If the 19th Century counted things may be different

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

It's ok to think that Vintage means pre-1980. However, I find it less ok that pre-1900 accomplishments are totally discounted as irrelavant.

In my estimation, baseball has continuously undergone changes, and the binding force which sets this sport apart from others is its 150+ years of documented history.

Authors, historians and others often treat the early dead ball era as if it did not exist. Nolan Ryan has struck out more batters than any man alive. But many dead men easily surpassed his total. Hornsby does not have the single season batting average record. Chesbro's 41 wins are noteworthy, but it only places him in the top 50 pitchers all time. The same can be said for ERA and other 19th century records.

If this early history was not typically deemphasised, those who think vintage = pre-1980 would have a broader understanding of this sport. I think that many baseball fans do not know much about pre-1950 baseball. And this lack of awareness has an impact on card prices (actually it keeps them affordable).

What do you think?

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Elkins

I think many fans are aware of caramel cards - too many!

[Archive]

Posted By: Bryan

It seems that every set that I am going for has triple in price lately due to the caramel craze that is going right now. I have had to stop some of my buying just because the prices are crazy for some of these caramel commons and HOFers. I wish I had shows to go to like some of you do. I rely solely on ebay for my purchases - as well as some forum members to keep my collection growing. I refuse to pay $50 for a beat up e95 common. My only wish is that collectors slow down or move to something else soon so I can complete my sets After all that who has some cracker jack HOFERs to give me After all today is my birthday and I can tell you know my wife won't be buying any cardboard for me.

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie

...the 19th century is hottest of the hot--among us, admittedly. but then, there's not too much to go around!

However, as far as performance is concerned, you're dead right. One thing that contributes to the ignoring of pre-1900 records and accomplihments is everyone's knowledge that some of the rules were different then, some of the time, and a lot of the conditions of play were different, all of the time. And now--and on the whole I think this is a good thing--we are told that a player is to be judged in comparison with his peers in time, so the altered records for base stealing, hits, pitching, etc. have MOSTLY reverted to the way they were before people originally tried to level the playing field. All of this makes the average persuer of records throw up his hands in despair and say "Forget about it! It;s not worth the hassle, comparing the imcomparable!"

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

Julie: not everyone is as demanding and selective as you are when choosing cards worthy of inclusion in your library. Personally, I am operating more of a recycled book store than a library. So for me these beaten up old treasures are somewhat affordable.

And I am not sure that I buy the rational that it is inaccurate (or is it unjust, foolhardy, or other) to compare players performance of different periods. If a pitcher wins two hundred games in a six year career can he not be compared to one who accomplishes the same feat one hundred years later eventhough he requires a fifteen year span to accomplish the 200 victories? Certainly some comparisons are invalid, but I do not believe that all comparisons are invalid.

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

I thought Ryan was far ahead of the pack...

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie

pitchers who pitched 100 or more years apart, who achieved the same record but took different lengths of time to do it, at the back of your mind there are always the nagging thoughts about the difference between a 60'6" distance and a 50' distance between mound and batter's box, and on the other hand a ball that often saw duty through the whole game, and did the old guy pitch before or after batters could ask for a high one or a low one, and how many strikes, how many balls did it take to get a man out or walk him? Did he have in the back of his mind the idea that he was expected to finish the game, or that a reliever was coming in after 5 innings? Was it already considered O.K. to wear a glove (and what kind of glove?), or was it "unmanly"? Did he play in that year where every on-base was a hit, or that year where every extra base taken was a steal? Did a grounds crew come out and manicure the field before, in the middle and after the game, or was the field in such a condition that once the ball hit the ground, it might bounce in any direction?

A really stand-out player, I think, would be a really stand-out player in any age, but how much so?

For some reason, I posted my very best 19th century card (condition-wise); I also have lesser-conditioned cards. Low grade 19th century cards cost a hell of a lot more than low grade 20th century cards.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Julie, you are correct, a great player would be a great player not matter what era he played in. I forget wher eI first read this, but to best explain this is to think of all the players in the game as being represented by a bell curve on a graph. All of the great players are on the outlier part of the right side of the curve.

In the 19th century, the curve would not be very high. As the game developed and players got better, both phyically and in the play of the game, the right outlier remains in the same place, but the median (middle of the curve) is continuously moving to the right and the curve gets higher and higher. This also means that difference between a great player today is less noticible than it was in the 19th century. It also means that a player that was around middle of the curve in the 19th century would have little or no chance of making a major league team today, but that the great players such as Ewing, Anson, etc would still be great today.



Wow upside down is Mom. Mom upside down is what dad wants to see.

[Archive]

Posted By: john/z28jd

Adam,i think he meant single season total of 383 for Ryan not career.7 different guys have more strikeouts in a season than Ryan including Matt Kilroy who has the all-time record with 513,Hugh 'one arm' Daily,Charles Buffinton and Old Hoss Radbourne who had around 440 in 1884

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie

but I have a hard time equating it with playing on a rough field as opposed to in a manacured park...surely you don't think that fielders averaged in the 800s instead of the 900s because they were less gifted or dedicated,--or even drunk? And short stops committed (even HOF SSs) the most INCREDIBLE number of errors!

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Julie, it's not about raw numbers, or even any number per se, the curve represents talent/ability.

Jay

Wow upside down is Mom. Mom upside down is what dad wants to see.

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie

of men who played over 100 years ago? They have a hard enough time with present day players.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Julie, it's not a hard and fast number. It's a graphical representation to make easier to understand why great players are great no matter what era they play in. There are no "real" numbers involved in this exercise.

Jay

Wow upside down is Mom. Mom upside down is what dad wants to see.

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie

I'm gonna SCREAM.

[Archive]

Posted By: tbob

Prices on caramel cards are shooting out of sight. I hope people aren't buying them thinking they are great investments at the prices they are going for on ebay. I just can't forsee a continuing spiral at this pace, but then again I have been wrong before

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

Yes Julie,

Many of those factors are not easily dismissed, nor adjusted for. In the cases of low fielding averages, 50' pitching distance, fair/foul hits, stolen bases due to taking extra bases, etc. I guess you just have to give yourself up to the force in order to accurately analyze those considerations.

However, if Tim Keefe was able to post an ERA below 1 in spite of those actualities, maybe that is more noteworthy than Gibsons mark in the late 60s. By this I mean: if a player sets a record that his peers do not approach, and it withstands the challenges of baseball's changes throughout its history, then a significant record is established IMO.

A couple of these records which have recently fallen are Sisler's 257 hits/season and Delahanty's 7 RBIs/inning. Both withstood the test of time. Walter Johnson's 3000Ks did too. For more than 50 years he was alone in the 3000K club. In the 70s Gibson joined him, in the 80s the floodgates opened. Now 3000 Ks are (not quite) trivial.

What is the point? Many of the records from the 1800s are noteworthy accomplishments which have been achieved independent of the era in which they were established. Of course, the naysayers will disagree with the validity of almost everything, just as the proponents will claim that essentially all records are valid and comparable to the present.

My favorite, right now, is Bill Joyce 4 triples/game 1897. Yeah - maybe it was windy that day, and the sun may have been in the outfielders eyes and the fans behind the ropes were distracting; but the official scorer recorded four triples for him that day.