 |
|
||||||
 |
|
|||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
||||||
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1
11-17-2021, 01:40 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
|
#2
11-17-2021, 01:56 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
This is a fascinating subject. I really enjoy analyzing baseball history and player performance.
There seem to be a few disconnects in this debate. One disconnect is how much weight to place on counting stats. Pro-Spahn posters in this thread rely on longevity and counting stats with what appears to be a decent peak, with a pretty good ERA+ across his peak years etc. Anti-Spahn posters believe he was a pretty average pitcher in regard to “stuff” since his K/9 doesn’t blow your hair back and wins are team dependent. He pitched a lot of innings and a lot of years, but innings eaters can’t get to GOAT status if they don’t provide elite innings. Essentially that Spahn’s peak is not enough to be the best lefty ever, even with all the counting stats. Koufax’s stats are obviously much different. One very good year, 5 off the charts years, some mediocre years, early retirement and nowhere near the overall counting stats of Spahn. Anti-Koufax posters essentially dismiss him outright because his lack of counting stats eliminate him from lefty GOAT status. He essentially didn’t pitch long enough to even be in the conversation. I tend to agree that the weaknesses of both Spahn and Koufax as described above eliminate them from lefty GOAT status. Both clearly were great pitchers though. Another disconnect here is how to compare players by era. Snowman appears to be arguing that Grove’s pitching competition was weak and therefore his stats should be discounted a great deal. The ERA titles, ERA+ etc is tainted by weak pitching competition. Essentially that Grove was much better than his pitching peers, but since his pitching peers were very bad, him being much better than them should not be as impressive as the stats appear. I have always wondered about this, but I have no way of figuring out how to crunch the numbers to argue one way or the other. The 1920s / early 1930s batting averages went nuts. Hitters went crazy. How much of this was a result of bad pitching during those years? Anyway, Snowman, I am curious how stats can help us figure out which time periods were strong and which time periods are weak. It has always been something of a mystery to me. On a similar note, WAR is a bit misleading to me since it seems to value relative to replacement where replacement level is determined differently every year. The value of a replacement level player could be very different in a time period where quality of play overall is very high as compared to a time period where quality of play was lower. But how in the world can we figure out relative quality of play?
|
|
#3
11-17-2021, 05:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
To get to your question, any argument to be made that Koufax's peers were better than Grove's also means that Randy Johnson's were better than Koufax's. Johnson's were indeed better than Koufax's, as were Koufax's better than Grove's. The measurable's such as running speed, throwing speed, height, strength, bat speed, all show that players have gotten continually better generation after generation. This is fact. I can show more charts in another post. It is not a matter of evolution, although selective breeding is a factor. Most of it is a result from the sheer number of population growth and the addition of more parts of the world to draw players from. Realize that we are on the cusp of having 8 billion people in the world right now to draw from, compared to 2001 where there were 6.2 billion, to 1965 where there were only 3.8 billion people in the world to draw from...and in 1935 appx 2.3 billion. In reality, Grove and Koufax's population in the US and world wide viability of players to choose from, were closer in comparison. Wheras Johnson had it tougher, and anyone after Johnson even tougher. People from yesteryear don't like to hear that. I'm from yesteryear, but the reality is the reality. When you add the selective breeding of people who have found mates with the purpose of creating athletic off spring to make millions, and the advances in sports science to train them at a young age to maximize their MPH(with command) and their bat speed, that creates a vast difference between generations above and beyond what the logic of more people to draw from creates. Of course Grove's generation actually excluded minorities from the US, making his peers even more worse than Koufax's. However, in 1965 the league was still 78% white. In 2001 it was only 60% white so it is clear that the pool of players reached further out in 2001 than in even 1965. 1965 was still more homogonized than 2001. That is X many more people in the world who can throw 95 MPH(with control) for Johnson and modern players to compete against, X many more people who can hit 430 foot home runs, X many more people who can throw a cannon from the hole at SS, etc... There is more of that to expound upon and I will in a week, but Johnson does not even need that aspect to best Koufax. It really isn't that close, and I address some of the common things the Koufax camp says(and have addressed them earlier in the thread). Best ERA+ seasons: Johnson....Koufax.....Grove 197........190............217 195........186............189 193........160............185 188........159............185 184........143............175 181........122............165 176........105............160 152........101............160 135.........93 135.........Not good enough to pitch enough innings to qualify 118.........Not good enough to pitch enough innings to qualify 112.........Not good enough to pitch enough innings to qualify Johnson had unrivaled physical tools. No pitcher in MLB history can match his physical tools. He was six foot eleven and threw over 100 MPH with a ridiculous slider....WITH COMMAND(after a few year learning curve). Some pitchers had one or two of those tools, but nobody had ALL of those tools like he did. Let me explain why the physical tools are of such importance. Why would you take another pitcher over Johnson if the other pitcher was ten inches shorter, threw three miles an hour slower, had lesser command, and similar or less breaking pitches? The only other factor would be mental make up. Do they have the ability to handle being a professional player? Johnson obviously answered that question. Do they have the mental ability to thrive for a long time? Johnson answered that question YES. Environments a player plays in severely muddles or hides statistical measurements, but the tools are concrete. The tools are a known. A lot of the statistical measurements are unknowns because environment muddles them. An environment can give false perceptions of ones true ability. Six foot eleven cannot be muddled. 100 MPH cannot be muddled. Nasty slider cannot be muddled. Command cannot be muddled. The only other obstacle is mental make up and thrive to succeed. He obviously passed that only unknown hurdle. So when you are weighing all this, the physical tools play a vital role in solving the dilemma of cross era comparison. Johnson had the results to back it up. Johnson was umpire proof. He didn't need the inches off the plate like Maddux and Glavine often did to excel to the levels they did. He was era proof. He didn't need lineups in the league where numbers six through nine were zero threats and hit basically zero power...like which occurred in other eras where scoring was depressed, or era's like the 30's where only the elite few were legit power threats. In fact, he pitched in probably the toughest era to be a pitcher, with the live ball, DH, and steroids. Any pitcher that can handle the toughest environment to pitch in, surely would have no problem in the eras where it was pitcher friendly. He didn't need a dead ball to excel or last a long time. Johnson was stadium proof. He didn't need to rely on a certain stadium to make him dominant. Make no doubt, DOdger stadium helped Koufax tremendously. Johnson had peak dominance and longevity dominance. He was the guy that if you lined all these historic pitchers up at a local baseball field standing shoulder to shoulder, then watched him unleash what he had, he would be the guy every single coach would pick. Coaches would be drooling. If you want to play the "what if" game people do with Koufax, realize that JOhnson missed two plus seasons worth of starts in his prime too. What if johnson didn't get hurt? What if Clemens was not taking steroids and then the second place finisher(randy johnson) adds TWO MORE Cy Youngs? My favorite what if? What if Johnson got to pitch off an eight inch higher mound, and had strikes called at the chest?? What if Koufax pitched in Coors Field half his career games...then there wouldn't even be this thread because Koufax's numbers would look much different, even though his ability would not be any different 
__________________
http://originaloldnewspapers.com
|
|
#4
11-17-2021, 05:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I do think this chart, which I believe has been posted a few times now, is extremely misleading, at best. It just stops tabulating for Grove half way down Grove pitched more than 8 full seasons that are included here, he won 9 ERA crowns alone plus other full seasons. It's just factually wrong and really should stop being used. I think any reasonable person here should agree. I'm open to being the fool if there is any good reason this chart, which ignores much of Grove's career and implies he played 8 seasons, is somehow valid.
|
|
#5
11-17-2021, 07:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
The chart was more in relation to Koufax....Grove was just added for peak comparison....hence not all filled in for Grove and so I could have room to emphasize that Koufax was not contributing anything while Johnson was(while Grove was too). No question Grove had a better career than Koufax. There is no sensible argument that puts Koufax ahead of either Grove or Johnson. They both had Koufax's peak and they added a couple more four year peaks on top of that. It really does come down to Grove and Johnson, but when you take into account the population factor of available VIABLE humans to compete against, and the fact that Grove's era actually went out of its way to eliminate a segment of the population to compete....and when you consider that Johnson had superior physical attributes that are the only known 100% measureables, then Johnson walks away as number one. Johnson had tougher peers to outdistance.
__________________
http://originaloldnewspapers.com Last edited by HistoricNewspapers; 11-17-2021 at 07:18 PM.
|
|
#6
11-17-2021, 06:08 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
If you lined up all the pitchers in the game in 1960, the guy who all the coaches and scouts would be drooling over, concerning raw ability and potential, wouldn't be Koufax, Drysdale, Spahn, Gibson, Pierce, Ford, Pascual, or any of those guys. It would've been a fellow named Steve Dalkowski.
|
|
#7
11-17-2021, 06:36 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
Net 54-- the discussion board where people resent discussions.  My avatar is a sketch by my son who is an art school graduate. Some of his sketches and paintings are at https://www.jamesspaethartwork.com/ Last edited by Peter_Spaeth; 11-17-2021 at 06:37 PM.
|
|
#8
11-17-2021, 06:45 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Since some want to discount or dismiss win-loss stats, is ERA to be considered the best gauge? Johnson, against his peers, led his league in that stat exactly 4 times in his 22 year career. Grove led his league in ERA 9 times in his 17 year career.
|
|
#9
11-17-2021, 06:45 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
Net 54-- the discussion board where people resent discussions. My avatar is a sketch by my son who is an art school graduate. Some of his sketches and paintings are at https://www.jamesspaethartwork.com/ Last edited by Peter_Spaeth; 11-17-2021 at 06:46 PM.
|
|
#10
11-17-2021, 06:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#11
11-17-2021, 07:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Just go pick your favorite pitching seasons by your 10 random favorite pitchers. Then scroll down to the advanced stats section and look at the corresponding BABIPs for those seasons. I guarantee you those BABIPs will all be super low. In other words, those were the seasons they got the luckiest, not necessarily the seasons where they had the best stuff.
|
|
#12
11-17-2021, 07:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#13
11-17-2021, 06:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
This has been a truly enjoyable thread, even if I’m out of my depth with much of the analysis.
Can’t help but wonder how the narrative would’ve unfolded with just the slightest tweak to the title: Despite the iron clad arguments for Robert Moses, Warren Edward, and Randall David, none…and I mean none carried the mystique and the aura of Sanford. Metrics cannot adequately quantify that. Also, his peak fell during a perfect storm of West Coast expansion, the end of the Golden Era, and the ushering in of the pitching era. It was the right time and the right place for a guy like Koufax to dominate the scene like he did. There were so many great pitchers during his time, but Koufax’s artistry was unmatched…even if his stats don’t support it.
|
|
#14
11-17-2021, 06:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best: Grove
Best if everyone was randomly dropped in 2021 at their peak with no preparation and the advantages of modernity only given to the development of modern pitchers: Johnson Most revered and worshipped: Koufax Most interesting story: Dalkowski
|
|
#15
11-17-2021, 06:16 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Johnson gets no hobby love. His RCs in the same sets sell for a fraction of Griffey's.
__________________
Net 54-- the discussion board where people resent discussions. My avatar is a sketch by my son who is an art school graduate. Some of his sketches and paintings are at https://www.jamesspaethartwork.com/
|
|
#16
11-17-2021, 06:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
To be fair, pitcher-hitter hobby disparity aside, Johnson was a late blooming 25 year old still trying to find himself in ‘89…and was a solid 4 years away from resembling anything like the Big Unit. Meanwhile, Griffey hit the ground running as a teenager the same year and never looked back. Both eventually became titans at their position, but the hobby loves the long ball. That much cannot be argued.
|
|
#17
11-17-2021, 06:41 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#18
11-17-2021, 09:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Great points and interesting thought by slightly changing the question like that. Problem I can see in answering it though is that it gives an unfair bias/advantage to modern pitchers, like a Koufax, who we may have grown up with, or maybe our Father did and told us how great he was. We can read and learn about earlier players, but I fear for the vast majority of people, they're much more likely to throw their reverence towards a player they'd actually seen and grew up watching. Just basic human nature. And you can't really base a question like this on just people here on this forum. Let's face it, we're mostly a bunch of pre-war baseball card collecting nerds, and an extreme outlier when talking about the public in general. LOL Last edited by BobC; 11-19-2021 at 03:58 PM.
|
|
#19
11-18-2021, 04:18 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
But there are only a handful of players whose reverence endures across generations…even if the vast majority of us never saw them play (or if we did, only a small percentage have a vivid and meaningful recollection). Seeing Roberto patrol RF at Forbes Field in ‘66 as a 5 year old does not really count, as cool as that may be. IMO, the list is a short one: Babe Lou Jackie Roberto Willie Mickey Hank Sandy Not a slight to any of the other bonafide legends, but these 8 have a staying power in our consciousness and imagination like no others. Then again, sentimentality has no place in this thread…even if we are all just fan(atics) at heart!
|
|
#20
11-18-2021, 07:14 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Last edited by BobC; 11-18-2021 at 09:52 AM.
|
|
#21
11-17-2021, 07:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
And while I say that I don't "know" who was best (because I haven't run the calculations necessary), gun to my head I'm picking Randy Johnson as well.
|
|
#22
11-18-2021, 10:51 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#23
11-18-2021, 11:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#24
11-19-2021, 05:20 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
Thanks all Jeff Kuhr https://www.flickr.com/photos/144250058@N05/ Looking for 1920 Heading Home Ruth Cards 1920s Advertising Card Babe Ruth/Carl Mays All Stars Throwing Pose 1917-20 Felix Mendelssohn Babe Ruth 1921 Frederick Foto Ruth Rare early Ruth Cards and Postcards Rare early Joe Jackson Cards and Postcards 1910 Old Mills Joe Jackson 1914 Boston Garter Joe Jackson 1911 Pinkerton Joe Jackson
|
|
#25
11-19-2021, 10:29 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#26
11-19-2021, 11:37 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
Net 54-- the discussion board where people resent discussions. My avatar is a sketch by my son who is an art school graduate. Some of his sketches and paintings are at https://www.jamesspaethartwork.com/
|
|
#27
11-19-2021, 12:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
The Mariners have never made it to the World Series. I'm not talking about winning it, I'm just talking about making it there. They are the only team in the entire MLB to have never made it. They haven't even made the Playoffs one single time in the last 20 years. And in their entire 44 year history, they've made it 4 times. Yep, that's right, they failed to make the playoffs 40 times out of their 44 seasons. All this despite having one of the greatest center fielders of all time, THE greatest shortstop of all time (and please don't come back at me with some nonsense about Honus Wagner being better), and arguably the greatest pitcher of all time in Randy Johnson ALL ON THE SAME TEAM AT THE SAME TIME. Meanwhile, the Knicks have made it to the NBA finals 8 times, winning it twice. They've also made the playoffs 43 times! Granted, they've been around for 75 years, but even if you cut their numbers in half, hell, cut them in a fourth, they're still miles better of a franchise than the Mariners. When I said the Mariners were the worst franchise in sports, I meant that literally. You cannot find a worse performing team than the M's in any major sport in the United States. I'm sure there's some international soccer team somewhere from some island without potable water that miiiiight have a worse record than the Mariners, so I don't know if I can say with confidence that they are the worst team on the planet in any sport ever, but they're the worst team in any sport I'm aware of, and they're definitely the worst team in any major US sport and it's really not even close. Last edited by Snowman; 11-19-2021 at 12:28 PM.
|
|
#28
11-19-2021, 03:49 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#29
11-19-2021, 04:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#30
11-19-2021, 05:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
And besides, Johnson did sign a contract to play, and got a lot of money for doing so. If he didn't like it, still honor the contract and leave when the contract is over, if they won't otherwise trade you, right? No one put a gun to his head to originally sign, did they? And I'm guessing he didn't decline to accept, or pay back, what he got paid for any thrown games either.
|
|
#31
11-19-2021, 06:24 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#32
11-19-2021, 07:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
And along those lines, can't remember if it was Dimaggio, Mantle, or some other player who said (and I'm paraphrasing here), that they always went out and played every game as hard/well as they could, even if they were hurting or slightly injured, because they knew some kid/person had paid for their ticket to come and watch him play that day. And that's the kind of person/player you put into a conversation of greatest of all time. It's that intangible human factor that statistics can't measure.
|
|
#33
11-19-2021, 07:27 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
Signed 1953 Topps set: 264/274 (96.35 %)
|
|
#34
11-19-2021, 01:48 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Statistics often ignore the human element, like this would be. How would one ever even measure and quantify something like this from a statistical standpoint to reflect the obvious negative impact such an action by a player would bring to his perception by the public at large? Actually, I take that back. Now that I think about it, I can see some statistician quantify such actions. Upon hearing some player purposely threw some gains by performing poorly on purpose, I can see a statistician go back and remove the player's performance results from those thrown games from his overall stats, because those thrown games are not a true reflection of the players actual ability, and therefore taint his statistical database. But doing that actually helps make the player statistically better and more likely to be considered the "greatest", and not less likely as I would expect to be the case in the eyes of a majority of the public upon learning what the player had done. And if such ever did occur, it would just reflect another disconnect between the real and statistical worlds.
|
|
#35
11-19-2021, 02:24 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
One of the measures mentioned in this thread is "If you had one game to win, like a Game 7, who do you want?" I have often thought that the single guy I DO NOT want on my team, for a big game, would be Chase. I wouldn't want him within 20 miles of the ballpark. The bigger the game, the more lucrative it might be for Chase to throw. So, there are some who call Chase the best first baseman of his day, while I'll call him the worst with Gandil not far behind.
|
|
#36
11-19-2021, 06:03 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#37
11-19-2021, 05:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
That's an absolutely great observation, agree. And by mentioning how some people may choose to define "greatest" by whom they would pick for a single WS game, versus how they performed during their peak playing years, or alternatively over their entire career, it underscores the need for all participants in such a discussion to first come to a consensus agreement as to exactly what "greatest" means. Secondly, then deciding on what they would agree upon as the appropriate measures to make their determination. And only after all that, then would you start looking at individual player's stats and data. And if the definition was to be defined by who you would pick to start game7 of the WS, since we're only talking about a pitcher's single best game, and not their performance over a season or their career, do you think an argument could/should be made for Don Larsen? He cleary had the greatest single game pitching performance of any WS pitcher in MLB history.
|
|
#38
11-17-2021, 05:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Some very insightful points, and all make logical sense. Statistics can only tell a part of the story, and at best, can utilize hard, factual numbers to help determine probabilities. They completely ignore the human factor though, along with a myriad of other unkown factors and circumstances that can be occuring at any point in a game, and then change in the blink of an eye. For example, I wonder how the statisticians did, and have since, handled the statistical records for pitchers that came up against the Astros a few years ago. Is it fair to record data from such games and use that to compare those pitchers to those that never faced the Astros? And how would statisticians possibly adjust their data, should they even decide to, so as to be fair to all parties concerned? And that is just one of an infinite number of factors that statistics maybe can't always explain, measure, or even record properly. The biggest problem in merely relying upon statistics to try to measure and compare things to me is the context, which I feel that despite what some statisticians will try to tell you, they do not have accurate, consistent,and reliable ways to really measure and account for all the differences that can occur. As another example, take the person that argues a good comparison can be achieved by magically transporting say Randy Johnson from his peak years as a pitcher, and suddenly dropping him back into the time that Lefty Grove pitched. That person may automatically declare that based on statistical data, the players back in Grove's day were weaker batters and nowhere near as good as the batters Johnson faced, so he's certain Johnson would blow everyone from back then away (at least almost everyone). But that kind of argument is so out of context as to be laughable. I've said before that that would be akin to taking an Indy car driver, and his car from today, and dropping them into an Indy race back in 20s or 30s, against cars and drivers from back then. To make such an excercise not be so completely out of context, wouldn't it make much more sense to have Randy Johnson be born the same year as Grove, so he could grow up and learn to pitch under at least more similar circumstances and with more comparable context? That way you could really have a more meaningful and honest comparison between them as pitchers. And to make it possibly even more fair and measurable, you'd then want to also have Grove born the same year as Johnson to then see how those two would have fared and measured up in Johnson's day. Though by all means not a perfect, or even possible, this exercise would likely be a much better and more comparably contextual way to compare two pitchers. And in trying to name an all tlme great, I'd suggest having everyone on the list for that title being magically born, grow up, and then play in the same era/time as everyone else on the list. That way you could better compare how each player fared, when they played under at least much more similar context and conditions, in all the different times/eras that everyone else on the list played in. My guess is that if you then looked at each different time/era like a separate season, you could use everyone's statistics from just that time/era to hopefully agree on a clear winner. And then to determine the all time greatest, you see who ended winning the most times/eras measured. Will never happen though, but makes so much more sense than just plain statistics. And another point in regards to statisticians and statistics. If the claim is made that the basis for even starting and coming up with sabermetrics and statistical analysis to begin with was for gambling purposes, I can't argue and don't disagree with that logic and thinking at all. In fact, it makes perfect sense as something humans would do to take advantage and make money off others. However, statisticians may forget to take into consideration the origins of the statistics they espouse and then attempt to apply them to situations for which they were never originally intended. For if statistics truly were created to assist people with their gambling, that generally entails one team or athlete competing against another team or athlete(s) TODAY! Not one team or athlete competing against another team or athlete(s) from an entirely different time or era. So if as claimed, statistics were created for gambling purposes, the context they were originally created under was for comparison of ONLY current teams and players going against each other. Now the fact that statisticians may have found success with current statistical comparisons for their gambling purposes is fine, and I don't argue their applicability at all. But I'm afraid some narrow-minded, narcissistic, and vain glorious statisticians may have felt that since their (or their statistical colleague's) statistics can, and have, accurately functioned to pick gambling winners (some of the time, but certainly not all of the time), that they have carte blanche to assume they must, therefore, be more intelligent than the average person, and that their statistics are the be all and end all answer for all other sports comparison type questions then. Like choosing a greatest at something between players/athletes, even though they may have been from different times/eras and, therefore, most certainly would have competed under (often radically) different context. They completely seem to disregard the context under which they have asserted that such statistics were originally created (gambling) and falsely push that they are appropos for whatever comparative argument they want to now make utilizing them. However, they may continually appear unable to provide specifics of such statistical analysis and formulas when requested (though this is supposed to be a mathematical science with a foundation in facts and details), appear to have disregarded any attempt to even account for or measure potential statistical error, and most certainly have ignored the human element and context involved in the attempt to expand the usefullness and applicability af statistical measures developed originally for something entirely different. A long time ago I realized what I think is a cosmic truth, "The more I learned, the dumber I became!". Seems like every time I'd learned something new, I'd suddenly find out there was even so much more I didn't know. I try to keep an open mind in debates like this, and I'm the first to admit when I'm proven or shown to be wrong. But someone simply arguing with little to no proof or support for the arguments, and expecting people to swallow their continual "I'm right, and you're wrong!" rhetoric, is just asinine and juvenile. I'll sit and listen to anyone's thoughts and theories, and honestly (and civily) debate with them, and logically consider their points and positions (and the resulting merits of such), and offer what I feel is appropriate rebuttal when warranted. And I've found that the vast majority of people on this site are of a similar ilk. To bad it doesn't always include everyone.............. Last edited by BobC; 11-17-2021 at 09:55 PM.
|
|
#39
11-17-2021, 07:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
As far as how it could be calculated, there are several options. My preferred approach would be to build a hierarchical mixed-effects model (which controls for both fixed-effects and random-effects simultaneously). These models are extremely powerful. You could create time blocks for various periods where something of note happened (like 1942-1946 when the talent pool was heavily diluted due to players leaving for WW2), or pre-1950 for larger strike zones, or 1950-62 for larger strike zones, etc. You would hard code those into your data and treat them as fixed-effects. We could also control for offensive efficiencies of each era by measuring the delta between runners left in scoring position, among countless other ways (offenses were considerably less efficient when Grove was pitching). We could also control for a pitcher's ability to control the ball across eras by including their K/BB ratios and capturing the interaction of that metric against K/HRs since strikeout rates are both a function of how well a pitcher pitches and what strategies are employed by the hitters. If that relationship is non-linear, we could apply a mathematical transformation (like the square root, cubed root, log, etc.) that enables us to create a linear relationship which would then have predictive power in a model like this. Worth noting is that there is an extremely strong correlation over time between strikeout rates and HRs because swinging for the fences results in striking out more often. I would also include several rate stats that contrast the ratios between batting average and OPS over time, as this has a measurable effect on pitching statistics across eras. Also worth including is the relationship between league-wide ERA and WHIP over time and looking for gaps in that ratio. If WHIP values were high, relative to ERAs, that would be indicative of pitchers ERAs having benefitted from inefficient offenses (and something that Grove and his peers on the mound surely benefitted from, perhaps tremendously). Something else worth noting (and I suppose this is a hint of sorts for something I referenced earlier) is that it's more important to know a pitcher's strikeouts per plate appearance than it is to know their K/9. There are also differences in approach over time. Ted Williams talks about just "putting the bat on the ball" and how that made him a "better hitter" than he would have been if he tried to hit home runs. While yes, it gave him a better batting average, we now know that this isn't what makes someone a "better hitter", at least not in the sense of producing more runs and winning more games. We would also need to control for mound heights at each ballpark over time. We could treat the individual players' performances as random-effects while treating the other metrics we are interested in estimating as fixed-effects, while simultaneously adjusting for age. We could also look at the differences in slopes of the age curve calculations over time and how those slopes have changed. The flatter the curve, the less skilled their peers are, and the steeper the curve, the stronger the opposition. The beauty of using this approach with the hierachical multilevel models, as opposed to using something like standard regression or econometric type models, is that it uses recursive algorithms which output extremely accurate coefficients that are capable of producing different slopes AND intercepts for each cohort as opposed to all using the same slope with different intercepts like you'd get from multiple regression models. The overlap of players playing across different eras (in aggregate, not just cherry-picking one or two players) allows us to measure the differences in the overall skill level of each time period we are interested in (again, adjusting for age and all of the other factors simultaneously). One thing worth keeping in mind is that it's not so much that hitters from the 1930s were "worse" hitters in the sense that they were less capable (although surely, this is also true), but rather that they were "worse" hitters in the sense that they employed sub-par hitting strategies (e.g., they bunted too often and just tried to "get a bat on the ball" rather than just swinging from their heels like Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig did). We would also want to adjust for the overall talent pool of players in the league and the populations from which they were drawn from. Professional athletes are sampled from the right tail of a Gaussian (or "normal") distribution. They are the best of the best. The ratio of the number of players in the league vs the number of total possible baseball players from which they could have been drafted is extremely important, as this effectively tells us where along that normal distribution that this talent level lies. The larger that ratio, the further to the left they are on that distribution, and the smaller that ratio, the further to the right they are. And the further the league is to the left on that curve, the less skilled they are as a whole. If one era is 3 standard deviations to the left, we can extremely confident that we're effectively watching something that amounts to something like single-A ball today with a handful of star players sprinkled in. A prime example of this is the fact that I played varsity basketball at my high-school. However, the reason I was able to make the team wasn't because I was some elite athlete, but rather because there were only about 200 students in my high-school. Had I attended a much larger school, I might not have even made the JV squad. There were probably only one or two kids on my entire team, if any, who could have made the team on a much larger school. However, their stats would have certainly gone down if they did. They might have averaged 20 ppg and 8 rebounds on my team, but only 12 ppg and 5 rebounds on the team with better players and stronger opponents. Baseball is no different. Player talent pools grew over time. The earlier years, while still fun and nostalgic, were simply not nearly as strong as they are today. Just watch some of the available footage from that era. Half those pitchers look like Weeble Wobbles on the mound with their "deliveries". Those guys were not throwing heat. I often use these sorts of models when I'm building predictions for NFL games. If a team's starting center is injured and will miss the game on Sunday, I can use these types of models to predict the impact that his absence will have on the spread (hint, it's more you'd probably think). We could also make retrodictions about things like how fast they pitched in the 1920s by looking at the evolution/progression of other similar sports for which we actually do have data. One option could be to look at the history of javelin and discus throwing records in the Olympics over time and see how well human performance correlates to the progression of pitching stats during the periods for which we have data for both, and regress pitching stats retrodictively against those other throwing sports to yield directionally accurate estimates for the pitching stats from the eras where we didn't have radar guns. While I haven't run the numbers yet, I'm extremely confident that there's no way in hell anyone in the 1920s was throwing a baseball 100 mph. It's worth pointing out that all of these anectodal stories about players saying that Walter Johnson (or pick your favorite hero) was the hardest pitcher they ever saw don't really mean all that much. The plural of anecdote is not data. When I was in middle school, I played against pitchers who were throwing ~70-75 mph. I still vividly remember to this day, going to the batting cages during that time and entering the 90 mph cage. I just remember laughing and thinking, "how the hell am I supposed to hit that?" Speeds are all relative. Walter Johnson throwing the ball 10 mph faster than the 2nd fastest guy doesn't mean all that much when we don't know how hard the other players are throwing. Everyone just knows that he throws "heat" relative to what they're accustomed to. He very well might have been throwing the ball a mere 90 mph, but it "felt like 100 mph" to anyone standing at the plate who was used to swinging at 80 mph "fastballs".
|
|
#40
11-17-2021, 07:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Koufax had 23 shutouts in 85 career starts at Dodger stadium.
Koufax had 17 shutouts in 229 career starts everywhere else. If someone looks at that and still believes that Koufax was not helped by pitching in Dodger stadium, then they are simply not taking an objective look at things. Which like I said above...since Koufax backers like to use the "what if." What if Koufax pitched half his games in Coors field in the 1990's early 2000's....you would never hear a thing about his complete games, shutouts, or World Series wins....they wouldn't exist and neither would this thread.
__________________
http://originaloldnewspapers.com Last edited by HistoricNewspapers; 11-17-2021 at 07:31 PM.
|
|
#41
11-17-2021, 08:04 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
1. How do these variables play together? Are they additive, multiplicative, subtractive, and to what degree. How do you combine and weigh them? 2. How do you value them, with respect to specific players? For example, let's say you are comparing 2 pitchers who both have a right fielder with a .985 fielding average. But one has a weak throwing arm and the other is Clemente. How much does having Clemente help, with his reputation discouraging runners taking an extra base? First you'd need to give a weight to the variable - what impact does the right fielder's reputation play? Second, you have to value Clemente. Suppose there are two catchers with equal fielding percentages, and throw out equal percentages of baserunners. But one is a very astute signal caller and the other is a dolt. Take Grove having Cochrane for example. First, how much can a smart, observant catcher help a pitcher? Second, what value do you assign to Cochrane (or Roseboro?) All you have done is thrown out a bunch of factors to consider. The real trick would be to come up with an algorithm that can effectively combine and weigh the variables, and then, there's the (sometimes subjective - like the brains of a catcher) value you assign to each specific player involved. In short, the above is not anywhere close to an actual predictive model.
|
|
#42
11-17-2021, 09:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#43
11-17-2021, 09:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#44
11-17-2021, 11:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
#45
11-18-2021, 03:12 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I think you bring up some great points, along the same lines I was alluding to, that there are going to be so many variables to factor into answering a question like this that it is virtually (and likely literally) impossible to effectively factor them all into any statistical equation or formula. You can attempt to do it, but at the of end of the day you'll only end up with what a statistician thinks is the right answer. And who elected them to decide that their opinions and points of view speak for all of us, or automatically overide what everyone else may think. I understand they can create these great statistical equations and algorithims to come up with a predictive formula to help decide who MAY be the best at something, but how can one be so certain of the outcome of such an equation or formula until they've actually created it and been able to show and prove it works. I thought in science that is what is known as a theory, which is unproven, and remains as such till someone can actually prove it is true and works. I don't seem to remember any true scientists ignoring questions about their work in regards to such theories, and simply telling people to trust and believe them because they have neither the time nor the inclination to fully explain their position. Nor to claim they know the answer to a question based on such a formula, when that formula has yet to be created, tested, and proven. And that goes for key assumptions that are part of such theories and thinking, like the making of a blanket statement that ballplayers from 60-70-80+ years ago are much weaker players than they are today. How, why, what empirical data is there to factually prove that? You can pull up all the numbers and speculate and manipulate them all you want. And I understand about the increases in the population and how that factors in and, and yadda-yadda-yadda. But has the human male really evolved and changed that much physically in that last 100 or so years, or is it more so from advances in science, training, nutrition, medicine, education, even economics playing a huge part, and on and on. Heck, I've even heard somewhere that overall male testerone levels have been dropping generation by generation over the last century or so, which would initially make you think that earlier male generations may have actually been considered more masculine (and by extension athletic) than they are today. So maybe those differences in how players played back then are more due to all the other cultural and outside influences that were affecting them than most people (especially statisticians) would think. And how, unless you took players (not pitchers) from today and had them grow up to play 60-70-80+ years ago, and then likewise had the players (again not pitchers) from back then grow up to be playing today, could you really even begin to tell which era's players were stronger or weaker. Now according to blanket statements and assumptions by some statistically minded people, by switching the players like this we would expect to have the transplanted players to back then hitting tons of home runs, while probably striking out more, but overall crushing the pitchers from back then. In fact, the way these statisticians may talk and seem to think, you'd expect that all of Ruth's home run records would have been easily eclipsed way back 60-70-80+ years ago, and as a result he might not be carried anywhere close to the esteem he is today. And as for the transplanted players from back then now playing today, following some statisticians thinking you'd expect them to be completely overwhelmed and effectively having their collective asses handed to them on a daily basis by today's pitcher's, and not even have the league as a whole batting even close to .200. But somehow I don't think all that would happen. Because humans are affected by and react, change and evolve to fit the situations and circumstances that surround and are constantly changing around them. No one can say with any meaningful certainty how a Grove or Spahn would pitch today. No statistician can honestly measure a person's drive, ambition, competitiveness, and any other intangibles that truly make them the player/athlete they are. And in demeaning and putting down an entire era or generation's ballplayers, without at least trying to factor in all the potential contextual differences between players from different times/eras, is simply insulting to those players. Especially since there is no truly effective way to account for, measure, and quantify all of the infinite number of cultural, contextual, and human differences (in addition to the differences in the game of baseball itself) that would need to be included in such a comparative and predictive formula. But a statistician can get away with saying they can in fact create such a formula or equation to accurately say who or what era/generation was better than another, even though they can't actually or empiracally prove they're right, because they know you or I, for the exact same reasons, can't definitively prove them wrong either. To illustrate how times and context can be be ignored in statical analysis, the greatest ever left handed pitcher could have been someone born in the 20's who ended up dying in WWII and never even got to play in the majors. Or, they were born in the 20's, but got hurt coming out of high school when there was no Tommy John surgery back then yet, so they never got to play in the majors either. Or what about the time Randy Johnson spent on the injured list, what if he was pitching 100 years ago and got injured, but the medical knowledge back then couldn't completely cure him and he never pitched again, or at least never pitched anyhere near as well as he could have? Or here's a good one, Johnson's in college in the early '50's, and we know from his actual career it would would take him a few years to get his pitching act together. Back in the early '50's, ballplayers didn't get the kind of money they got later on when Johnson actually played. Since he's what '6"10 - '6"11, who is to say the school's basketball coach approaches him about playing BBall, so he does and ends up good enough to make the NBA because of his natural height, and never even goes to pitch in the majors. So how does a statistician ever account for and measure any of these instances in their formulas and equations? They don't, because it doesn't fit into their formulas and equations, but these examples do illustrate how in trying to look at a particular player and how well they may perform in a different time or era, the context of playing in that other time/era could result in a dramatic change to how their career would look or end up. One last example, though a different sport. Tom Brady graduates from college and ended up being drafted in the 6th round, with what was it, 32 teams in the league then. So what if Brady had actually graduated 40 years earlier, and with a lot fewer teams in the NFL, he never gets drafted and becomes the GOAT. Different time, different context, totally different career outcome. Statisticians create statistical formulas and equations to predict current game outcomes for gambling purposes. And after doing so, they see what the actual outcome of their game is, and can then tweak and improve their formulas as needed. The main thing is, they can actually test and prove it by looking at how well they did gambling. So they think they have these formulas and equations down and can use them to now try and determine something else like who was a better player, looking at multiple players playing in different times and eras. The problem is, you don't have any actual game or competition that will occur to tell you who won, like you do when you bet on a ball game and their is an actual winner. So there is no way to actually test that type of statistical formula or equation in picking who's the greatest at something all time, and thus be able to prove if that statistical formula or equation is in fact right or wrong. Statisticians will tell you that their statistics are all that can be accurately used to make such decisions, but since they can't ever be proven right or wrong for this type of question, statistics in this regard are nothing more than talking points, no more and no less. Something to maybe talk about, but certainly not the final answer! Last edited by BobC; 11-18-2021 at 03:13 AM.
|
|
#46
11-18-2021, 03:49 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#47
11-17-2021, 02:01 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#48
11-17-2021, 07:27 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
No, no, no, he was Linc, lol. As in Lincoln.
I wonder through the eyes of 2021 how much of that show would now appear to be stereotyping.
__________________
Net 54-- the discussion board where people resent discussions. My avatar is a sketch by my son who is an art school graduate. Some of his sketches and paintings are at https://www.jamesspaethartwork.com/ Last edited by Peter_Spaeth; 11-17-2021 at 07:29 AM.
|
|
#50
11-17-2021, 01:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
__________________
Check out https://www.thecollectorconnection.com Always looking for consignments 717.327.8915 We sell your less expensive pre-war cards individually instead of in bulk lots to make YOU the most money possible! and Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/thecollectorconnectionauctions
|
 |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Lefty Grove = Lefty Groves... And Lefty's 1921 Tip Top Bread Card | leftygrove10 | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 12 | 10-15-2019 12:55 AM |
| 62 koufax ,59 mays,72 mays vg ends monday 8 est time sold ended | rjackson44 | Live Auctions - Only 2-3 open, per member, at once. | 3 | 05-22-2017 05:00 PM |
| Final Poll!! Vote of the all time worst Topps produced set | almostdone | Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980) | 22 | 07-28-2015 07:55 PM |
| Long Time Lurker. First time poster. Crazy to gamble on this Gehrig? | wheels56 | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 17 | 05-17-2015 04:25 AM |
| It's the most wonderful time of the year. Cobb/Edwards auction time! | iggyman | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 68 | 09-17-2013 12:42 AM |
Hybrid Mode
