How much is Barry worth?
Ira Blum
Barry Bonds signed by the Giants before the year starts.
what would you offer? He's 36 this year, so obviously
he's not looking to play all that long. With ARod's deal
paying him about $85 million over the next four years and
Ramirez and Jeter getting about $70 million over that time
I'm thinking that an offer of 4 years at $70 million
or 2 years at $35 million plus 2 optional years (team option, as
he'd just retire if he doesn't want to play) at $20 million a piece.
Throw in the standard incentive bonuses and you've got a
pretty good deal for a guy who was second in the NL MVP voting
last year.
Now, for all you Bonds Chokes in the post season clowns you can just
piss off, as I'm not really interested.
Sincerely Brian Sabean. :)
Russell Steele
On Wed, 21 Feb 2001, Ira Blum wrote:
> Lets say you are Scott Boras and you want to get
> Barry Bonds signed by the Giants before the year starts.
> what would you offer? He's 36 this year, so obviously
> he's not looking to play all that long. With ARod's deal
> paying him about $85 million over the next four years and
> Ramirez and Jeter getting about $70 million over that time
> I'm thinking that an offer of 4 years at $70 million
> or 2 years at $35 million plus 2 optional years (team option, as
> he'd just retire if he doesn't want to play) at $20 million a piece.
> Throw in the standard incentive bonuses and you've got a
> pretty good deal for a guy who was second in the NL MVP voting
> last year.
I wouldn't offer anything. I'd let Barry tell me what he thinks he's
worth. I doubt highly that Bonds wants to move at this point in his
career (especially with all the trash he's been dumping in the Bay - what
fun that must be). I think the Giants could make it pretty difficult on
Barry, which would be quite unfair, as they've gotten the best years out
of, IMO, the third best player in the history of the game.
Now, what ceiling should BS have in his head going into
negotiations? I'd say Barry is worth no more than $18 million per year at
this point in his career. He's just a pretty big injury risk at this point
in his life. I'd actually offer him a reverse contract of sorts
(trying to be creative). I'd give him $18 million guaranteed the next two
years (he'll almost certainly be worth that this coming year, probably the
next year) with bonuses that could knock it up to $20 mil
(MVP/All-Star type bonuses). I'd then *decrease* the guaranteed money, but
*increase* the possible value of the contract for the next 2 years. Cut
the guaranteed money to $12 million per, with escalating playing time
bonuses that could make the contract worth as much as $22-23 million
per. I guess what I'm saying is that a club option could get the Giants
into trouble, because they could very well pick up that club option for
year 3 (especially if Bonds continues to tear up the league for the next 2
years), but then Bonds spends most of the third year on the DL. The
playing time bonuses work out well for everyone. Bonds strikes me as the
type of player who will never really decline in the most important
aspects of his game. He'll just get tired of the pain due to the aging
process, and play fewer and fewer games until it's just not worth it to
play anymore. My guess is that Barry would walk more at 50 than Pat Meares
ever has at any point in his career. We could see some interesting lines
out of Barry at age 50 (like a .260/.400/.390 line or something like
that).
Vinay Kumar
: Now, what ceiling should BS have in his head going into
: negotiations? I'd say Barry is worth no more than $18 million per
: year at this point in his career. He's just a pretty big injury risk
: at this point in his life. I'd actually offer him a reverse contract
: of sorts (trying to be creative). I'd give him $18 million
: guaranteed the next two years (he'll almost certainly be worth that
: this coming year, probably the next year) with bonuses that could
: knock it up to $20 mil (MVP/All-Star type bonuses). I'd then
: *decrease* the guaranteed money, but *increase* the possible value
: of the contract for the next 2 years. Cut the guaranteed money to
: $12 million per, with escalating playing time bonuses that could
: make the contract worth as much as $22-23 million per. I guess what
: I'm saying is that a club option could get the Giants into trouble,
: because they could very well pick up that club option for year 3
: (especially if Bonds continues to tear up the league for the next 2
: years), but then Bonds spends most of the third year on the DL. The
: playing time bonuses work out well for everyone.
That sounds good to me. Although Barry is already under contract this
year (at about $10M), so they're talking about an extension for
2002+. OTOH, any extension will probably include a fair-sized signing
bonus that he'll collect primarily this season.
--
/---------------------------------------------------------------\
| Vinay Kumar |
| vi...@baseball.org http://www.baseball.org/~vinay |
\---------------------------------------------------------------/
Ira Blum
"Russell Steele" <ste...@stat.washington.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.4.21.010221...@lisbon2.stat.washington.edu..
.
>
>
> On Wed, 21 Feb 2001, Ira Blum wrote:
>
> Now, what ceiling should BS have in his head going into
> negotiations? I'd say Barry is worth no more than $18 million per year at
> this point in his career. He's just a pretty big injury risk at this point
> in his life. I'd actually offer him a reverse contract of sorts
> (trying to be creative). I'd give him $18 million guaranteed the next two
> years (he'll almost certainly be worth that this coming year, probably the
> next year) with bonuses that could knock it up to $20 mil
> (MVP/All-Star type bonuses). I'd then *decrease* the guaranteed money, but
> *increase* the possible value of the contract for the next 2 years. Cut
> the guaranteed money to $12 million per, with escalating playing time
> bonuses that could make the contract worth as much as $22-23 million
> per. I guess what I'm saying is that a club option could get the Giants
> into trouble, because they could very well pick up that club option for
> year 3 (especially if Bonds continues to tear up the league for the next 2
> years), but then Bonds spends most of the third year on the DL. The
> playing time bonuses work out well for everyone.
That's why management has those club options. Picking up the option for
year three depends on how Bonds does in Year 2. If he rips up the league
for two years and is healthy going into spring training of year 3, he
deserves his $20 million even if he's hurt all of year 3. It just means
that they don't pick up the option on year 4. But, I believe that if he
gets hurt so badly at age 39 that he misses the entire year, he may just
call
it a career and walk away, not costing the Giants much of anything.
> Bonds strikes me as the
> type of player who will never really decline in the most important
> aspects of his game. He'll just get tired of the pain due to the aging
> process, and play fewer and fewer games until it's just not worth it to
> play anymore. My guess is that Barry would walk more at 50 than Pat Meares
> ever has at any point in his career. We could see some interesting lines
> out of Barry at age 50 (like a .260/.400/.390 line or something like
> that).
Kinda like a Nolan Ryan line. And he'll be the first to 3000 walks in a
career! :)
Ira
Russell Steele
It's funny. I went to double check on BLB's walk totals. I think, if he
plays for another 4 years, he will probably get to 2000 walks, 600 HRs,
and 500 SBs. Add to that his defensive reputation (which is mostly backed
up by the numbers) and his 3 MVP's, and I don't see how anyone can doubt
that he is the third best player in the history of the game.
The list should be:
1. Ruth
2. Williams
3. Bonds
I just can't see it any differently.
I know that many here agree with me, I just like to revel in Barry's
greatness, because I got to watch him as a youngster. He may go into the
HOF as a Giant, but he'll always be a Pirate in my heart, driving Lee
Smith fastballs into the seats of TRS.
BTW, if SF doesn't want to pony up the money for Barry, I'd love to see
the tradition of great ballplayers returning to their original cities
continue...
Ruth in Boston, Aaron in Milwaukee, Mays in New York, Bonds in
Pittsburgh... :-)
Chris Cathcart
>
>Now, for all you Bonds Chokes in the post season clowns you can just
>piss off, as I'm not really interested.
But he's a jerk. Should knock $6 million off his annual salary right there.
--
Chris Cathcart
"Forget your perfect offerings; everything's
cracked. That's how the light gets in."
-Unknown
Chris Cathcart
>On Wed, 21 Feb 2001, Ira Blum wrote:
>>
>> Kinda like a Nolan Ryan line. And he'll be the first to 3000 walks in a
>> career! :)
>>
>> Ira
>
>It's funny. I went to double check on BLB's walk totals. I think, if he
>plays for another 4 years, he will probably get to 2000 walks, 600 HRs,
>and 500 SBs. Add to that his defensive reputation (which is mostly backed
>up by the numbers) and his 3 MVP's, and I don't see how anyone can doubt
>that he is the third best player in the history of the game.
Well, I can see how some intellectually inferior people will still doubt it.
(Nice Neyerism there, huh? ;-) Many people will still doubt it, indeed.
For
them, DiMaggio will always rank higher, mainly for being a Yankee. (The
polls
of the enlightened general public usually put Joe D. in the top 5, though
there is essentially no remotely reasonable argument based on the numbers
that
would put him there -- unless putting an immense amount of weight on
consecutive-game hit streaks is reasonable. But I digress.) But let's
assume
that Barry closes out his career with an average expected graceful decline
phase, and retire at 42, the same age that the likes of Williams, Aaron,
Mays,
Cobb, and Musial were productive enough to play to before retiring. That
means 6 more seasons including this coming one. A reasonable expected
average
HR pace would be around at least 25 per season, or 150 more (644 total). He
has said, however, that he'd like to catch his godfather's mark of 660. He
should reach 500 steals by no later than the 2003 season, but probably can't
be expected to accumulate many beyond that. He'll likely need at least 5
seasons to reach 2000 walks, and perhaps the full 6 to pass Ruth's mark (and
maybe whatever total Rickey H. ends up with). He should get to the 2,000
runs
scored mark without much difficulty. He'll end up with approximately 1,900
RBI. All things considered, I think he'll have the most solid HOF
credentials
since Ruth. (Any lingering BBWAAsie jackasses aside, a world series ring
would be just icing on the cake for a career that would already merit
unanimous HOF induction, just as Ruth's career did, as well as those of a
few
others, I may add.) Not that Ted Williams wouldn't have had more solid
cumulative credentials were it not for the what-if's, but as it is, these
kinds of combined numbers will overshadow those of all others except for
Ruth,
with or without the stat-head breakdowns of the numbers.
>The list should be:
>
>1. Ruth
>2. Williams
>3. Bonds
That may just be right, given the above -- though I'd be more firmly
comfortable with saying he's somewhere in the top 5, with Cobb and Mays
rounding out the group. Which means that _Total Baseball_'s Total Player
Rating may not be so infallible a measure for comparison. :-)
I think the view right now is that Bonds has surpassed Musial among all-time
left-fielders that only Williams stands above him (and probably always will
--
is that .483 lifetime OBP for real, considering that Barry's is a measly
.412?). If he's already surpassed Musial (which is a rather reasonable
thing
to believe), that arguably already puts him among the top 10 of all time --
or
should, at least among the likes of the editors that voted on the _Sporting
News 100_.
Chris Cathcart
>On Wed, 21 Feb 2001, Ira Blum wrote:
>>
>> Kinda like a Nolan Ryan line. And he'll be the first to 3000 walks in a
>> career! :)
>>
>> Ira
>
>It's funny. I went to double check on BLB's walk totals. I think, if he
>plays for another 4 years, he will probably get to 2000 walks, 600 HRs,
>and 500 SBs. Add to that his defensive reputation (which is mostly backed
>up by the numbers) and his 3 MVP's, and I don't see how anyone can doubt
>that he is the third best player in the history of the game.
BTW, you think he'll reach 400 intentional walks by the time he's done?
That'd put him about 100 ahead of the 2nd place clutch-choker on the
all-time
IBB list, Hank Aaron. Rate-wise, he gets IBB'd in roughly 3.5% of his plate
appearances, or 1 in 28 (or roughly once per 7 games).
j...@socrates.berkeley.edu
: up by the numbers) and his 3 MVP's, and I don't see how anyone can doubt
: that he is the third best player in the history of the game.
: The list should be:
: 1. Ruth
: 2. Williams
: 3. Bonds
: I just can't see it any differently.
: I know that many here agree with me, I just like to revel in Barry's
: greatness, because I got to watch him as a youngster. He may go into the
: HOF as a Giant, but he'll always be a Pirate in my heart, driving Lee
: Smith fastballs into the seats of TRS.
I'd have to say that this is a really odd "Three Greatest Given Pirates'
Fan Bias" list.
JHB
(Waiting for the Tigers fans list that includes Ruth, Johnson, and Kaline)
Ira Blum
"Chris Cathcart" <cath...@MailAndNews.com> wrote in message
news:3AA0...@MailAndNews.com...
> >===== Original Message From Russell Steele <ste...@stat.washington.edu>
=====
> >On Wed, 21 Feb 2001, Ira Blum wrote:
> >>
> >> Kinda like a Nolan Ryan line. And he'll be the first to 3000 walks in
a
> >> career! :)
> >>
> >> Ira
> >
> >It's funny. I went to double check on BLB's walk totals. I think, if he
> >plays for another 4 years, he will probably get to 2000 walks, 600 HRs,
> >and 500 SBs. Add to that his defensive reputation (which is mostly
backed
> >up by the numbers) and his 3 MVP's, and I don't see how anyone can doubt
> >that he is the third best player in the history of the game.
>
> BTW, you think he'll reach 400 intentional walks by the time he's done?
> That'd put him about 100 ahead of the 2nd place clutch-choker on the
> all-time
> IBB list, Hank Aaron. Rate-wise, he gets IBB'd in roughly 3.5% of his
plate
> appearances, or 1 in 28 (or roughly once per 7 games).
The unbelievable one is that Barry was intentionally walked 21 times in 154
PA
with runners in scoring position. or 13.6% of those plate appearences.
Nomar was intentionally walked 20 times in 180 PA or 11.1% of his PA.
Vlad was intentionally walked 23 times in 189 PA or 12.2% of his PA in
those situations. others could be higher, I don't know.
Ira
Cameron Laird
.
.
.
>The list should be:
>
>1. Ruth
>2. Williams
>3. Bonds
>
>I just can't see it any differently.
>
>I know that many here agree with me, I just like to revel in Barry's
>greatness, because I got to watch him as a youngster. He may go into the
>HOF as a Giant, but he'll always be a Pirate in my heart, driving Lee
>Smith fastballs into the seats of TRS.
.
.
Ouch! Hasn't there been enough pain already?
--
Cameron Laird <cla...@NeoSoft.com>
Business: http://www.Phaseit.net
Personal: http://starbase.neosoft.com/~claird/home.html
Cameron Laird
Chris Cathcart <cath...@MailAndNews.com> wrote:
.
.
.
>I think the view right now is that Bonds has surpassed Musial among all-time
>left-fielders that only Williams stands above him (and probably always will
>--
>is that .483 lifetime OBP for real, considering that Barry's is a measly
>.412?). If he's already surpassed Musial (which is a rather reasonable
.
.
.483
I just think repeating that number is a worthwhile thing to do.
jmac
Chris Cathcart wrote:
>
>
>
> >The list should be:
> >
> >1. Ruth
> >2. Williams
> >3. Bonds
>
> That may just be right, given the above -- though I'd be more firmly
> comfortable with saying he's somewhere in the top 5, with Cobb and Mays
> rounding out the group. Which means that _Total Baseball_'s Total Player
> Rating may not be so infallible a measure for comparison. :-)
>
bite your tongue, young man
Matt Deres
Russell Steele wrote in message ...
>The list should be:
>
>1. Ruth
>2. Williams
>3. Bonds
>
>I just can't see it any differently.
Ty Cobb coulda made the top three, if he'd wanted to. <ducks>
Matt
Sjk9191
>The unbelievable one is that Barry was intentionally walked 21 times in 154
>PA
>with runners in scoring position. or 13.6% of those plate appearences.
And that is with NL MVP and all-around Mr. Clutch RBI guy Jeff Kent batting
behind him, as opposed to...
>Nomar was intentionally walked 20 times in 180 PA or 11.1% of his PA.
...mostly Troy O'Leary hitting behind Nomar, with some Everett..
>Vlad was intentionally walked 23 times in 189 PA or 12.2% of his PA in
>those situations.
...mostly Lee Stevens hitting behind Vlad, with some Vidro.
>others could be higher, I don't know.
McGwire? Helton? Bagwell? Delgado? Actually, probably only McGwire, if anyone.
Steven Katz
LyfordIII
cla...@starbase.neosoft.com (Cameron Laird) writes:
>In article <3AA0...@MailAndNews.com>,
>Chris Cathcart <cath...@MailAndNews.com> wrote:
> .
> .
> .
>>I think the view right now is that Bonds has surpassed Musial among all-time
>
>>left-fielders that only Williams stands above him (and probably always will
>>--
>>is that .483 lifetime OBP for real, considering that Barry's is a measly
>>.412?). If he's already surpassed Musial (which is a rather reasonable
> .
>.483
>
>I just think repeating that number is a worthwhile thing to do.
.483. There have only been 38 SINGLE-SEASON OBPs over
.483 in baseball history, and 12 of those were pre-1900. Of the
26 times that it was done in the 20th century, Ruth was responsible
for 9 of them and Williams for 7. Williams also did it in 3 seasons
in which he did not qualify for the batting title, including 1954, when
he had a .513 OBP but won the OBP crown with a .497 mark after
they added hitless AB to make his AB total high enough. From
1940-1958, 19 seasons, WIlliams led the AL in OBP _every_
season_in_which_he_was_eligible, 11 times. He lost 5 years to
the war. In 1956, he needed 400.4 AB to qualify, and finished
the year with 400, and that was during a stretch in which they
would NOT add hitless AB, or he would have won that year as
well. Since Williams (and Mantle) were over .483 in 1957, it's
only been done twice. Norm Cash in 1961 and Frank Thomas
in 1994.
If you look at what he did in 6 straight seasons from 1941 through
1949 (he lost '43, '44 and '45 to the service) his OBPs were
.551!! .499, .497,.499,.497 and .490. 6 straight seasons in the
top 25 all-time.
Man, if he wasn't the best hitter ever, it was damn close...
Douglas T. Massey
cla...@starbase.neosoft.com (Cameron Laird) writes:
> Chris Cathcart <cath...@MailAndNews.com> wrote:
> .
> .
> .
>>I think the view right now is that Bonds has surpassed Musial among all-time
>>left-fielders that only Williams stands above him (and probably always will
>>--
>>is that .483 lifetime OBP for real, considering that Barry's is a measly
>>.412?). If he's already surpassed Musial (which is a rather reasonable
> .
> .
> .
> .483
>
> I just think repeating that number is a worthwhile thing to do.
".483 . . . .551 . . . .483 . . . .551 . . ."
My favorite numbers in baseball. I was once on a co-ed softball team
and used 483 as my uniform number.
Doug
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
___, IBM Microelectronics Division, Burlington, Vermont
\o ASICs Product Development Engineering |>
| Phone: (802)769-7095 t/l: 446-7095 fax: x6752 |
/ \ E-mail: mas...@btv.ibm.com |
. Doug's Homepage: http://members.tripod.com/~masseyd (|)
Douglas T. Massey
Chris Cathcart <cath...@MailAndNews.com> writes:
>>===== Original Message From Russell Steele <ste...@stat.washington.edu> =====
>>On Wed, 21 Feb 2001, Ira Blum wrote:
>>>
>>> Kinda like a Nolan Ryan line. And he'll be the first to 3000 walks in a
>>> career! :)
>>>
>>> Ira
>>
>>It's funny. I went to double check on BLB's walk totals. I think, if he
>>plays for another 4 years, he will probably get to 2000 walks, 600 HRs,
>>and 500 SBs. Add to that his defensive reputation (which is mostly backed
>>up by the numbers) and his 3 MVP's, and I don't see how anyone can doubt
>>that he is the third best player in the history of the game.
>
> BTW, you think he'll reach 400 intentional walks by the time he's done?
> That'd put him about 100 ahead of the 2nd place clutch-choker on the
> all-time
> IBB list, Hank Aaron. Rate-wise, he gets IBB'd in roughly 3.5% of his plate
> appearances, or 1 in 28 (or roughly once per 7 games).
Keep in mind that IBB weren't tracked until after 1955 or so -- I'll
bet Babe Ruth picked up 600-700 IBB in his career.
Ira Blum
"Sjk9191" <sjk...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010222132441...@ng-fg1.aol.com...
McGwire wasn't. He was at about 11%. Two that were were Paul Bako and
Ramon Castro.
Which is pretty insane. Ok, really insane, I think I might have preferred
pitching to
them over the Florida Pitchers.....
Ira
David Andrew Leonardo Marasco
Douglas T. Massey <mas...@valhalla.btv.ibm.com> wrote:
>In article <3AA0...@mailandnews.com>,
> Chris Cathcart <cath...@MailAndNews.com> writes:
>> BTW, you think he'll reach 400 intentional walks by the time he's done?
>> That'd put him about 100 ahead of the 2nd place clutch-choker on the
>> all-time
>> IBB list, Hank Aaron. Rate-wise, he gets IBB'd in roughly 3.5% of his plate
>> appearances, or 1 in 28 (or roughly once per 7 games).
>
>Keep in mind that IBB weren't tracked until after 1955 or so -- I'll
>bet Babe Ruth picked up 600-700 IBB in his career.
>
Since Babe has ~2000 career walks, you are claiming that 30-35% of them were
IBB's. With Gehrig batting behind him for a good chunk of his career?
Sorry, I just don't see it.
David Marasco mar...@nwu.edu
New webpage -> http://www.thediamondangle.com/marasco
Negro Leagues, Caribbean Winter Leagues, Deadball Era,
Nisei Baseball, Road Trips and more...
Chris Dial
<20010222150445...@nso-fi.aol.com>...
For the decade we call the 40s, Williams' OBP was 0.500. He did *not*
make outs more often than not in that span.
Good gravy.
Chris Dial
Chris Dial
<97418s$ndp$1...@news.acns.nwu.edu>...
>In article <973vsv$r5o$3...@news.btv.ibm.com>,
>Douglas T. Massey <mas...@valhalla.btv.ibm.com> wrote:
>>In article <3AA0...@mailandnews.com>,
>> Chris Cathcart <cath...@MailAndNews.com> writes:
><snip>
>
>>> BTW, you think he'll reach 400 intentional walks by the time he's
done?
>>> That'd put him about 100 ahead of the 2nd place clutch-choker on
the
>>> all-time
>>> IBB list, Hank Aaron. Rate-wise, he gets IBB'd in roughly 3.5% of
his plate
>>> appearances, or 1 in 28 (or roughly once per 7 games).
>>
>>Keep in mind that IBB weren't tracked until after 1955 or so -- I'll
>>bet Babe Ruth picked up 600-700 IBB in his career.
>>
>
>Since Babe has ~2000 career walks, you are claiming that 30-35% of
them were
>IBB's. With Gehrig batting behind him for a good chunk of his
career?
>
>Sorry, I just don't see it.
So you're saying Gehrig "protected" Ruth and forced pitchers to throw
Ruth more strikes?
Sounds like a good theory...
Chris Dial
Chris Cathcart
=====
>In article
<8FFBEF331F40263D.DDC9E9DD...@lp.airnews.net>,
> cla...@starbase.neosoft.com (Cameron Laird) writes:
>> In article <3AA0...@MailAndNews.com>,
>> Chris Cathcart <cath...@MailAndNews.com> wrote:
>> .
>> .
>> .
>>>I think the view right now is that Bonds has surpassed Musial among
all-time
>>>left-fielders that only Williams stands above him (and probably always will
>>>--
>>>is that .483 lifetime OBP for real, considering that Barry's is a measly
>>>.412?). If he's already surpassed Musial (which is a rather reasonable
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> .483
>>
>> I just think repeating that number is a worthwhile thing to do.
>
>
>My favorite numbers in baseball. I was once on a co-ed softball team
>and used 483 as my uniform number.
.690 . . . .847 . . . .690 . . . .847 . . .
You take a look at Ruth's career and single-season slugging marks, and no
one
else even approaches them. But Williams' career and single-season on-base
marks are followed quite closely by the Babe's: .474 and .545. I'd say the
slugging figures stand out quite a bit more. I would say that they are
*the*
single figures that best define Ruth as the greatest player ever, even
before
taking into account his excellence as a pitcher.
Also, not to overlook Williams having a single-season OBA in the high .490's
four times in his career, but Ruth topped the .500 mark 5 times to Williams'
3.
David Andrew Leonardo Marasco
Tom MacIntyre
He has 2 triple-crowns, and check out his near-misses...
1941...Joe D (125), Heath, and Keller beat him in RBI...Ted had
121...this was 1941...remember what he also did that year, as well as
Joe D??
1946...first full year back from the big one....second in BA, .342 to
.353 (Vernon)...2nd in HR...38 to 44 (Greenberg)...2nd in RBI...123 to
127 (Greenberg)
1949...OUCH!!...2nd in BA, .34276 to .34291 (Kell)...tied in the RBI
lead...
5 3-crowners or close in 9 years, 2+ of which he was off fighting for
his country, at the probable expense of the rest of his career...??
Has anyone else dominated hitting in this way...ever?
Has anyone ever come this close to 5 3-crowners? Rogers Hornsby is the
logical first look...he was this close at least twice more also...
Isn't his fun!?!
Tom
Ben Flieger
"Chris Dial" <acd...@intrex.net> wrote in message
news:t9b4vua...@corp.supernews.com...
> >Sorry, I just don't see it.
>
> So you're saying Gehrig "protected" Ruth and forced pitchers to throw
> Ruth more strikes?
IBB's being related to the quality of the following hitter has never
been disputed by statheads.
> Sounds like a good theory...
Chris, while I'm sure there's somebody who appreciates your ham-fisted
and silly attempts to poke holes in stathead convention wisdom, he
hasn't spoken up yet.
Chris Dial
<974ekc$814$1...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>...
>
>"Chris Dial" <acd...@intrex.net> wrote in message
>news:t9b4vua...@corp.supernews.com...
>> >Sorry, I just don't see it.
>>
>> So you're saying Gehrig "protected" Ruth and forced pitchers to
throw
>> Ruth more strikes?
>
>IBB's being related to the quality of the following hitter has never
>been disputed by statheads.
I don't think it is used in this manner. It's typically used to say
the NL #8 hitter gets IBBs for this reason.
You are saying that Bonds' IBBs decrease because Kent was hitting
behind him.
Since I'm sure *you* won't check to see...
Ruth's WR didn't decrease with the addition of Gehrig, which one would
expect if his IBBs (as they are going to be about 25-35/season)
decreased. If his IBBs didn't decrease, then Gehrig wouldn't have any
impact. Which should mean his 600 IBB should still be reasonable
(about 30-35 a season). Admittedly, his 1920-21 and 1923 are probably
the highest, with probably upwards of 50 in 1923.
And Gehrig's first two seasons weren't all that awesome (relative to
Ruth). Ruth probably saw alot of IBBs then too.
>
>> Sounds like a good theory...
>
>Chris, while I'm sure there's somebody who appreciates your
ham-fisted
>and silly attempts to poke holes in stathead convention wisdom, he
>hasn't spoken up yet.
Tsk, tsk.
Oh, you kids these days...
Chris Dial
David Andrew Leonardo Marasco
Chris Dial <acd...@intrex.net> wrote:
>Ben Flieger wrote in message
><974ekc$814$1...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>...
>>
>>"Chris Dial" <acd...@intrex.net> wrote in message
>>news:t9b4vua...@corp.supernews.com...
>>> >Sorry, I just don't see it.
>>>
>>> So you're saying Gehrig "protected" Ruth and forced pitchers to
>throw
>>> Ruth more strikes?
>>
>>IBB's being related to the quality of the following hitter has never
>>been disputed by statheads.
>
>I don't think it is used in this manner. It's typically used to say
>the NL #8 hitter gets IBBs for this reason.
>You are saying that Bonds' IBBs decrease because Kent was hitting
>behind him.
>
Yep. Depending on who you have batting behind you, weak protection
may or may not come into play.
FWIW I did break down Bonds' stats into protected/non-protected
for the 1996 season (when Matt Williams missed half the year).
I missed a box score or two, but in roughly 330 PA's protected he had
roughly 100 walks, and in roughly 330 unprotected he had about 50 walks.
I don't think I kept track of IBB's. :(
>Since I'm sure *you* won't check to see...
>
>Ruth's WR didn't decrease with the addition of Gehrig, which one would
>expect if his IBBs (as they are going to be about 25-35/season)
>decreased. If his IBBs didn't decrease, then Gehrig wouldn't have any
>impact. Which should mean his 600 IBB should still be reasonable
>(about 30-35 a season). Admittedly, his 1920-21 and 1923 are probably
>the highest, with probably upwards of 50 in 1923.
Who was batting behind Ruth before Gehrig got there? It's not like
the #4 hitter in the Yankees lineup has traditionally been a
creampuff.
>
>And Gehrig's first two seasons weren't all that awesome (relative to
>Ruth). Ruth probably saw alot of IBBs then too.
>
I still have a hard time believing a 30-35% IBB rate.
Roger Moore
>From
>1940-1958, 19 seasons, WIlliams led the AL in OBP _every_
>season_in_which_he_was_eligible, 11 times. He lost 5 years to
>the war. In 1956, he needed 400.4 AB to qualify, and finished
>the year with 400, and that was during a stretch in which they
>would NOT add hitless AB, or he would have won that year as
>well.
Of course you could claim 1940-1960, since he didn't qualify in 59 or 60,
but I think that you're missing something even more impressive. Williams
didn't just win it every year he qualified during 1940-58. Every year
when he played and _didn't_ qualify his OBA was higher than that of the
league leader, even the years when he got only a handful of plate
appearances. It was in 1960, too. IOW, his OBA was higher than the
highest qualifier for the OBA title every year he played except for his
rookie season (when he was 20) and his sub par 1959 (when he was 40 and
had a bad neck). Even Ruth and Cobb (the only players to dominate any one
of BA/OBA/SLG to nearly the same extent) flat out lost the title once in a
while. After his rookie year, Williams won every time he qualified.
Every time.
--
Roger Moore | Master of Meaningless Trivia | (r...@alumni.caltech.edu)
"While baseball remains our national game, our national tastes will be on
a higher level and our national ideals on a finer foundation."
-Calvin Coolidge
Roger Moore
>Since I'm sure *you* won't check to see...
>Ruth's WR didn't decrease with the addition of Gehrig, which one would
>expect if his IBBs (as they are going to be about 25-35/season)
>decreased.
Actually, I get that Ruth's walk rate did decrease a bit. I compared his
1920-25 to his 1926-31, roughly his time with the Yankees before Gehrig
became a regular and the equal time period after. His BB/(AB+BB+SH+SF)
dropped from 20.8% in 1920-25 to 19.1% in 1926-31. Even if you juggle
things a bit, claiming that Gehrig arrived in 1925 or that he didn't
establish himself until 1927, Ruth still had a lower walk rate after
Gehrig got there. His walk rate from 1920-24 was 21.7% vs. 18.1% for
1925-29, and for 1920-26 was 21.0% vs. 19.1% for 1927-33. No matter how
you slice it, Ruth walked in about 2% fewer PA after Gehrig arrived, or
perhaps 10-15 BB per season.
Bobby Burns
>lyfo...@aol.com (LyfordIII) writes:
>
>>From
>>1940-1958, 19 seasons, WIlliams led the AL in OBP _every_
>>season_in_which_he_was_eligible, 11 times. He lost 5 years to
>>the war. In 1956, he needed 400.4 AB to qualify, and finished
>>the year with 400, and that was during a stretch in which they
>>would NOT add hitless AB, or he would have won that year as
>>well.
>
>Of course you could claim 1940-1960, since he didn't qualify in 59 or 60,
>but I think that you're missing something even more impressive. Williams
>didn't just win it every year he qualified during 1940-58. Every year
>when he played and _didn't_ qualify his OBA was higher than that of the
>league leader, even the years when he got only a handful of plate
>appearances. It was in 1960, too. IOW, his OBA was higher than the
>highest qualifier for the OBA title every year he played except for his
>rookie season (when he was 20) and his sub par 1959 (when he was 40 and
>had a bad neck). Even Ruth and Cobb (the only players to dominate any one
>of BA/OBA/SLG to nearly the same extent) flat out lost the title once in a
>while. After his rookie year, Williams won every time he qualified.
>Every time.
Which leads me to this question, Roger - "Did Williams EVER go into a
prolonged (say 75-100 PA) slump?" The record would seem to indicate that he
didn't, based on the fact that his OBP was always better than the rest of
the
league, regardless of PAs in a season.
Is this then the logical result of patience at the plate, a "slump-proof"
hitter?
------------------------------------------------------------
Later,
Bobby Burns
RIP Dejanews.......
Ron Johnson
Bobby Burns <Myluvisli...@MailAndNews.com> wrote:
>
>Which leads me to this question, Roger - "Did Williams EVER go into a
>prolonged (say 75-100 PA) slump?" The record would seem to indicate that he
>didn't, based on the fact that his OBP was always better than the rest of
>the league, regardless of PAs in a season. Is this then the logical result
>of patience at the plate, a "slump-proof" hitter?
Depends on how you define slump-proof.
I looked at a number of hitter's month by month performances. Jose Cruz
is a notoriously streaky player and he in fact has a fairly large standard
deviation in monthly performances.
Tony Gwynn had by far the smallest.
But Barry Bonds had the largest of any player I looked at (and I
didn't include his first two years).
The thing is though that he never had what you could call an objectively
bad month. They ranged from good to other-worldly.
Cruz being a lesser player starts from a lower base. Though he has a
slightly lower range of performance, they range between terrible and
excellent.
--
RNJ
Douglas T. Massey
dmar...@merle.acns.nwu.edu (David Andrew Leonardo Marasco) writes:
> In article <973vsv$r5o$3...@news.btv.ibm.com>,
> Douglas T. Massey <mas...@valhalla.btv.ibm.com> wrote:
>>In article <3AA0...@mailandnews.com>,
>> Chris Cathcart <cath...@MailAndNews.com> writes:
> <snip>
>
>>> BTW, you think he'll reach 400 intentional walks by the time he's done?
>>> That'd put him about 100 ahead of the 2nd place clutch-choker on the
>>> all-time
>>> IBB list, Hank Aaron. Rate-wise, he gets IBB'd in roughly 3.5% of his plate
>>> appearances, or 1 in 28 (or roughly once per 7 games).
>>
>>Keep in mind that IBB weren't tracked until after 1955 or so -- I'll
>>bet Babe Ruth picked up 600-700 IBB in his career.
>>
>
> Since Babe has ~2000 career walks, you are claiming that 30-35% of them were
> IBB's. With Gehrig batting behind him for a good chunk of his career?
>
> Sorry, I just don't see it.
Hmm. Gehrig played with Ruth for 1925-1934, about 55% of Ruth's batting
career. During those years, Ruth drew 1161 walks in 1375 games, about
0.84 per game. In 1914-24 and 1935, Ruth drew 901 walks in 1128 games,
about 0.80 per game. So it looks like Ruth drew more walks with Gehrig
than without . . .
I look at the seasons of 1920-24 and wonder why any pitcher would
ever throw him a strike. Here's his advantage over the second-best
starter on each Yankee team through those five years, in AVG/OBP/SLG
1920: 062/160/420 over Del Pratt (a 420-pt SLG advantage!)
1921: 062/084/393 over Wally Schang
1922: -04/029/260 over Wally Schang and -14/042/206 over Wally Pipp
1923: 080/186/286 over Bob Meusel
1924: 053/148/245 over Bob Meusel
then compare him to Lou Gerhig over the next few years:
1925: -5/38/23
1926: 58/96/186
1927: -18/12/7 (that's 772 SLG - 765 SLG, folks)
1928: -49/-4/61
1929: 45/-1/115
1930: -20/20/12
1931: 32/49/38
1932: -8/38/40
1933: -33/18/-23
1934: -75/-17/-169
Lou was more or less Babe's equal. I would suspect that Ruth's IBB
would have to go down -- especially since Gehrig was more than able to
drive him in from first base -- 40 2B, 13 3B, and 35 HR per year for
those ten years.
Between 1920-24, I would think that Ruth would be walked, without a
second thought, every time first base was open. I wonder if old
newspaper descriptions (or Retrosheet) addresses this at all. There might
have been some sort of macho-challenge-the-hitter thing going on, but
come on -- teams still wanted to win games, right? They *knew* Ruth
had the power, starting in 1919!
I think about 14% of plate appearances have first base open with a
runner on second and/or third. That would be 442 of his 3162 PA between
1920 and 1924. About 7-8% of plate appearances have first base open
with a runner on second and/or third with less than two out -- that's
245 PA right there where a manager *has* to walk Ruth, unless there's
some league-wide never-intentionally-walk-a-hitter policy in effect.
I've got to believe, at first guess, that he received 300-350 IBB between
1920 and 1924 alone.
Chris Cathcart
Leonardo Marasco) =====
>>And Gehrig's first two seasons weren't all that awesome (relative to
>>Ruth). Ruth probably saw alot of IBBs then too.
>>
>
>I still have a hard time believing a 30-35% IBB rate.
Although official records weren't kept, isn't there at least some anecdotal
evidence somewhere that would give a good indication of how often Ruth and
others were IBB'ed?
Chris Cathcart
>
>>Since I'm sure *you* won't check to see...
>
>>Ruth's WR didn't decrease with the addition of Gehrig, which one would
>>expect if his IBBs (as they are going to be about 25-35/season)
>>decreased.
>
>Actually, I get that Ruth's walk rate did decrease a bit. I compared his
>1920-25 to his 1926-31, roughly his time with the Yankees before Gehrig
>became a regular and the equal time period after. His BB/(AB+BB+SH+SF)
>dropped from 20.8% in 1920-25 to 19.1% in 1926-31. Even if you juggle
>things a bit, claiming that Gehrig arrived in 1925 or that he didn't
>establish himself until 1927, Ruth still had a lower walk rate after
>Gehrig got there. His walk rate from 1920-24 was 21.7% vs. 18.1% for
>1925-29, and for 1920-26 was 21.0% vs. 19.1% for 1927-33. No matter how
>you slice it, Ruth walked in about 2% fewer PA after Gehrig arrived, or
>perhaps 10-15 BB per season.
Note that this doesn't factor out the basic level of Ruth's performance; one
would have reasonably expected him to have higher walk rates in the early
'20s
because those were simply his prime years. (Not to say that all players
wouldn't dream of having prime years like Ruth's post-prime years.) If his
walk rate decreased after the arrival of Gehrig, then they decreased on the
whole through some combination of factors, the two that come to mind being
Ruth's decline from his peak, and Gehrig being behind him in the lineup. If
my thinking is correct on this, and assuming that Gehrig's being behind him
in
the lineup increases Ruth's walk rate to some extent other things being
equal,
then one could make the case that Ruth's walk rate would have decreased even
more than it did if Gehrig weren't behid him.
Ben Flieger
> >IBB's being related to the quality of the following hitter has never
> >been disputed by statheads.
>
> I don't think it is used in this manner. It's typically used to say
> the NL #8 hitter gets IBBs for this reason.
> You are saying that Bonds' IBBs decrease because Kent was hitting
> behind him.
Yeah, I am. Bond's career high in IBB(43) was his first year in San
Francisco. He hasn't gone above 34 since then(1997, the first year sans
Williams). His last two years have been 9(only 434 PA) and 21. It's not
like Bonds is getting less dangerous, he set a career high in SLG last
year.
> Since I'm sure *you* won't check to see...
>
> Ruth's WR didn't decrease with the addition of Gehrig, which one would
> expect if his IBBs (as they are going to be about 25-35/season)
> decreased.
Since we don't know the exact numbers, merely speculation, this argument
isn't going to go anywhere.
As a percentage of total BB rate, Bonds has been all over the place. 17%
last year, 12% the year before, 22% in 1998. Going backwards from 97:
23%, 19%, 18%, 24%, 34%(!), 25%.
If his IBBs didn't decrease, then Gehrig wouldn't have any
> impact. Which should mean his 600 IBB should still be reasonable
> (about 30-35 a season). Admittedly, his 1920-21 and 1923 are probably
> the highest, with probably upwards of 50 in 1923.
Well, Bonds only once was in the area that you believe Ruth was for his
career. 600 IB would be off the charts in terms of IBBs, and while I can
understand him having very high totals, that seems unusuallly high.
Ron Johnson
David Andrew Leonardo Marasco <dmar...@merle.acns.nwu.edu> wrote:
>
>Who was batting behind Ruth before Gehrig got there? It's not like
>the #4 hitter in the Yankees lineup has traditionally been a
>creampuff.
Bob Meusel after about mid-season 1920. Before that, Del Pratt.
--
RNJ
Chris Cathcart
>In article <3AA7...@MailAndNews.com>,
>Bobby Burns <Myluvisli...@MailAndNews.com> wrote:
>>
>>prolonged (say 75-100 PA) slump?" The record would seem to indicate that he
>>didn't, based on the fact that his OBP was always better than the rest of
>>the league, regardless of PAs in a season. Is this then the logical result
>>of patience at the plate, a "slump-proof" hitter?
>
>Depends on how you define slump-proof.
>
>I looked at a number of hitter's month by month performances. Jose Cruz
>is a notoriously streaky player and he in fact has a fairly large standard
>deviation in monthly performances.
>
>Tony Gwynn had by far the smallest.
>
>But Barry Bonds had the largest of any player I looked at (and I
>didn't include his first two years).
>
>The thing is though that he never had what you could call an objectively
>bad month. They ranged from good to other-worldly.
(E.g., check out
http://www.bigbadbaseball.com/articles/jones_20000210.html .)
Just a hypothesis, but if patience at the plate means "slump-proof" hitting,
it doesn't mean "slump-proof" over any stretch of a few games, but over the
course of many games to a full season's worth, it makes for consistently
high-level production. Patient hitting would explain tremendous
regular-season success, but it might not be the kind of batting style
tailored
to guaranteeing strong output over a given stretch of a few games, which
might
help explain his "struggles" at the plate in the post-season.
Well, at least it puts more thought into the explanation than the moronic
"he's a choker" theory (which is belied by his huge number of IBB's). Well,
the latter's not even really a theory much less a hypothesis, since no
argument is really given, and no evidence provided, unless a very small
sample
size constitutes solid evidence.
Ergo, Neyer is right. :-P
Chris Cathcart
Bobby Burns
>In article <3AA7...@MailAndNews.com>,
>Bobby Burns <Myluvisli...@MailAndNews.com> wrote:
>>
>>prolonged (say 75-100 PA) slump?" The record would seem to indicate that he
>>didn't, based on the fact that his OBP was always better than the rest of
>>the league, regardless of PAs in a season. Is this then the logical result
>>of patience at the plate, a "slump-proof" hitter?
>
>Depends on how you define slump-proof.
>
>I looked at a number of hitter's month by month performances. Jose Cruz
>is a notoriously streaky player and he in fact has a fairly large standard
>deviation in monthly performances.
>
>Tony Gwynn had by far the smallest.
Deviation in BA, OBP, or OPS?
As I understand it Gwynn is somewhat problematic because his OBP is not all
that wonderful, and that his OPS is very ordinary, despite his high BA. Is
this the "sacrifice" made to be slump-proof?
Bobby Burns
>>===== Original Message From joh...@ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) =====
>>In article <3AA7...@MailAndNews.com>,
>>Bobby Burns <Myluvisli...@MailAndNews.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>prolonged (say 75-100 PA) slump?" The record would seem to indicate that
he
>>>didn't, based on the fact that his OBP was always better than the rest of
>>>the league, regardless of PAs in a season. Is this then the logical result
>>>of patience at the plate, a "slump-proof" hitter?
snip.... leading to
>Just a hypothesis, but if patience at the plate means "slump-proof" hitting,
>it doesn't mean "slump-proof" over any stretch of a few games, but over the
>course of many games to a full season's worth, it makes for consistently
>high-level production.....
Which is why I used a 75-100 PA range to define a "real" slump. I wonder if
Williams ever had an OBP of <.300 over a range of 75 to 100 PAs (including
his
subpar year (1959?).
And in the same vein, I wonder if he ever had a month of less than say
.650-.700 OPS? My gut reaction would be to say, "No."
>.......Patient hitting would explain tremendous
>regular-season success, but it might not be the kind of batting style
>tailored
>to guaranteeing strong output over a given stretch of a few games, which
>might
>help explain his "struggles" at the plate in the post-season.
>
>Well, at least it puts more thought into the explanation than the moronic
>"he's a choker" theory (which is belied by his huge number of IBB's). Well,
>the latter's not even really a theory much less a hypothesis, since no
>argument is really given, and no evidence provided, unless a very small
>sample
>size constitutes solid evidence.
>Ergo, Neyer is right. :-P
I assume that you're referring to Bonds' travails in the post-season, but it
would fit the very, very limited post-season experience of Williams as well,
no?
Roger Moore
>So you're saying Gehrig "protected" Ruth and forced pitchers to throw
>Ruth more strikes?
No, he's suggesting that Gehrig was a good enough hitter that pitchers
would be less inclined to deliberately walk Ruth, which is a little bit
different. Weak protection, i.e. that lack of a good following hitter
increases intentional/semi-intentional walks, actually seems to have some
factual support. The enormous number of intentional walks to number 8
hitters in the NL is a solid piece of evidence that people actually do
give intentional walks to get at a weak hitter. It's strong protection,
i.e. that having a good hitter next causes pitchers to throw more strikes
resulting in a batter hitting for more power, that has been rejected for
lack of evidence.
Vinay Kumar
: Yep. Depending on who you have batting behind you, weak protection
: may or may not come into play.
:
: FWIW I did break down Bonds' stats into protected/non-protected
: for the 1996 season (when Matt Williams missed half the year).
:
: I missed a box score or two, but in roughly 330 PA's protected he had
: roughly 100 walks, and in roughly 330 unprotected he had about 50 walks.
: I don't think I kept track of IBB's. :(
Am I reading that correctly? Bonds walked *more* with Williams behind
him?
--
/---------------------------------------------------------------\
| Vinay Kumar |
| vi...@baseball.org http://www.baseball.org/~vinay |
\---------------------------------------------------------------/
Bob-Nob
<snip>
> Which leads me to this question, Roger - "Did Williams EVER go into a
> prolonged (say 75-100 PA) slump?" The record would seem to indicate that he
> didn't, based on the fact that his OBP was always better than the rest of
> the league, regardless of PAs in a season. Is this then the logical result
> of patience at the plate, a "slump-proof" hitter?
Memory of accounts of the season suggest he slumped in September
of 1946 (that he may have been a lot closer to winning the triple crown
that year heading into the month). He also got injured toward the end
of the month, as well. That'd be a good month to check.
(Of course, one can also check his 1959 season since it was
his worst, but that's not really the sort of thing you're talking
about, I think).
Catch you later.
--Bob Machemer
--
Robert Paul Aubrey Machemer (Bob) | "For each time he falls, he shall
Amherst College, Class of 1996 | rise again, and woe to the wicked!"
http://www.amherst.edu/~rpmachem | --Don Quixote (Man of La Mancha)
"BOB IS NOB!"
Chris Cathcart
I wrote:
>>.......Patient hitting would explain tremendous
>>regular-season success, but it might not be the kind of batting style
>>tailored
>>to guaranteeing strong output over a given stretch of a few games, which
>>might
>>help explain his "struggles" at the plate in the post-season.
>>
>>Well, at least it puts more thought into the explanation than the moronic
>>"he's a choker" theory (which is belied by his huge number of IBB's). Well,
>>the latter's not even really a theory much less a hypothesis, since no
>>argument is really given, and no evidence provided, unless a very small
>>sample
>>size constitutes solid evidence.
>
>>Ergo, Neyer is right. :-P
>
>I assume that you're referring to Bonds' travails in the post-season, but it
>would fit the very, very limited post-season experience of Williams as well,
>no?
I think it would, a fortiori, since Williams was in only one post-season
series compared to 5 now for Bonds. (That Bonds has *been* to the
post-season
that many times basically never enters into the minds of the "Bonds is a
choker" crowd.)
The reference to Neyer is more a reference to the recent discussion,
regarding
Neyer's "elitism" when it comes to the inability or unwillingness of much of
the masses and the media to *think* through what they say -- particularly
fitting cases in point being things like "Jeter is clutch" or "Bonds is a
choker."
BTW, just look in on the ESPN.com discussion groups compared to here, to see
what I mean. Here, you have intelligent discussion, including among many of
those who haven't bought into the stat-head craze big-time. I go and check
the SF Giants discussion board on ESPN.com, and it's just moron after
fucking
moron spouting the same old stuff about Barry that really requires no
thought
at all -- that is, if it isn't defying the requirements of thought outright.
Even so factually wrong things as "Barry is whining about his contract" or
"He's just showing again that it's all about him and his money, not the
team."
Not to say that ESPN.com itself -- the editors, writers, etc. in particular
--
isn't admirably ahead of the curve when it comes to baseball analysis. Not
just Neyer touts OPS there; Gammons is one who has enough integrity and
intelligence to recognize the general usefulness of OPS and mention it
often.
But a lot of the contributors to discussion boards there seem like the
typical
moronic intellectual thugs who wouldn't last in a place like this newsgroup.
David Andrew Leonardo Marasco
Vinay Kumar <vi...@baseball.org> wrote:
>dmar...@merle.acns.nwu.edu (David Andrew Leonardo Marasco) writes:
>
>: Yep. Depending on who you have batting behind you, weak protection
>: may or may not come into play.
>:
>: FWIW I did break down Bonds' stats into protected/non-protected
>: for the 1996 season (when Matt Williams missed half the year).
>:
>: I missed a box score or two, but in roughly 330 PA's protected he had
>: roughly 100 walks, and in roughly 330 unprotected he had about 50 walks.
>: I don't think I kept track of IBB's. :(
>
>Am I reading that correctly? Bonds walked *more* with Williams behind
>him?
>
You read it correctly, I typed it incorrectly. 100 walks in 330 UNprotected,
50 in 330 protected.
D'oh!
Ron Johnson
Bobby Burns <Myluvisli...@MailAndNews.com> wrote:
>>===== Original Message From joh...@ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) =====
>>In article <3AA7...@MailAndNews.com>,
>>Bobby Burns <Myluvisli...@MailAndNews.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Which leads me to this question, Roger - "Did Williams EVER go into a
>>>prolonged (say 75-100 PA) slump?" The record would seem to indicate that he
>>>didn't, based on the fact that his OBP was always better than the rest of
>>>the league, regardless of PAs in a season. Is this then the logical result
>>>of patience at the plate, a "slump-proof" hitter?
>>
>>Depends on how you define slump-proof.
>>
>>I looked at a number of hitter's month by month performances. Jose Cruz
>>is a notoriously streaky player and he in fact has a fairly large standard
>>deviation in monthly performances.
>>
>>Tony Gwynn had by far the smallest.
>
>Deviation in BA, OBP, or OPS?
OPS.
>As I understand it Gwynn is somewhat problematic because his OBP is not all
>that wonderful, and that his OPS is very ordinary, despite his high BA.
That's over-stating the case. Gwynn's generally over-rated but hardly
ordinary. I'm talking about his numbers from 1985-99.
>Is this the "sacrifice" made to be slump-proof?
What sacrifice. So he's not Barry Bonds? Big deal. I'd settle for Gwynn.
Not that his being unusually consistent changes my opinion of him.
--
RNJ
David Andrew Leonardo Marasco
Douglas T. Massey <mas...@valhalla.btv.ibm.com> wrote:
>In article <97418s$ndp$1...@news.acns.nwu.edu>,
> dmar...@merle.acns.nwu.edu (David Andrew Leonardo Marasco) writes:
<snip>
>>
>> Since Babe has ~2000 career walks, you are claiming that 30-35% of them were
>> IBB's. With Gehrig batting behind him for a good chunk of his career?
>>
>> Sorry, I just don't see it.
>
>Hmm. Gehrig played with Ruth for 1925-1934, about 55% of Ruth's batting
>career. During those years, Ruth drew 1161 walks in 1375 games, about
>0.84 per game. In 1914-24 and 1935, Ruth drew 901 walks in 1128 games,
>about 0.80 per game. So it looks like Ruth drew more walks with Gehrig
>than without . . .
>
That's a surprising result. What about if you take out the period when
Ruth was a pitcher and 1935 (of course, if you drop 1935 from the "no
Gehrig period, why not drop 1934 from the Gehrig years, gotta be careful
with how we play with the endpoints)?
>I look at the seasons of 1920-24 and wonder why any pitcher would
>ever throw him a strike. Here's his advantage over the second-best
>starter on each Yankee team through those five years, in AVG/OBP/SLG
>
>1920: 062/160/420 over Del Pratt (a 420-pt SLG advantage!)
>1921: 062/084/393 over Wally Schang
>1922: -04/029/260 over Wally Schang and -14/042/206 over Wally Pipp
>1923: 080/186/286 over Bob Meusel
>1924: 053/148/245 over Bob Meusel
>
>then compare him to Lou Gerhig over the next few years:
>
>1925: -5/38/23
>1926: 58/96/186
>1927: -18/12/7 (that's 772 SLG - 765 SLG, folks)
>1928: -49/-4/61
>1929: 45/-1/115
>1930: -20/20/12
>1931: 32/49/38
>1932: -8/38/40
>1933: -33/18/-23
>1934: -75/-17/-169
>
I don't know what I find more mind-boggling, the fact that Ruth was
so far ahead of the pre-Gehrig hitters, or that Gehrig was so close
to Ruth.
>Lou was more or less Babe's equal. I would suspect that Ruth's IBB
>would have to go down -- especially since Gehrig was more than able to
>drive him in from first base -- 40 2B, 13 3B, and 35 HR per year for
>those ten years.
>
>Between 1920-24, I would think that Ruth would be walked, without a
>second thought, every time first base was open. I wonder if old
>newspaper descriptions (or Retrosheet) addresses this at all. There might
>have been some sort of macho-challenge-the-hitter thing going on, but
>come on -- teams still wanted to win games, right? They *knew* Ruth
>had the power, starting in 1919!
>
>I think about 14% of plate appearances have first base open with a
>runner on second and/or third. That would be 442 of his 3162 PA between
>1920 and 1924. About 7-8% of plate appearances have first base open
>with a runner on second and/or third with less than two out -- that's
>245 PA right there where a manager *has* to walk Ruth, unless there's
>some league-wide never-intentionally-walk-a-hitter policy in effect.
>
That's where you or I would think about walking him, it isn't clear to
me that they did walk him as a policy.
THe World Series are probably well documented, we ought to be able to
dig up hitter-by-hitter accounts of those games and see if this rule
was followed.
>I've got to believe, at first guess, that he received 300-350 IBB between
>1920 and 1924 alone.
If they were using the "always walk Ruth in the 7-8% situtions" that you
described, then shouldn't there be a corresponding drop in walk rate
when Gehrig shows? I mean, if Gehrig is so close to Ruth in performance,
does it make sense to walk the bases loaded (or man on 1st + 2nd/3rd) with
fewer than two out to face Gehrig?
David Marc Nieporent
> >So you're saying Gehrig "protected" Ruth and forced pitchers to throw
> >Ruth more strikes?
> No, he's suggesting that Gehrig was a good enough hitter that pitchers
> would be less inclined to deliberately walk Ruth, which is a little bit
> different. Weak protection, i.e. that lack of a good following hitter
> increases intentional/semi-intentional walks, actually seems to have some
> factual support. The enormous number of intentional walks to number 8
> hitters in the NL is a solid piece of evidence that people actually do
> give intentional walks to get at a weak hitter.
Not really. It's solid evidence that people give intentional walks to get
to a pitcher. I don't think it's valid to extrapolate from that to any
other situation, given the massive difference between a pitcher and a real
hitter. (Which doesn't mean I'm disputing the weak protection theory.)
> It's strong protection,
> i.e. that having a good hitter next causes pitchers to throw more strikes
> resulting in a batter hitting for more power, that has been rejected for
> lack of evidence.
---------------------------------------------
David M. Nieporent niep...@alumni.princeton.edu
Voros
Meusel's 1925 line is, IMO, one of the more interesting stat lines out
there when you take into account the totality of all the events of that
season and his career.
One upped Ty Cobb in the "he could have hit homeruns if he wanted to"
category by spending a season doing exactly that (led the league).
--
Voros McCracken
vo...@daruma.co.jp
http://www.baseballstuff.com/mccracken/
Voros
>>So you're saying Gehrig "protected" Ruth and forced pitchers to throw
>>Ruth more strikes?
> No, he's suggesting that Gehrig was a good enough hitter that pitchers
> would be less inclined to deliberately walk Ruth, which is a little bit
> different. Weak protection, i.e. that lack of a good following hitter
> increases intentional/semi-intentional walks, actually seems to have some
> factual support. The enormous number of intentional walks to number 8
> hitters in the NL is a solid piece of evidence that people actually do
> give intentional walks to get at a weak hitter. It's strong protection,
> i.e. that having a good hitter next causes pitchers to throw more strikes
> resulting in a batter hitting for more power, that has been rejected for
> lack of evidence.
One thing that I think goes unmentioned a lot, is how those ungodly
splits you see between when hitters are ahead in the count and behind in
the count is not exactly what it may seem to be. By far the biggest
difference in the two numbers is the fact that one group has no strikeouts
and the other group has lots of them. When you remove the strikeouts from
the equation, the differences, while still significant, are much less
pronounced. This doesn't speak to the advantages of getting ahead and
falling behind, but it does speak to the "easier pitches to hit well"
aspect of being ahead in the count.
Voros
> OPS.
Any thoughts on maybe strikeouts as a factor here as far as "slumps" go?
Voros
> OPS.
Just as an addition, I did a little mini thing with Mark Grace and Eric
Karros' stats in 1999. If you look just at their raw stats, in terms of
value they're almost identical, they just achieved it in vastly different
ways. I ignored left and right, and used log5 to see what each would hit
against two different pitchers if I broke down their line category by
category.
The pitcher's were Pedro Martinez and Scott Karl. The result was that
Grace was much much much better against Pedro and Karros obliterated poor
Scott Karl. In other words the range of performance using this method was
much smaller for the slap hitting average guy, than the power hitting
strikeout machine.
Unfortunately that was all theoretical. If this were to hold true in real
life, I think that would be a decent piece of new knowledge to kick
around, AND would have the side benefit of gaining some insight as to good
batter vs. pitcher matchups.
jmac
Chris Cathcart wrote:
>
>
>
> Not to say that ESPN.com itself -- the editors, writers, etc. in particular
> isn't admirably ahead of the curve when it comes to baseball analysis. Not
> just Neyer touts OPS there; Gammons is one who has enough integrity and
> intelligence to recognize the general usefulness of OPS and mention it
> often.
>
then they have Tim Kurkjian to even things out
Douglas T. Massey
dmar...@merle.acns.nwu.edu (David Andrew Leonardo Marasco) writes:
> In article <9760h5$slq$1...@news.btv.ibm.com>,
> Douglas T. Massey <mas...@valhalla.btv.ibm.com> wrote:
>>In article <97418s$ndp$1...@news.acns.nwu.edu>,
>> dmar...@merle.acns.nwu.edu (David Andrew Leonardo Marasco) writes:
>
> <snip>
>>>
>>> Since Babe has ~2000 career walks, you are claiming that 30-35% of them were
>>> IBB's. With Gehrig batting behind him for a good chunk of his career?
>>>
>>> Sorry, I just don't see it.
>>
>>Hmm. Gehrig played with Ruth for 1925-1934, about 55% of Ruth's batting
>>career. During those years, Ruth drew 1161 walks in 1375 games, about
>>0.84 per game. In 1914-24 and 1935, Ruth drew 901 walks in 1128 games,
>>about 0.80 per game. So it looks like Ruth drew more walks with Gehrig
>>than without . . .
>>
>
> That's a surprising result. What about if you take out the period when
> Ruth was a pitcher and 1935 (of course, if you drop 1935 from the "no
> Gehrig period, why not drop 1934 from the Gehrig years, gotta be careful
> with how we play with the endpoints)?
Well, 1914-1918 don't give Ruth that many walks of any type (89, of his
2062 for his career), and 1935 adds only 20 more.
I don't see a compelling reason to drop 1934, though. I'm sure pitchers
stopped pitching around Ruth to get to Gehrig at some point around 1933
or so, but Ruth was still a terrific hitter and there's still reason to
walk him with first open and less that two outs (namely, double plays).
>>Between 1920-24, I would think that Ruth would be walked, without a
>>second thought, every time first base was open. I wonder if old
>>newspaper descriptions (or Retrosheet) addresses this at all. There might
>>have been some sort of macho-challenge-the-hitter thing going on, but
>>come on -- teams still wanted to win games, right? They *knew* Ruth
>>had the power, starting in 1919!
>>
>>I think about 14% of plate appearances have first base open with a
>>runner on second and/or third. That would be 442 of his 3162 PA between
>>1920 and 1924. About 7-8% of plate appearances have first base open
>>with a runner on second and/or third with less than two out -- that's
>>245 PA right there where a manager *has* to walk Ruth, unless there's
>>some league-wide never-intentionally-walk-a-hitter policy in effect.
>>
>
> That's where you or I would think about walking him, it isn't clear to
> me that they did walk him as a policy.
>
> THe World Series are probably well documented, we ought to be able to
> dig up hitter-by-hitter accounts of those games and see if this rule
> was followed.
I'd be very curious -- I have no idea how to research this, though.
Help!
>>I've got to believe, at first guess, that he received 300-350 IBB between
>>1920 and 1924 alone.
>
> If they were using the "always walk Ruth in the 7-8% situtions" that you
> described, then shouldn't there be a corresponding drop in walk rate
> when Gehrig shows? I mean, if Gehrig is so close to Ruth in performance,
> does it make sense to walk the bases loaded (or man on 1st + 2nd/3rd) with
> fewer than two out to face Gehrig?
Sure -- double plays. If there's a man on second with one out, walk
Ruth and hope for a double play. Who hit behind Gehrig (who was #5
for the Yankees? Jersey number = batting order position, early on.
Ruth = 3, Gehrig = 4, Meusel = 5?). Pitching with runners on first
and second with one out, to Gehrig, then Meusel, is probably preferable
in some managers' minds to pitching with a runner on second with one
out to Ruth and Gehrig.
Christ, it must have just seemed hopeless to opposing pitchers and
managers . . .
Bob-Nob
> Just as an addition, I did a little mini thing with Mark Grace and Eric
> Karros' stats in 1999. If you look just at their raw stats, in terms of
> value they're almost identical, they just achieved it in vastly different
> ways. I ignored left and right, and used log5 to see what each would hit
> against two different pitchers if I broke down their line category by
> category.
> The pitcher's were Pedro Martinez and Scott Karl. The result was that
> Grace was much much much better against Pedro and Karros obliterated poor
> Scott Karl. In other words the range of performance using this method was
> much smaller for the slap hitting average guy, than the power hitting
> strikeout machine.
> Unfortunately that was all theoretical. If this were to hold true in real
> life, I think that would be a decent piece of new knowledge to kick
> around, AND would have the side benefit of gaining some insight as to good
> batter vs. pitcher matchups.
Wouldn't your info tend to suggest that high average hitters
are better against good pitchers than power guys? If so, how do you
reconcile that with Bill James's World Series prediction system (in
which James suggests that high-average teams do significantly worse
than low-average teams in the postseason)?
David Andrew Leonardo Marasco
Douglas T. Massey <mas...@valhalla.btv.ibm.com> wrote:
>In article <976fj2$eph$1...@news.acns.nwu.edu>,
> dmar...@merle.acns.nwu.edu (David Andrew Leonardo Marasco) writes:
>> In article <9760h5$slq$1...@news.btv.ibm.com>,
>> Douglas T. Massey <mas...@valhalla.btv.ibm.com> wrote:
>>>In article <97418s$ndp$1...@news.acns.nwu.edu>,
>>> dmar...@merle.acns.nwu.edu (David Andrew Leonardo Marasco) writes:
>>
>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> Since Babe has ~2000 career walks, you are claiming that 30-35% of them were
>>>> IBB's. With Gehrig batting behind him for a good chunk of his career?
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, I just don't see it.
>>>
>>>Hmm. Gehrig played with Ruth for 1925-1934, about 55% of Ruth's batting
>>>career. During those years, Ruth drew 1161 walks in 1375 games, about
>>>0.84 per game. In 1914-24 and 1935, Ruth drew 901 walks in 1128 games,
>>>about 0.80 per game. So it looks like Ruth drew more walks with Gehrig
>>>than without . . .
>>>
>>
>> That's a surprising result. What about if you take out the period when
>> Ruth was a pitcher and 1935 (of course, if you drop 1935 from the "no
>> Gehrig period, why not drop 1934 from the Gehrig years, gotta be careful
>> with how we play with the endpoints)?
>
>Well, 1914-1918 don't give Ruth that many walks of any type (89, of his
>2062 for his career), and 1935 adds only 20 more.
>
That's my point though. If you use years where Ruth was considered by
the opposing team as a pitcher in the protected-by-Gehrig vs.
not-protected-by-Gehrig comparison, I'd expect that he would get fewer
walks when not protected by Gehrig, simply due to the fact that pitchers
aren't frequently walked.
My initial reaction to 1935 was "hey, that's at the end of his career,
why not drop that too," but then I switched horses because unlike the
pitcher/nonpitcher issue there's no real justification to dropping
1935. That's why I brought up 1934, if you use "near end of career"
to drop 1935, why stop there, why not drop 1934 also? End result is that
you should probably keep both.
<snip>
>>>runner on second and/or third. That would be 442 of his 3162 PA between
>>>1920 and 1924. About 7-8% of plate appearances have first base open
>>>with a runner on second and/or third with less than two out -- that's
>>>245 PA right there where a manager *has* to walk Ruth, unless there's
>>>some league-wide never-intentionally-walk-a-hitter policy in effect.
>>>
>>
>> That's where you or I would think about walking him, it isn't clear to
>> me that they did walk him as a policy.
>>
>> THe World Series are probably well documented, we ought to be able to
>> dig up hitter-by-hitter accounts of those games and see if this rule
>> was followed.
>
>I'd be very curious -- I have no idea how to research this, though.
>
>Help!
>
I know that I was able to get play-by-play reports of the 1919 World
Series, but then again, as I live in Chicago my library carries
Chicago papers of the period. Most large libraries have the New York
Times on microfilm, although I'm not sure if they had play-by-play
accounts of the World Series of that period.
Quite frankly, my ulcer and I will bow out of this trip to the library.
If you find the results, I'd be very interested in seeing them.
>>>I've got to believe, at first guess, that he received 300-350 IBB between
>>>1920 and 1924 alone.
>>
>> If they were using the "always walk Ruth in the 7-8% situtions" that you
>> described, then shouldn't there be a corresponding drop in walk rate
>> when Gehrig shows? I mean, if Gehrig is so close to Ruth in performance,
>> does it make sense to walk the bases loaded (or man on 1st + 2nd/3rd) with
>> fewer than two out to face Gehrig?
>
>Sure -- double plays. If there's a man on second with one out, walk
>Ruth and hope for a double play. Who hit behind Gehrig (who was #5
>for the Yankees? Jersey number = batting order position, early on.
>Ruth = 3, Gehrig = 4, Meusel = 5?). Pitching with runners on first
>and second with one out, to Gehrig, then Meusel, is probably preferable
>in some managers' minds to pitching with a runner on second with one
>out to Ruth and Gehrig.
>
I didn't consider that. Good point. I guess in most "normal" situations
you never want to add runners (in my mind I'm thinking about those
expected-run charts with the runners-on and outs as your variables), but
maybe with Ruth/Gehrig/#5 you do want to walk Ruth even with Gehrig. I
guess I have to think about this some more.
>Christ, it must have just seemed hopeless to opposing pitchers and
>managers . . .
>
"After we walk in a few runs, things will get better" :)
Chris Dial
>"Chris Dial" <acd...@intrex.net> writes:
>
>>Since I'm sure *you* won't check to see...
>
>>Ruth's WR didn't decrease with the addition of Gehrig, which one
would
>>expect if his IBBs (as they are going to be about 25-35/season)
>>decreased.
>
his
>1920-25 to his 1926-31, roughly his time with the Yankees before
Gehrig
>became a regular and the equal time period after. His
BB/(AB+BB+SH+SF)
>dropped from 20.8% in 1920-25 to 19.1% in 1926-31. Even if you
juggle
>things a bit, claiming that Gehrig arrived in 1925 or that he didn't
>establish himself until 1927, Ruth still had a lower walk rate after
>Gehrig got there. His walk rate from 1920-24 was 21.7% vs. 18.1% for
>1925-29, and for 1920-26 was 21.0% vs. 19.1% for 1927-33. No matter
how
>you slice it, Ruth walked in about 2% fewer PA after Gehrig arrived,
or
>perhaps 10-15 BB per season.
I get about 1.5% and 10 BB (I'm not using SH+SF due to availability),
but without his 1920 numbers, his ISO goes down by a home run or so.
It's extremely beneficial in any Ruth comps to include 1920 because of
it's outlandish numbers - it's a higher WR than even 1923 when he had
170 walks.
I still think Gehrig wouldn't cause any of that. Ruth has two giant
spikes in 1920 and 1923 that push this 2%. His WR was as high (or
higher) with Gehrig in the 4-hole all the time.
Season (OBP-BA)
1920 .154
1923 .152
1926 .144
1928 .138
1924 .135
1930 .134
1921 .134
1927 .131
1931 .121
1922 .119
1925 .103
1929 .085 (!!)
Yr (SLG-BA)
1920 .472
1921 .469
1927 .417
1928 .386
1930 .373
1923 .372
1926 .366
1924 .361
1922 .357
1929 .353
1931 .328
1925 .253
The sheer number of BBs is absurd as well.
I'm not the historian as some of you, but what happened in 1929?
Wasn't he injured with some kind of bleeding abcess in 1925 and
suspended in 1922 (or is that backwards)?
Chris Dial
Voros
> Voros venit, vidit, et dixit:
>> Just as an addition, I did a little mini thing with Mark Grace and Eric
>> Karros' stats in 1999. If you look just at their raw stats, in terms of
>> value they're almost identical, they just achieved it in vastly different
>> ways. I ignored left and right, and used log5 to see what each would hit
>> against two different pitchers if I broke down their line category by
>> category.
>> The pitcher's were Pedro Martinez and Scott Karl. The result was that
>> Grace was much much much better against Pedro and Karros obliterated poor
>> Scott Karl. In other words the range of performance using this method was
>> much smaller for the slap hitting average guy, than the power hitting
>> strikeout machine.
>> Unfortunately that was all theoretical. If this were to hold true in real
>> life, I think that would be a decent piece of new knowledge to kick
>> around, AND would have the side benefit of gaining some insight as to good
>> batter vs. pitcher matchups.
> Wouldn't your info tend to suggest that high average hitters
> are better against good pitchers than power guys? If so, how do you
> reconcile that with Bill James's World Series prediction system (in
> which James suggests that high-average teams do significantly worse
> than low-average teams in the postseason)?
It's actually more along the lines of contact hitters, not so much high
average hitters.
The difference is that while there's a large amount of ability involved in
hitting for a high batting average in a season, there also appears to be
much more variation and fluctuation than with homers. It's not like with
pitchers where it's mostly fluctuation, but there's still more than for
things like Walks, Strikeouts and Homers.
As such, a reason James found high average teams doing worse may be
because since average doesn't track quite as well with ability as homers,
the high average teams probably tended to be slight over achievers.
Just a guess, but I don't think the two are irreconciable.
Ron Johnson
Chris Dial <acd...@intrex.net> wrote:
>
>I still think Gehrig wouldn't cause any of that. Ruth has two giant
>spikes in 1920 and 1923 that push this 2%. His WR was as high (or
>higher) with Gehrig in the 4-hole all the time.
Since the discussion is about Ruth's IBB, I thought I'd check
his WS stats. According to the Stats sourcebook only 2 of his
33 WS BBs were intentional.
One in 1926 and one in 1927.
>
>I'm not the historian as some of you, but what happened in 1929?
>Wasn't he injured with some kind of bleeding abcess in 1925 and
>suspended in 1922 (or is that backwards)?
He (and Meusel_ were suspended for barnstorming in 1922.
In April 1925 he collapsed in a train station (in Asheville, North
Carolina) and was operated on 10 days later for an intestinal
abscess.
In June 1929 he entered hospital for treatment of a really
bad chest cold. Was diagnosed with a heart murmer and was
ordered to rest. Missed two weeks and was rested a fair amount
for the rest of the season.
>
>Chris Dial
>
>
--
RNJ
Ron Johnson
>
>Any thoughts on maybe strikeouts as a factor here as far as "slumps" go?
I'm not in a position to comment. I did the data entry by hand and
didn't think to include Ks. I don't feel like doing it again to
check this.
Just from eyeballing what I do have, there does seem to be *some*
correlation between K rates and the range of monthly OPS. No idea
how high.
--
RNJ
David J. Grabiner
> I don't think it is used in this manner. It's typically used to say
> the NL #8 hitter gets IBBs for this reason.
> You are saying that Bonds' IBBs decrease because Kent was hitting
> behind him.
One standard citation is that Maris didn't draw a single IBB in 1961,
despite being the defending MVP and having an even better year.
(However, he didn't even draw an IBB when Mantle wasn't in the lineup.)
--
David Grabiner, grab...@math.la.asu.edu (note new address)
http://math.la.asu.edu/~grabiner
Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street!
Torus Coffee and Donuts, Klein Glassworks, Projective Airlines, etc.
C Nick Beaudrot
: lyfo...@aol.com (LyfordIII) writes:
:
: >From
: >1940-1958, 19 seasons, WIlliams led the AL in OBP _every_
: >season_in_which_he_was_eligible, 11 times. He lost 5 years to
: >the war. In 1956, he needed 400.4 AB to qualify, and finished
: >the year with 400, and that was during a stretch in which they
: >would NOT add hitless AB, or he would have won that year as
: >well.
:
: Of course you could claim 1940-1960, since he didn't qualify in 59 or 60,
: but I think that you're missing something even more impressive. Williams
: didn't just win it every year he qualified during 1940-58. Every year
: when he played and _didn't_ qualify his OBA was higher than that of the
: league leader, even the years when he got only a handful of plate
: appearances. It was in 1960, too. IOW, his OBA was higher than the
: highest qualifier for the OBA title every year he played except for his
: rookie season (when he was 20) and his sub par 1959 (when he was 40 and
: had a bad neck). Even Ruth and Cobb (the only players to dominate any one
: of BA/OBA/SLG to nearly the same extent) flat out lost the title once in a
: while. After his rookie year, Williams won every time he qualified.
: Every time.
When Mantle (DiMaggio?) died, there were a couple of articles on who was
the greatest living player. Being an Atlantan, and a young'n, I was biased
and thought Aaron was no-brainer. But on further inspection, Williams
definitely dominated hitting far more. Wow.
Cheers,
Nick
PS that 1941 season is out of control. Sweet sassy molassey. To
paraphrase Rany Jazayerli (sp?) "Make all the cracks you want about
Fenway park, but if you hit .406/.551/.735 on the moon you're having on
of the best seasons ever".
--
ni-q
.
bomb president allah marx encryption revolution Pat Buchanan unabomber occult