Baseball History Thread

[Derwood]

i know it wasn't to the same extent as Ted Williams, but wasn't Ron Santo a somewhat "unliked" guy in his playing days, at least from the media side?

[OleMissCub]

i know it wasn't to the same extent as Ted Williams, but wasn't Ron Santo a somewhat "unliked" guy in his playing days, at least from the media side?

 

I think the heel clicking rubbed some fellow players the wrong way and there are some reports that he wasn't very pleasant to the media.

 

 

This is a great Santo article from Bill James' book Whatever Happened to the Hall of Fame?

 

If I were in control of the Hall of Fame's selections, the first player I would choose would be Ron Santo. Santo retired in 1974, and became eligible for the BBWAA vote in 1980. He drew only fifteen votes in his first year of eligibility, and was dropped from the ballot until 1985, when he and several others players were restored by a review committee.

 

The Hall of Fame, in a sense, has been caught between hops at third base. Third base is a half-and-half position, half of a "slugger's position", like first base or left field, but half of a "glove man's position" like second or short. A good third basemen is expected to contribute both ways, more so than a player at any other position.

 

This in effect, creates a third set of standards, unique to the position. The Hall of Fame selection system uses two distinct sets of de facto standards. Bobby Doerr doesn't have numbers that would put him in the Hall of Fame if he was an outfielder, but he was a second baseman, so he's in. The same with Arky Vaughn, Yogi Berra, Bill Dickey, Johnny Bench, Pee Wee Reese and many others.

Third basemen are neither fish nor fowl; they need a third standard. The system just isn't quite subtle enough to form an intermediate standard, and honor the guys like Santo and Ken Boyer who played a good third base (Santo won five Gold Gloves) and also could hit.

 

This incorporates a general principle of overrated and underrated players - in fact, the most important principle in understanding why some players are underrated. The principle is that specialists are always overrated, while players who do many things well are always underrated. If the public understands that a player does one thing expceptionally well - Tony Gwynn hits lots of singles - they can build on that, and then he'll get credit for everything else he does well, even if there isn't a tremendous lot of it. The public can understand Cecil Fielder because they can immediately identify what he does well, even though, in his case, this is nearly the only thing he does well. It is difficult to get the public to understand that Jay Bell is just as good a player because he does lots of things well.

 

Anyway, only seven third basemen are in the Hall of Fame, not counting the guys from the Negro Leagues. Santo was a much, much better player than Fred Lindstrom or George Kell. He was probably a better player than Home Run Baker, although Baker was very good, and in my opinion he was probably better than Pie Traynor, although the old-timers will think that is crazy. So even though third base is dramatically underrepresented in the Hall of Fame, Santo would rank in the middle of top hall of that group, if he were selected. That's unusual for a player who is still on the outside.

[TruffleShuffle]

that ted williams stuff is fascinating. wasn't he basically seen as the a-rod of his day too? does great during the regular season and when it doesn't matter, but when he made it to the playoffs, he performed horribly. i remember hearing how a lot of people, when they think of the all-time greats, really held that fact against ted.

 

the thing about williams was that he was never surrounded by very good players. guys like johnny pesky, jackie jensen and bobby doerr were nice players, but really not HoF material (though doerr was elected by - who else - the veterans committee). he overlapped with the end of jimmie foxx' and joe cronin's careers, but he really wasn't around for their primes. ruth had gehrig and several great pitchers during his time; mays had cepeda and mccovey, along with marichal, gaylord perry and billy pierce (the latter being very underrated). williams was surrounded by average players and lousy pitchers; i'm pretty sure there wasn't one pitcher (aside from the very end of lefty grove's boston career) who would have even a hint of an argument for a hall of fame spot.

 

bonds is about as good a parallel as you'll find for williams. obviously ted wasn't as fast a baserunner and didn't have the fielding ability (or some would argue, the interest in fielding) that bonds had, but williams was significantly better at hitting for average. they were both aloof and at times openly spiteful toward the press, and weren't really beloved by fans either. bonds really never had any great players as teammates either - some nice ones like the pirates-era bonilla and jeff kent, and some solid pitchers like doug drabek and jason schmidt, but no legitimate HoF candidates. both guys basically carried their teams to wherever they got each year.

 

the biggest difference is that bonds took steroids at his peak (or what turned out to be his peak), whereas ted went and fought for his country for three years.

[OleMissCub]

 

the biggest difference is that bonds took steroids at his peak (or what turned out to be his peak), whereas ted went and fought for his country for three years.

 

Also we can't forget the two years he lost during the Korean War as well, and while they might not have occurred during his prime, he was still unbelievable during those years. His OPS+ in the years immediately preceding and following his two missed Korean War seasons were 165 and 201, respectively.

 

 

14.8 AB's per HR:

 

http://img124.imageshack.us/img124/260/willbatik3.gif

 

.

.

.

.

.

.

12.8 AB's per HR:

 

http://img95.imageshack.us/img95/888/barrybondscasecouldhingaj0.jpg

[TruffleShuffle]

right, but bonds was pretty similar to guys like pujols and williams in terms of power before he got on the juice. pujols is an outstanding hitter but not a guy who will consistently be among the top 2/3 in HRs in his league. i'd consider a guy like mcgwire to be more of a pure power hitter, whereas williams/bonds/pujols will hit for a better average, but a little less power.

[OleMissCub]

whereas williams/bonds/pujols will hit for a better average, but a little less power.

 

Personally, I never considered Bonds to be a great average hitter (do some people?). A .298 average isn't hugely impressive for an all time great.

 

Among those considered to be all time greats (going with nicknames for the hell of it):

 

The Georgia Peach: .366

Rajah: .358

Shoeless Joe: .355

Spoke: .344

The Splendid Splinter: .344

The Colossus of Clout: .342

The Iron Horse: .340

Nap: .338

Cocky: .333

Stan the Man: .330

The Flying Dutchman: .327

Mr. Double X: .325

The Yankee Clipper: .324

 

 

Those of Bonds' generation:

 

Fat Tony: .338

Fat Albert: .332

Ichiro: .330

Todd "my road splits are mediocre" Helton: .328

Vlad: .328

"Pitt the Elder!": .327

Man-Ram: .312

[Derwood]

whereas williams/bonds/pujols will hit for a better average, but a little less power.

 

Personally, I never considered Bonds to be a great average hitter (do some people?). A .298 average isn't hugely impressive for an all time great.

 

Among those considered to be all time greats (going with nicknames for the hell of it):

 

 

Really? Batting Average?

[rocket]

whereas williams/bonds/pujols will hit for a better average, but a little less power.

 

Personally, I never considered Bonds to be a great average hitter (do some people?). A .298 average isn't hugely impressive for an all time great.

 

Among those considered to be all time greats (going with nicknames for the hell of it):

 

 

Really? Batting Average?

 

all he said was bonds doesn't have a great batting average compared to the all time greats. i don't think he was saying that it was a great stat, though.

[TruffleShuffle]

whereas williams/bonds/pujols will hit for a better average, but a little less power.

 

Personally, I never considered Bonds to be a great average hitter (do some people?). A .298 average isn't hugely impressive for an all time great.

 

Among those considered to be all time greats (going with nicknames for the hell of it):

 

 

Really? Batting Average?

 

yeah, hitting for average is a repeatable skill.

[Derwood]

whereas williams/bonds/pujols will hit for a better average, but a little less power.

 

Personally, I never considered Bonds to be a great average hitter (do some people?). A .298 average isn't hugely impressive for an all time great.

 

Among those considered to be all time greats (going with nicknames for the hell of it):

 

 

Really? Batting Average?

 

all he said was bonds doesn't have a great batting average compared to the all time greats. i don't think he was saying that it was a great stat, though.

 

it's not a great stat, so why use it? show me how Bonds ranks in OPS or SLG

[OleMissCub]

it's not a great stat, so why use it? show me how Bonds ranks in OPS or SLG

 

Indeed it is not the best measure of the skill or contribution that a player makes, I think most intelligent people these days realize that, however it is not a crime to talk about it as a stand alone stat. Batting average was brought up, so that is what we are discussing.

[rocket]

whereas williams/bonds/pujols will hit for a better average, but a little less power.

 

Personally, I never considered Bonds to be a great average hitter (do some people?). A .298 average isn't hugely impressive for an all time great.

 

Among those considered to be all time greats (going with nicknames for the hell of it):

 

 

Really? Batting Average?

 

all he said was bonds doesn't have a great batting average compared to the all time greats. i don't think he was saying that it was a great stat, though.

 

it's not a great stat, so why use it? show me how Bonds ranks in OPS or SLG

 

wins for a pitcher aren't a great stat, but it's interesting to see who has the most of them all-time and how certain pitchers rank.

[imb]

I've always thought there was kind of a beauty in high batting averages, but that's probably because I didn't pay attention to OBP when I was a kid.

[OleMissCub]

Career OBP% among the greats:

 

Ted Williams: .481

Babe Ruth: .474

Lou Gehrig: .447

Barry Bonds: .443

Rogers Hornsby: .433

Ty Cobb: .430

Jimmie Foxx: .428

Tris Speaker: .428

Eddie Collins: .424

Joe Jackson: .422

Mickey Mantle: .422

Stan Musial: .416

 

Among active players (career):

 

Todd Helton: .428

Albert Pujols: .423

Frank Thomas: .420

Lance Berkman: .414

Jason Giambi: .410

Manny Ramirez: .408

Jim Thome: .407

Chipper Jones: .406

Bobby Abreu: .405

Brian Giles: .404

[OleMissCub]

I think Cecil Travis, shortstop for the Washington Senators, probably has the best case for being someone who would have been a Hall of Famer had it not been for WWII. He missed nearly four complete seasons at the exact moment when he was entering his prime:

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/t/travice01.shtml

[imb]

Career OBP% among the greats:

 

Ted Williams: .481

 

That's just [expletive]. I wonder how good he would be if he had access to today's training methods?

[OleMissCub]

George Sisler had an interesting career affected by a weird eye injury. In his 7 full seasons before his eye disease, he averaged a 157 OPS+, in the 7 seasons after he averaged a 97 OPS+. He's most famous for having the single season hits record (257, 1920) that Ichiro broke recently.

 

Before eye problems:

 

http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh153/OleMissCub17/sisler1.jpg

 

 

After:

 

http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh153/OleMissCub17/sisler2.jpg

[SouthSideRyan]

Career OBP% among the greats:

 

Ted Williams: .481

 

That's just [expletive]. I wonder how good he would be if he had access to today's training methods?

 

Well, the pitchers would have the same training methods.

[ConstableRabbit]

Career OBP% among the greats:

 

Ted Williams: .481

 

That's just [expletive]. I wonder how good he would be if he had access to today's training methods?

Would the pitchers he faced also have access to those training methods?

[OleMissCub]

Career OBP% among the greats:

 

Ted Williams: .481

 

That's just [expletive]. I wonder how good he would be if he had access to today's training methods?

Would the pitchers he faced also have access to those training methods?

 

Correct, so it probably would have equaled out and he still would have done the same damage.

[TruffleShuffle]

I've always thought there was kind of a beauty in high batting averages, but that's probably because I didn't pay attention to OBP when I was a kid.

 

OBP is more important, but hitting for average is a repeatable skill, so it's not like it should be completely blown off. some guys just strike out less, make better contact regularly or get out of the box quickly. in fact, i'd argue that ability to hit for average is more important than high walk rate for a minor league player with little power.

[TruffleShuffle]

Career OBP% among the greats:

 

Ted Williams: .481

 

That's just [expletive].

 

don't know that i'd use the word [expletive] - personal preference - but just as crazy as his OBP is his K-rate. he struck out only 709 times in 7,709 at bats, or 9.2% of his ABs. compare that to babe ruth at 15.8% - still relatively low for a high-power guy - or 21.1% for mickey mantle. think about fukudome, who everyone agrees has a great eye - he ends up striking out a lot because he gets deep into counts and either takes a third strike or is trying to protect and swings/misses at something out of the strike zone. williams just didn't do that very often; he either walked or put the ball into play. his season high in strikeouts was 51.

 

pujols is probably the best modern parallel for williams. he struck out 93 times his rookie year, but since then his K/AB rate has been 9.4% - again, phenomenal for a power hitter. the biggest difference between pujols and williams is that pujols isn't as patient, though he has been this year. if he ends up walking something like 120 times in 140 games this year, i wouldn't be surprised if one of ted williams' seasons is pujols' top PECOTA comparison for 2008.

[ConstableRabbit]

Career OBP% among the greats:

 

Ted Williams: .481

 

That's just [expletive]. I wonder how good he would be if he had access to today's training methods?

Would the pitchers he faced also have access to those training methods?

 

Correct, so it probably would have equaled out and he still would have done the same damage.

Which is sick. I've always thought of him as one of the all-time greats, but looking at his numbers, Williams was ridiculous.

 

Too bad he's now cryogenically frozen in two pieces. Sad ending. I was just reading up on it

[OleMissCub]

Career OBP% among the greats:

 

Ted Williams: .481

 

That's just [expletive]. I wonder how good he would be if he had access to today's training methods?

Would the pitchers he faced also have access to those training methods?

 

Correct, so it probably would have equaled out and he still would have done the same damage.

Which is sick. I've always thought of him as one of the all-time greats, but looking at his numbers, Williams was ridiculous.

 

Too bad he's now cryogenically frozen in two pieces. Sad ending. I was just reading up on it

 

I've always said that Williams is the best hitter ever, but Ruth is probably the best baseball player ever (gets the edge on Williams because on top of hitting almost the same as Williams, he ALSO was 94-46 as a pitcher).

 

However, if I had to make a baseball player, I'd make Willie Mays.

[OleMissCub]

Babe Ruth's 1921 season at age 26 seems impossible even in a video game:

 

152 games, .378/.512/.846, 59 HR, 44 doubles, 16 triples, 171 RBI, 177 runs scored, 145 walks, 17 stolen bases, 457 total bases, 239 OPS+