Interesting Test (concerning Barry Bonds and the Giants)

[BigCity]

There's nothing wrong with looking, and considering both what players did and what they might / could have done. That's why it's called "analysis". If your only going to consider statistics and the known historical results, then the discussions are over. We know who hit more homeruns, got the most strikeouts over 9 innings, and how many assists Joe Blow had on Mondays.

Those statistics are not in question. What "IS" debateable is whether those statistics tell us who was the best player(s). That will always be debateable - as will all the "what ifs " that makes these discussions (most of the time) worth having.

[BigCity]

Originally Posted by DamnYankees

Fair enough. But this would merely mean Babe Ruth is not the best position player ever. You can divide up greatnes into many camps, and here is where I would put people

Best Player: Babe Ruth
Best Hitter: Ted Williams
Best Position Player: Ty Cobb
Best 5-tool player: Willie Mays

Each of these designations are slightly different, and thus have different answers.

And yes, Babe gets an added advantage: he could pitch, the others couldn't. Thus he has an advantage over all of them when figuring out the greatest complete player ever. I don't see the problem here.

You missed one - Best Pitcher. Go ahead and add that one, I dare ya

[Johnny Slick]

Originally Posted by cknox0723

this is tangential, but that's what makes the world go round. john, i'm interested in the first half of that statement. do you also include folks like ted williams missing time due to war in that? how about someone like grove who was blocked in the "lesser" minor leagues for forces beyond his control? do you credit them for that or prefer to stick to major league statistics on record?

just genuinely (or maybe disingenuously ) curious.

Well, in the cases of Grove and Williams, what they did do while they were in the majors speaks far more loudly than what they could have done. I've no problem calling Williams, for example, the greatest hitter of all time because if you do statistical analysis on his actual career you can reach that conclusion. Grove's the same way. That being said, am I going to argue that Williams was a greater homerun hitter than Babe Ruth? No, I'm not. In Ruth's case, he also had a couple years subtracted because he chose to be a pitcher, but the larger point is that in the end you're not measured by what you might have been but by what you did accomplish.

Negro Leaguers are another story. In their case, they probably did accomplish quite a bit; we just didn't record it. And even there, I'm not about to enter into arguments about whether Josh Gibson was a better player than Roy Campanella or Johnny Bench; I'm going to step out at the point where I say that he's a bona fide HOFer.

[Malleus Dei]

Originally Posted by darkhorse

It's not much of an argument. There are easily a hundred major league first baseman better than Hal Chase.

Even with his deliberately spoiled record, Bill James rates him 76th. As to the argument, having read the descriptions of his play in detail, I honestly don't think that anyone has ever played the position better; the man was a defensive wizard to make Ozzie Smith look like Luis Alicea. On the other side, there have been few people as evil as he was to ever play baseball - those people being the other premeditated cheaters, of course.

[Malleus Dei]

Originally Posted by BigCity

You missed one - Best Pitcher. Go ahead and add that one, I dare ya

Greg Maddux.

[DamnYankees]

Originally Posted by BigCity

You missed one - Best Pitcher. Go ahead and add that one, I dare ya

I didn't forget it, I wanted to limit the discussion to hitters so we could focus on Ruth/Cobb. But since you want to know, you can also, of course, divide up pitchers:

Best Pitcher: Walter Johnson (only ones with any real claim against him are Young and Grove, but neither can beat him)
Best Reliever: Eric Gagne (Ok, not yet, but I think he will be. Real answer is Rivera)
Best Peak-Pitcher: Sandy Koufax

[Johnny Slick]

Originally Posted by BigCity

There's nothing wrong with looking, and considering both what players did and what they might / could have done. That's why it's called "analysis". If your only going to consider statistics and the known historical results, then the discussions are over. We know who hit more homeruns, got the most strikeouts over 9 innings, and how many assists Joe Blow had on Mondays.

I disagree. There are many different kinds of performance analyses one can perform, and because of that just as many different answers. How much, for example, should one downgrade Sandy Koufax for pitching in a pitcher-friendly era? That, to me, leads to a far more edifying discussion than "I know what I saw with my own eyes, and my eyes are older than yours and therefore better."

[Hammer755]

Originally Posted by Carlton

It's called a statement, not argument.

Buy a dictionary, before you try and blast a cap in someone's post, internet gangsta thug

Although I am sure the pseudo intellectual in a Freudian "Didn't get enough hugs" boyfriend of yours appreciates your chivalry

I, however, just think you overcompensate

The old 'You're a fag' defense.

Wow, I haven't seen this move played in awhile, like since junior high. Nicely played Carlton. How old are you again?

[BigCity]

Originally Posted by Johnny Slick

I disagree. There are many different kinds of performance analyses one can perform, and because of that just as many different answers. How much, for example, should one downgrade Sandy Koufax for pitching in a pitcher-friendly era? That, to me, leads to a far more edifying discussion than "I know what I saw with my own eyes, and my eyes are older than yours and therefore better."

I think you misunderstood me. From your answer I think we're saying the same thing. I was pointing out that if one were to draw conclusions on a single stat alone, that would be wrong... and it would still be wrong if stats were the only thing you based a conclusion on. The problem is that many players - especially the best ones - are VERY close in quality. The earlier discussion of Pedro and Sandy is an excellent example. These are "probably" the #1 and #2 guys of all MLB history - at least in the top 3. The difference between them is minimal compared to all the other pitchers in 100 years of baseball. It's certainly understandable that there isn't going to be a clear consensus like there would be comparing Nomar and.... George Strickland.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by BigCity

I think you misunderstood me. From your answer I think we're saying the same thing. I was pointing out that if one were to draw conclusions on a single stat alone, that would be wrong... and it would still be wrong if stats were the only thing you based a conclusion on. The problem is that many players - especially the best ones - are VERY close in quality. The earlier discussion of Pedro and Sandy is an excellent example. These are "probably" the #1 and #2 guys of all MLB history - at least in the top 3. The difference between them is minimal compared to all the other pitchers in 100 years of baseball. It's certainly understandable that there isn't going to be a clear consensus like there would be comparing Nomar and.... George Strickland.

No, they are not. Pedro is significantly better than Sandy, as this discussion has established ad nauseum. And I'd say Walter Johnson was probably better than any of them. I love Pedro, and think he had the greatest peak value of any pitcher in the history of baseball by some margin, but I think he's top 10 all time now- In fact, without looking at the evidence, I'd say Clemens and Maddux might both rank above him right now - clearly subject to change.

[sebastian0622]

Originally Posted by Aadik

No, they are not. Pedro is significantly better than Sandy, as this discussion has established ad nauseum.

So, you subtracted Martinez' IP/GS from Koufax's and weighed the difference onto Pedro's ERA at league average to standardize his ERA+ for comparison to Koufax? Then, you found the mean ERA+ and standard deviation of each era and compared z-scores? I'd like to see results of all of this before I accept that anything has been proven.

I think Pedro is probably the better pitcher...if games were 6 2/3 innings long. I'd have to see how the above math turns out before saying he's better overall. If anyone knows where I can find such data, I'd be happy to crunch the numbers.

[nestajones]

Originally Posted by Malleus Dei

I have made a valid argument here that there are some things about baseball players that observation can show but that stats are incapable of showing.

I don't disagree w/ that. actually i find your (and others') descriptions of Koufax pitching very interesting. i never had the fortune to see him pitch, so i appreciate those recollections.

however, i don't believe those descriptions added anything to the discussion of whether he was better than Martinez. He appeared "transcendent" on the mound. OK, that's certainly interesting. what the **** does it affect? You "knew" he would win. Batters who hit him were "lucky." I think all that stuff is fascinating to know how he was perceived, but it ultimately has nothing to do w/ his results. He was a great pitcher who appeared untouchable at times. I'm sure that seemed very real when one watched him. But when one watched him, one wasn't wasting time calculating park factors and mound heights and era adjustments. His shutouts were shutouts and I'm sure they were terrific to watch, but his shutouts were simply not as valuable as shutouts from Martinez. His stoic demeanor, his religious faith, his smooth motion, his knee-buckling curve...these things are all valuable parts of the legend, but they do not change what actually occurred. They may or may not have contributed to what occurred, but once it happened, we have a record of it, and those things cannot change it. Are there things which stats do not show? Definitely. But the things which you have described which are not in the stats do not provide any evidence for why he was better than Martinez. They just show why you enjoyed watching him more and he made such an impression on you.

In the DIPS thread I was pointing out that DIPS worked as a *model*, which it inarguably does, and anyone who remembers that thread will also remember me stating that I didn't like DIPS, that it was counter-intuitive, but that, like it or not, it does work as a model.

Well, people in that thread made arguments that their "observation" showed that batters could not hit some pitchers as well as others, even when limited to balls in play. You may have provided statistical evidence, just as Aadik and others have in this thread, but those people were just as sure as you are now that the stats were missing something which they _saw_. But you viciously dismissed them.

You may not like DIPS and you may be a statistical idiot

neither is true, thanks.

If you accept that Win Shares are the most valid measure of player value - and you may not, but some people do - then Koufax was not only the most valauble pitcher in the MLB more often than Pedro was, but he was also more valuable in each of his three seasons when he led the league in Win Shares than Pedro was when he led the MLB. Higher peak performance, as it were.

Koufax's advantage there is due in large part to his advantage in IP. win shares also give an arbitrary bonus for pitcher wins, which may be important for what they are trying to measure, but may not be as applicable to this discussion. Anyway, this comes down to the argument of value vs. ability. I do think Martinez has been a "better" pitcher, but Koufax's IP advantage makes their respective values to their teams a tougher call. Some of that is no doubt due to the times when they pitched, and therefore beyond either pitcher's control, but it happened, and it is up to us to decide what we are trying to measure and how much that matters.

Originally Posted by sebastian0622

Quote:
Originally Posted by nestajones
...the value of a run saved in a low run environment is still greater than in a high run environment. so this isn't the same as comparing Martinez's ERA+ to one of his peers who has Koufax's ERA+.


ERA+ accounts for that by taking the ratio of a the league ERA to a player's ERA. So Martinez' ERA+ of 167 actually means 1.67, as in the league ERA was 1.67 times higher than his ERA. (lg avg 4.53 / 1.67 = Pedro's 2.71).

I was thinking of the pythagorean theorem, and how squaring the runs is actually not the most accurate way to predict wins, but that the exponent used should change depending on the run environment. I thought that a team scoring 4 runs a game and allowing 2 would have a better win percentage than one scoring 6 and allowing 3, making Koufax's runs saved more valuable. However, I guess i misremembered the stuff I've read and am wrong. check http://www.tangotiger.net/wincomps.html. Compare a team scoring 6 and allowing 4 to one scoring 3 and allowing 2. The higher scoring team wins more games. In that case, I think Koufax's ERA+ is actually a bit _less_ valuable than it would be now.

[The Funk]

"The mark of great sportsmen is not how good they are at their best, but how good they are at their worst."

Just thought I'd throw that into the mix.

[Malleus Dei]

Originally Posted by Aadik

No, they are not. Pedro is significantly better than Sandy, as this discussion has established ad nauseum.

No, it has not. There are still people on both sides.

[Malleus Dei]

Originally Posted by sebastian0622

I think Pedro is probably the better pitcher...if games were 6 2/3 innings long.

LOL.

[Malleus Dei]

Originally Posted by Aadik

I love Pedro, and think he had the greatest peak value of any pitcher in the history of baseball by some margin

Bull. For peak value he gets *buried* in Win Shares by Koufax, and just recently by Maddux and Clemens. And he couldn't even carry a jockstrap for Walter Johnson or Mathewson.

Pedro's just someone that you happen to "love." Ahem.

[Malleus Dei]

Some reading:

http://espn.go.com/mlb/columns/neyer_rob/1558124.html

Rob Neyer writes about who the best pitcher of modern times (since WWII) is. Pedro and Koufax aren't even considered worthy of consideration. Who is? Spahn, Gibson, Seaver, Clemens, and Maddux, of course.

[mlyons]

Originally Posted by Malleus Dei

Some reading:

http://espn.go.com/mlb/columns/neyer_rob/1558124.html

Rob Neyer writes about who the best pitcher of modern times (since WWII) is. Pedro and Koufax aren't even considered worthy of consideration. Who is? Spahn, Gibson, Seaver, Clemens, and Maddux, of course.

It does strike me as kind of odd that he would use ERA+ as his starting criterion and not include the pitcher with the highest career ERA+ of the last 60 years, though.

[BigCity]

Originally Posted by Aadik

No, they are not. Pedro is significantly better than Sandy, as this discussion has established ad nauseum. And I'd say Walter Johnson was probably better than any of them. I love Pedro, and think he had the greatest peak value of any pitcher in the history of baseball by some margin, but I think he's top 10 all time now- In fact, without looking at the evidence, I'd say Clemens and Maddux might both rank above him right now - clearly subject to change.

Nothing is clear in baseball analysis. If the DIPS discussions over the past few years doesn't prove that to you then this discussion has no hope. Your basing everything on this thread.... just because most folks "believe" something doesn't make it true in the analysis of the game. If that were true, there would be no further room for discussion about anything concerning baseball.

"No they are not" tells me you have no room for listening that some may very possibly want Sandy over Pedro on their team for very valid reasons. Your putting the entire discussion on the line based on stats alone. Pedro has 10 and Sandy has 8, so that automatically makes Pedro better... but Sandy has 10 of something else and Pedro only has 8 - but that does't count as much.

Have you ever thought about what different results we would see if the same players, under the same conditions could play 100 years of baseball again? Have you even considered that their are more variables that control the results(statistics) than are in control of the players? That things like weather, sickness, family issues, sore arms all are variables that could easily change history?

Our view of history is a singular, specific, snapshot that couldn't happen again no matter how many times you replayed it. A unique configuration - one of a kind.

Have you ever been in a competition and won (or lost) and realized that if one little thing were different - so would be the outcome?

This is what initiates discussions and analysis of anything. Did Pedro put up better numbers? Sure he did - no one is arguing that point. BUT - doesn't that mean Pedro is the better pitcher? Not necessarily.

True analysis takes into account everything possible. Stats (real results), observation, what if's, and anything else that may be important to someone. Ignoring all those things is not analysis, it's conformity to the obvious.

[IatricSB]

Originally Posted by Carlton

You are like herpes, what is it that you feel a need to 'follow' me in every damn thread?

What exactly is missing in your pathetic life? Get a porn subscription or something.

Acting condescending as usual. That's your other forte.

As long as you keep the same argument style, I'll keep calling you on it. Take a look in the mirror, you should seriously re-evaluate your self perception.