ahead of Ruth. I dispute that he had greater unassisted power than Mays though. Willie hit 52 homers playing half of his home games in the same ballpark as Bonds would during the first half of his Giants career, in a period where home runs were more difficult to come by, while Bonds hit a non-steroid peak of 46 in 1993 at Candlestick.

I've always been a huge backer of Bonds but I haven't been able to put him ahead of Ruth, or even Williams for that matter.

 

[Tecumseh]

I don't see how there's any way Bonds (or anybody for that matter) could ever top Babe Ruth. The things he accomplished were inconceivable before he entered the league. If you want to take about an era where it was more difficult to hit home runs, the previous home run king before Ruth was Roger Connor with 138. Leads in slugging %, OPS, and OPS+ too. You, of course, have to factor in the fact that Ruth had nearly 1,500 less at bats than Bonds.

 

[Fish on The Sand]

I don't see how there's any way Bonds (or anybody for that matter) could ever top Babe Ruth. The things he accomplished were inconceivable before he entered the league. If you want to take about an era where it was more difficult to hit home runs, the previous home run king before Ruth was Roger Connor with 138. Leads in slugging %, OPS, and OPS+ too. You, of course, have to factor in the fact that Ruth had nearly 1,500 less at bats than Bonds.

For me being the first to excel at something doesn't mean much. It just means he had the advantage of coming sooner. What puts Ruth up there for me over Bonds is the raw statistical data. His stats relative to the league will always be skewed by the era he played in, however his raw stats like OBP, Slugging, etc. are still absolutely monstrous. He has the best slugging % of all time and the 2nd best OBP of all time. That's what makes him the best to me. Not that the previous top players of their time weren't very good.

 

[ImporterExporter]

I look at everything Bonds did prior to around 99-2000 as his norms.

And if you do that he's still an easy, easy 1st ballot HOF player. He didn't need all the extra crap and the massively inflated numbers that defy everything we know about the human body, aging, somehow managing to dominate at unseen levels as a guy in his late 30's...http://espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2368395

Within the Giants' clubhouse, Bonds' transformation was met with skepticism. His face was bloated. His forehead and jaw were substantially larger. "And the zits," says Jay Canizaro, who played 55 games as a Giants infielder in 1996 and '99. "Hell, he took off his shirt the first day and his back just looked like a mountain of acne. Anybody who had any kind of intelligence or street smarts about them knew Barry was using some serious stuff."

And in Bonds' case, it seemed to be working. According to the Society for American Baseball Research, the peak age for players with at least 200 career home runs is 27. After 30, a noticeable decline begins. At 35, the decline becomes a steep hill. But here was Bonds, at 35, hitting the ball harder and farther than ever. He started the 1999 season on a tear, leading the Giants with an April average of .366. "One of the things I noticed was how fast he was able to put the bat on the ball," says pitcher Russ Ortiz. "He could recognize the pitch well before he had to swing, and then he would get around so fast, so hard." Equally amazing was Bonds' indifference to fatigue. He could lift weights, play, lift more weights, then arrive early the next morning to pump more iron.

The evidence is so overwhelming for various reasons, I can't understand how anyone, no matter how big a homer you are, can say with a straight face that we should give Bonds the benefit of the doubt...

 

[Tecumseh]

For me being the first to excel at something doesn't mean much. It just means he had the advantage of coming sooner. What puts Ruth up there for me over Bonds is the raw statistical data. His stats relative to the league will always be skewed by the era he played in, however his raw stats like OBP, Slugging, etc. are still absolutely monstrous. He has the best slugging % of all time and the 2nd best OBP of all time. That's what makes him the best to me. Not that the previous top players of their time weren't very good.

My point in bringing up Ruth shattering all those records was in response to another poster saying that Mays was playing at a difficult time to hit home runs. Not only are his numbers remarkable but knowing that he spent 25% of his career as a pitcher (and a damn good one at that), imagining how much greater his numbers would be if he spent his whole career as an outfielder. I'd put money on at least 900 homeruns.

If I'm going to be clear I don't ignore or give Bonds a pass for steroid use. I think it enhanced his abilities and inflated his numbers but not so much that an all time great like him is reduced to an overthought because of steroid use. I'm betting he's still one of the greats even without steroids. The ones I hold it most against are players like Rafael Palmeiro. Players who were already borderline HOFers in my eyes and especially those who lie through their teeth in front of Congress and are dumb enough to get caught redhanded.

 

[le_sean]

I have Bonds ahead of Mays myself. Bonds literally did everything better than Mays. Better power, better base running, better patience, better at getting on base etc. The only advantage I can really think of is that he played CF instead of LF, however I can't put that much emphasis on positional value when we are talking about two outfielders. Its not like Mays played shortstop or something to make positional value a trump card.

Bonds was on another level for getting on base, not that Mays was ever a slouch.

I guess the argument can be made that once Bonds turned into the beast from 1999 onwards, he was a poor defender.

 

[DisgruntledHawkFan]

But it doesn't matter when at the age of 39 you hit .360 with 45 jacks and an OBP of .609.

Bonds is the third best hitter of all time. Guy was absolutely unreal.

 

[ImporterExporter]

But it doesn't matter when at the age of 39 you hit .360 with 45 jacks and an OBP of .609.

Bonds is the third best hitter of all time. Guy was absolutely unreal.

Those aren't real numbers. Nobody can take those stats seriously, i would hope.