Simba & The Incredible Hulk
Posted by Steve Lombardi on December 7, 2010
Until now, I never realized how close the career stats were for these two...
.
| Player | WAR/pos | From | To | Age | G | PA | AB | R | H | 2B | 3B | HR | RBI | BB | IBB | SO | HBP | SH | SF | GDP | SB | CS | Pos | Tm | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ted Simmons | 50.4 | 1968 | 1988 | 18-38 | 2456 | 9685 | 8680 | 1074 | 2472 | 483 | 47 | 248 | 1389 | 855 | 188 | 694 | 39 | 11 | 100 | 287 | 21 | 33 | .285 | .348 | .437 | .785 | *2D3/759 | STL-MIL-ATL |
| Brian Downing | 49.4 | 1973 | 1992 | 22-41 | 2344 | 9309 | 7853 | 1188 | 2099 | 360 | 28 | 275 | 1073 | 1197 | 55 | 1127 | 129 | 60 | 70 | 197 | 50 | 44 | .267 | .370 | .425 | .796 | D72/954 | CHW-CAL-TEX |
.
When you think of Simmons, did you ever think of Downing, before now? Should we?
December 9th, 2010 at 8:13 am
@97 further review.... Your Hall would have 200 - 225 players. Would it (or not) include the following players that you stated the BBWAA should not have voted in ?
Jim Rice
Bruce Sutter
Kirby Puckett
Tony Perez
Rollie Fingers
Catfish Hunter
Lou Brock
Hoyt Wilhelm
Luis Apparicio
Bob Lemon
Ralph Kiner
Rabit Maranville
Dizzy Dean
Herb Pennock
Pie Traynor
And, a bunch of others on the initial model list of 100 as selected by Veterans ? who? Sam Crawford? Dan Brouthers? Roger Connor ? Johnny Mize ? Sam Thompson ? who?
December 9th, 2010 at 10:05 am
TFG, get over yourself, you're not turning anything upside down. You predicted Boggs, Henderson, and Clemens as likely HOFers? Incredible! Are you serious with this? It's quite obvious your interest in this stuff just resumed. You're talking about range factor? That's it, just range factor? It's not "new-fangled" and no one uses it as the defining measure of defense, just as no one uses this new-fangled hit by pitch, also under every player's name, as a defining measure of offense. And all your complaints about FIP apply to every single stat in the world, some of which I'm sure you have no problem citing. FIP isn't intended to do those things. Since it's not useful to you, don't use it. Keep using your secret stat which does magically adjust for how many pitchers and DHs were in the lineup.
December 9th, 2010 at 10:42 am
TGF, at #89, you ask: Which player that the BBWAA have voted in do not belong ?
And you pointed out only a few people answered. What was your answer to this?
December 9th, 2010 at 10:49 am
@98, Twisto,
I look at players as to how many games they actually played rather than assuming they would have accomplished the same things had they played another 8 games a year. It gets kind of tricky when you start adjusting everything to a 162 game schedule. Then I guess you have adjust for players who played in strike years and so on.
I think Warp 3 used to adjust everything to a 162 game schedule. I pretty sure that this version of WAR makes not 162 game schedule.
Then what do you do with 19th century players who played between 60-140 games per season?
I usually think that players who played in the 154 game schedule had an unfair advantage over the 162 game players in that they played without having to compete with/against Latino/Black players.
I lower my threshold for catchers & relief pitchers. I tend to think any catcher with a career + 7 best seasons WAR that average out to 40 to be a HOF. And relief pitchers have to score a 35. I could look at it another way and lower my threshold for 154 game schedule players.
December 9th, 2010 at 11:07 am
Pardon me if I take this in a different direction, but I think that with 130+ seasons of MLB, it may be useful to divide baseball history into several periods, to more accurately evaluate players. Take, for example, Roger Connor and Frank Thomas - they are both huge outstanding slugging first basemen. But - Connors played under such different conditions, that direct comparisons are very difficult.
in Connor's time:
- no fielding gloves (or very primitive)
- he could call for a high or low pitch and it took more than four balls for a walk, at the start of his career
- foul balls not called strikes
- out-of-the-park home runs are not very common
- pitchers threw from 50 feet (till 1893)
- no relief pitchers
..and inummerable other items. Thomas faced none of these conditions. It would be easier to break down baseball history into three/four periods for easier comparisons:
- DEADBALL ERA: 1871 - 1919
LIVE BALL, pre-expansion: 1920 - 1960
LIVE BALL, post-expansion: 1961 - present
(the above could be further broken up by the use of relief pitchers: 1961 to 1985: "Firemen"; 1986 to present: "Closers")
No one classification is going to capture all of the differences in baseball history (the last one could easily be divided into 4/5 more periods), but that's a start.
Of course, it is hard to overcome the human impulse for comparing and ranking performance, even over 100+ years.
December 9th, 2010 at 11:40 am
@93TFG,
The BBWAA of America generally does a very good job because their job isn't very hard and they've been mostly cautious and safe for the most part on their picks and completely inconsistent and arbitrary on many of their picks. If you had a panel for the R&R HOF and they picked the Beatles, Rolling Stones, The Who and Led Zeppelin it's not like they did anything a 13 year old kid couldn't have done. The same things goes with the BBWAA, they elect Tom Seaver, Joe Morgan, and Mike Schmidt and then they pat themselves for the tough job they did.
My main problem with the BBWAA is their general lack of consistency in selected players who rank among the 75-150 best of all time.
Bando & Bell have LESS WAR than Berra.
Again you have to put into context that Yogi Berra was a catcher and catchers because of the position, play less games and for less years than position players. Also, Berra played in an era before the DH so he couldn't play DH when he wasn't catching. Also Bell & Bando's proximity to Berra speaks more to Bando & Bell being much better than their public perception than an inherent flaw in the tabulation of WAR.
As said previously Jim Edmonds is a very underrated player partly because CF's in general are very underrated. Center Fielders are often lumped together with corner outfielder as just "Outfielders" which really makes no sense because of the demands of the CF position.
Edmonds is one of the great power hitting center fielders in BB history and he's also a very good defensive player.
He's 6th!! all time in Home Runs by a Center Fielder with 393.
He's 10th all time in ops+ by a Center Fielder with 132+. Here's the top 10:
Mantle-172
Cobb-168
Speaker-157
Mays-155
Dimaggio-155
Snider-140
Doby-136
Griffey jr-135
Averill-133
Edmonds-132
1-9 are all HOF's.
December 9th, 2010 at 12:09 pm
@106, John Q -- Good points.
December 9th, 2010 at 12:13 pm
John Q, I agree there's no one right way to adjust for shorter schedules. I'm not sure how I would deal with 19th century schedules, 154-games schedules, strike years, etc. I don't think that not adjusting is the right answer, but as always, it depends on what question one is trying to answer.
Lawrence, as you probably realize, lumping 1871 to 1919 as one era isn't necessarily meaningful. 1903 to 1919 probably makes sense as the deadball era, but I think the game was fairly different in 1893 from 1903, and more different in 1883, and more different in 1873.
1920 to 1945 or so probably makes sense. End of WWII, integration begins. As noted on a recent thread, a big jump in home run hitting started in 1950. I think there was a big change in the glove design around this time as well, but not sure what year.
You're right that it's hard to compare Connor and Thomas. WAR can tell us Connor was a great player, but it's too blunt a tool to precisely evaluate the different game of the 1880s.
December 9th, 2010 at 1:01 pm
#108/ Johnny Twisto Says: "Lawrence, as you probably realize, lumping 1871 to 1919 as one era isn't necessarily meaningful. 1903 to 1919 probably makes sense as the deadball era, but I think the game was fairly different in 1893 from 1903, and more different in 1883, and more different in 1873. "
Johnny T., you are absolutely right, but I decided to go with three main periods for brevity, instead of say 10 or 12. The main reason I choose 1871-1919 is "very few home runs, esp. over the fence", which confuses a lot of people when they try to evaluate hitters from that era.
Also, changes seldom take place in clean discrete time segments, and they frequently overlap. From the "Expansion Era":
- first round of expansion: 1961-68
- second "dead ball" era: 1963-68
- second round of expansion: 1969-76
- DH rule in AL: 1973 to present
- both leagues fully integated: ???mid-70s???
- free agency: 1976 to present
- use of closer: 1985(?) to present
- wild card: 1995 to present
Also, there are frequently one or two-season anomolies that don't fit in with the larger narrative: in 1989 and 1992, offense declined to close to1963-1968 levels, and in 1987 offense rose up close to 1920s/1930s levels.
December 9th, 2010 at 2:50 pm
Twisto,
Valid points. I kind of wish BR leader-board page had a different listing of post 1901 numbers because 19th century bb is so much different to what the game evolved into.
Maybe I should have a lower slightly lower threshold for 154 game players, sort of like Catchers.
One of the problems is that there really isn't much of a difference between the 150th best player and the 200th best position player in bb history.
Norm Cash is ranked 50th on the WAR leader-board and Bret Butler is ranked 200th. Cash had a 52.9 career WAR and Butler had a 46.5 career WAR. That's a 6.4 WAR difference, over the span of a 15 year career that's only an extra .42 per year WAR difference. That's nothing.
Lawrence Azrin,
Valid points all around. It is amazing how many little segments baseball can be sliced into since 1961. Again that's the problem when sports writers just assume that a .300 average is a .300 average regardless of what era or ballpark or that 30 hr is 30 hr regardless of what era. You could also add 1988 into that odd anomaly category.
I think the problem that's kind of unique to baseball is that the fans/media can react quite negatively to certain players because of these anomalies.
And lets face it these difficulties come from the odd fact that baseball is strange in that there is not a set standard regarding the field of play. Even the fact that you could make an out in foul territory is unique to baseball.
Imagine in Basketball if they decided to make the rims 2" shorter in diameter. Or if the Boston Celtics decided to increase the diameter of their home rims because they had a very good 3 point shooter. Or the Denver Nuggets decided to put an odd trapazoid shaped section that was in play at the end of each basket. Or maybe the Chicago Bears decided to extend their end zones by 20 yards.
December 9th, 2010 at 2:58 pm
Re: Lawrence @105 et seq. --
It's understandable to try to make "eras" of roughly equal length, and as few of them as possible to adequately capture the real differences in playing conditions.
But I see a big problem with an era defined as 1871-1919, especially in assessing pitchers. You already noted some of the fundamental rules changes that took place before 1893 (when the pitching distance was moved back from 50' to 60'6").
There is also a huge change in a typical pitcher's workload: Through 1892, there were 206 pitcher-seasons of 400+ IP, including 79 of at least 500 IP and 15 of 600+ IP. From 1893 to 1908, there were 19 seasons of 400+ IP, with a high of 482. From 1909 on, no pitcher topped 393 IP; from 1909-19, the average league-leading IP total was under 350.
I would be concerned that the 1871-1919 grouping would really hurt the perceived value of pitchers such as Walter Johnson, Pete Alexander, Ed Walsh, and others who -- by the standards of their day -- threw massive numbers of innings, and under conditions utterly different from those of Old Hoss Radbourne and Pud Galvin.
There is no perfect solution to defining the "eras," of course. But I would strongly favor drawing a line between 1892-93.
December 9th, 2010 at 3:47 pm
#111/ John Autin Says: "Re: Lawrence @105 et seq. --
It's understandable to try to make "eras" of roughly equal length, and as few of them as possible to adequately capture the real differences in playing conditions. But I see a big problem with an era defined as 1871-1919, especially in assessing pitchers. You already noted some of the fundamental rules changes that took place before 1893 (when the pitching distance was moved back from 50' to 60'6")..."
John A., you are absolutely correct, I did combine for brevity several different eras of pitcher usage. Let me break down the 1871-1919 further:
1871-1882 - "The Primordial Era": Rules/conditions in constant state of flux, but lack of gloves produce lots of errors and baserunners. Ever-increasing schedule length produces progressively heavier pitcher workloads.
1883-1892 - "Early Overhand": with restrictions against overhand pitching relaxed/eliminated and gloves introduced, baseball begins to resemble the modern game. Still many differences, such as no relief pitchers (indeed hardly any substitutions), fouls not strikes, impossibly deep outfields and terrible field conditions, one umpire, etc...
1893-1902(?) -"First High-Scoring Era": with the mound moved back from 50' to 60'6", scoring explodes. Play becames very rough, and the great scourge of syndicate ownership, where teams compete against other teams that are in effect their minor league affiliates (since they have the same ownership) dominates by the late 90s. Pitcher workloads come down and rotations come into being, as people realize it's insane for one pitcher to throw 500/600 innings a year, as John A. said.
1903-1919: "True Deadball Era": starting with fouls becoming strikes, and then with massive defacing/discoloring of the ball, lead to all sorts of "trick" pitches; scoring declines and "inside baseball" is emphasized, with place-hitting, base-stealing, and playing for one run. There are several blips in this period, with a livelier ball leading to more runs from 1911-13, and the Federal League opening up player movement 1914-15, but scoring is down till the early twenties.
I believe that the most important reason for the start of the "Lively Ball era" was not Babe Ruth's style, but eliminating the spitball, and keeping fresh, unmarked baseballs continuously in play.
December 9th, 2010 at 4:42 pm
Good Points Lawrence Azrin, you could even slice it up a little bit more in saying 1904-1919 was its own separate little era because that's when the 154 game schedule became standardized.
December 9th, 2010 at 5:07 pm
#113/ John Q Says: "Good Points Lawrence Azrin, you could even slice it up a little bit more in saying 1904-1919 was its own separate little era because that's when the 154 game schedule became standardized."
Well, actually, 1918 (less than 130 games) and 1919 (140) were less, but that was because of the uncertainty regarding WWI. Also, as attendance went up, rosters gradually increased to 25 (around 1912?), and two umpires became standard.
December 9th, 2010 at 5:17 pm
John Q, re post-1901 leaders, that's what the PI is for!
Lawrence, I think those smaller slivers make sense.
December 9th, 2010 at 5:43 pm
Nice analysis Laurence. So there was no structural ball change between 1911 & WW 2?
TFG: In #93 you reference my #91, but yours does not speak to the content of my post at all. Except for saying that James said Guidry qualifies for the HOF. But that in itself is not convincing evidence. Much as I respect his judgment overall, there are some things he was way off on, & reversed himself on Dick Allen. His subjective factor is too large, & Win Shares is great-considering the whole system looks at various peak year measures, much better than just a certain # straight to gauging how good someone gets-though his base credits for any play at all is excessive.
I pointed out essentially that you had taken routine disagreement as a personal attack, & said me disagreeing with individual selections was not taking a "pot shot". Since you said that you were u8nhappy with everyone's response but one guy! I respect you efforts, but you have conflated disagreement with being dissed-because Ego became involved.
All of us will disagree more or less with each other. Though it is right for us to say that you should have indicated from the start what your system would measure, when it was clearly implied to show WHO was most deserving. Awards are useful to see who is more likely TO be picked, but are inefficient & misleading ways to determine who is worthy, given the tremendous biases & ignorance invovled in their allocation.
December 9th, 2010 at 5:58 pm
#116/ Mike Felber Says: "Nice analysis LaWrence (no "u"). So there was no structural ball change between 1911 & WW 2?"
MikeF., while the ball may have changed a little, I believe that:
- the elimination of the spitball before the 1920 season
- keeping fresh balls in play after Ray Chapman's death (8/16/20)
- Babe Ruth's example of deliberately trying to hit home runs
were more significant factors in bringing in the higher-scoring 1920s
December 9th, 2010 at 8:18 pm
@116 Mike. Ok thanks. Today is a new day. Enjoy, I will keep out. And, will take a look at WAR. Need to look at the definition. I guess its not a rating system if you can't compare catchers with other position players ? I assumed that it would make all the needed adjustments of time / place / position and even include post season component. I will see what it is all about.
December 9th, 2010 at 8:58 pm
The NL did change the ball after 1930.
December 10th, 2010 at 1:37 am
I did not ask you to keep out TFG: just noted that though you cited my post, your response was not directed to what i had said, save for one matter. You can compare cathers, & many have said that WAR should have a PS component. Some like John Q. just believe that we should have a lower standard for catchers, since it is so much harder to get the same career achievements due to the grueling demands of the position. I tend to agree.
Sorry I mangled your name Lawrence. I did not all the factors you suggested. Though that is why I asked about "structural" changes to the ball. I wonder if there were any in '20-the factors you mentioned are enough to cause the "lively ball" era. Though if so, we must realize that though the balls tended to be old, putting the cork center in in '11 was an indispensable addition to allowing the power explosion.
December 10th, 2010 at 2:03 am
Lawrence,
You bring up some very good and informative points. I never knew they only played 130 games during 1918 and 140 during 1919.
Good points on the banning of the spitball and the clean baseballs because of Chapman's death.
I think 2 other points of note regarding the "Live" Ball era is that Ruth was a pitcher so he was able to fool around with the Upper-Cut. I believe the general feeling at the time was that the Upper-Cut and going for the HR was a sucker's game. Also I've read that many people feel that had Ruth been an everyday player he would have been reprimanded out of the upper-cut by the coaches. Ruth was a pitcher so not much attention was given to his hitting.
Another point that's often brought up about the Live Ball era was that it came on the heels of the Black Sox Scandal so the owners let Ruth put on the HR show because it distracted people from Scandal. I've read that some people feel that had the Black Sox Scandal not happened a rule change would have been implemented to stop Ruth from making a mockery of the game. Something similar to what happened in 1962 after Maris hit 61 and Norm Cash Batted .361 in 1961.
December 10th, 2010 at 4:00 am
Duhhhh...I meant that I did "note" all the factors suggested (related to 1920 power surge). I have read that dead ball era balls were 15-20% more "dead". Maybe more after enough of a beating?
December 10th, 2010 at 12:13 pm
#121/ John Q Says: "Lawrence, you bring up some very good and informative points. ... I've read that some people feel that had the Black Sox Scandal not happened a rule change would have been implemented to stop Ruth from making a mockery of the game. Something similar to what happened in 1962 after Maris hit 61 and Norm Cash Batted .361 in 1961."
John Q, it was actually before the 1963 season (not 1962) that the strike zone was re-defined, and the "2nd dead ball era" happened. You're right about Ruth's uppercut style; since pitchers always batted ninth they initially didn't pay much attention to it.
I sorta recall (a story) that Ruth at St.Mary's School had hit a ball directly back at the pitcher, injuring him, and he was petrified he might hurt someone again, so he began to deliberately uppercut, to avoid hitting a shot right back up the middle. Anyone else hear that story?
December 10th, 2010 at 12:51 pm
I wonder how often Ruth batted 9th when he was pitching. In the 1918 World Series, he batted 9th in the first game started, but 6th in the second.
December 10th, 2010 at 3:10 pm
@121, John Q wrote: "many people feel that had Ruth been an everyday player he would have been reprimanded out of the upper-cut by the coaches."
It's an interesting question. Maybe, if such advice had come at the just-right time from the just-right person, Ruth might have listened. Maybe if Brother Matthias at St. Mary's had "fixed" Ruth's swing at some point before he got a taste for wallopin'....
Here's what Bill James thinks:
"People write that Babe Ruth was "allowed" to develop a hitting style based on a powerful uppercut because he was a pitcher, so nobody worried that much about his hitting. Bull----; he hit that way because he was Babe Ruth, and he was deeply convinced that the rules did not apply to Babe Ruth. Like a scientist, like you and me, Babe Ruth did not believe that what everybody "knew" was necessarily right. A lot of what people "know" is nonsense, and the rules based on that knowledge are fetters and hobbles."
(http://www.slate.com/id/2266750/)
December 10th, 2010 at 4:49 pm
Interesting article John. There is a good deal of truth to his claims, but some flaws too. 1st, that Ruth violated so many rules does not tell you that he would take an advantage that was widely considered cheating, was punished, & produced disdain for accomplishments. He likely would before it was understood as an unfair advantage & banned, but pride at least may well have stopped him from using & lying about it. Ruth was chastened about things like abuse & insubordination of Managers-but he was not a liar.
And James does conflate too much conduct. Of course as a kid Ruth should have been compelled to attend school. punished for violating the so widely broken temperance laws? Nah. We can celebrate his spirit & gneroisity, but realize where he was just selfish & abusive-as he did, changing dramatically after the '25 fiasco. Because he HAD to, & presumably he realized he was wrong-as when he was ashamed as Jimmy Walked dressed him down publicly for leting down the "dirty faced kids" a couple of years earlier.
I wonder how often he used a corked bat. Though if not treated as a crime, I cannot get too doen on him for it.
December 11th, 2010 at 4:03 pm
Hello Posters, a couple of points,
Reading thru the addition of TFG to these discussions underlines the thinking skills, mature good manners and consistently positive productive insights of the leading writers here on B-R blogs. Restraint and helpful responses have saved the day, and Thank You to everyone.
This is an accomplishment not found often on the internet. I'm going back and soaking up the older material. Enjoy it massively.
To introduce myself, as a righthand kid pitcher I had high-level 'old pitcher' skills at a very young age. Fastball medium at its best. Purposely threw different velocity, movement and location on every pitch, and called my own signals. I loved playing catcher the way a writer is attracted to the printing press, also second base and center field. Childhood faves were Mickey Mantle and Warren Spahn. I was a sponge for baseball cards and baseball magazines. Lucked onto the Baseball Abstract in 1983 and was hooked for life.
Must include 1972 as definitely part of the 2nd dead-ball era, so using 1973 as a pivot point nicely separates groupings of players, integration, rule changes, expansion and parks. Otherwise use somewhere around 1954 to separate Bambino thru Williams and Musial apart from Mays and Mantle forward to PEDs... What do you think? 1968 wasn't the End of deadball, it was its low point or nadir.
Clark
December 11th, 2010 at 9:54 pm
Mike Felber @125, re: Bill James's argument that Ruth would have used steroids if they'd been available:
Mike, I didn't really mean to get into that subject (nor the bigger themes of the essay); I ran the link only to source the quote about Ruth's uppercut swing.
December 12th, 2010 at 3:13 am
OK John, I just think we cannot predict what he would do so easily, & maybe his decision is largely dependent upon how baseball treated them.