Our love with Wagner
 

Posted By: <b>David McD</b><p>"Did you know Babe Ruth was a woman? Real name was Ruth Herman. Wouldn't have believed it either if I hadn't seen the proof with my own eyes. Got a tryout with the Baltimore club, this would be 1905. Same year Ty Cobb came up to the Tigers, I remember. They called me "another Ty Cobb" down in the Mediocre Association, and the Orioles were going to give me a good look. But nobody paid any attention that day, everybody was watching this ugly little fat girl in a dirty white pinafore just ripping Hell out of the ball. The kids on the sidelines said, "Oh, don't mind her, that's Baby Ruth Herman from the neighborhood." Well, we did mind her. I can tell you! Manager sent her on home, of course, baseball then being strictly a man's game. God amighty, never forget the shock about ten years later up in Boston! Never had the heart to squeal on her, and neither did anyone else. Amazing thing, Ruth Herman, "the Babe." . . . My, I haven't thought about the old days in so long. Thinking of Cobb and Ruth Herman, say, that brings back the memories. Good memories. Those ballplayers then, they were a grand bunch of fellows, with only one or two exceptions. Did you know Honus Wagner was a fairy? Him and Walter Johnson. I could tell tales. Both of them in an upper berth; you dreaded those long overnights. <br />But I never was a knocker and I won't start now. You ask me about Major League ball in the old days. I'd just say that was the life and I'd leave it at that. Let sleeping dogs lie. Let the dead stay buried. Probably gabbed too much for my own good already. Get out!"<br />- Zube LaRue, "The Glory of Their Hindsight," National Lampoon, ca. 1975

Our love with Wagner
 

Posted By: <b>cmoking</b><p>Who is Zube LaRue? I don't know National Lampoon, sounds like a satiric magazine (is it the same National Lampoon as Chevy Chase's Vacation movies?), so I'm guessing it's a joke and not a real person or real inteview.

Our love with Wagner
 

Posted By: <b>Frank Wakefield</b><p>My understanding is that Wagner wasn't so much against cigarettes as he was FOR money. He was the first player with an outside endorsement contract, his likeness and signature on bats... I left the website above in a prior response. I figure he'd have allowed any aversion to cigarettes fall to the side, if dollars were sufficiently stacked in front of him. It was about the money. <br /><br />And it still is for some of you (us)... what is a card worth? A card is worth more to me if I can touch it, hold it.... not if it is imprisoned in plastic. If you only value your stuff by what you can sell it for, then you really aren't deriving the full value or full pleasure of ownership. So why not sell it? That's why the good lord put hacksaws on this planet... to open up those PSA holders.

Our love with Wagner
 

Posted By: <b>Bryan</b><p>Ted you said it yourself, "in Ruth's short pitching career." Smokey Joe Wood had a great short pitching career too. He isn't remembered as one of the greats. Plus Ruth hated pitching. That is no secret. Who is to say he would have lasted.<br /><br />Ruth made his fame hitting homeruns for the Yankees. That would not have happened in the dead ball era. I really don't think I need to take back my statement.<br /><br />On top of that, without those homeruns in the dead ball era he probobly would not have been the media darling that he was, rather just another drunk. But the fact is Ruth was the right player at the right time and the rest is history.

Our love with Wagner
 

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>Bryan<br /><br />OK, do you dislike Ruth because as you said "he was the<br />media darling" ?<br />Or are you such a "Yankee hater" ? Which might explain why<br />you have such disdain for this man; which is obvious by<br />your derisive "drunk" comments? <br /><br />From 1914-19 Ruth was an outstanding pitcher, who won 90 and<br />lost only 46 (his ERA = 2.28). In three World Series starts he <br />not only won all of them, he pitched 29 consecutive scoreless<br />innings , and had an incredible 0.87 ERA.<br /><br />In 1916, the 1st of these WS games he pitched 13 scoreless innings.<br />Really, I do not understand where you are coming from? <br /><br />You seem to be "hung up" on Ruth's HRs; OK, let's just compare<br />him with some of the major HOFers who have approx. 3000 Hits<br />(or more). Do you realize that Ruth's Batting Average (.342) is<br />greater than Wagner's....Cap Anson....Stan Musial....Geo. Sisler<br />Jimmy Foxx....Nap. LaJoie....and is equal to Tris Speaker; and, <br />Ruth's BA is even equal to Ted Williams (acknowledged as one<br />the game's greatest hitters).<br /><br />Ruth's pitching statistics and his basic hitting statistics prove<br />to anyone with a reasonably open mind that he would have<br />been a tremendous ballplayer in the 19th Century.... the<br />20th Century (as history proves)....or the 21st Century.

Our love with Wagner
 

Posted By: <b>Anson</b><p>It seems that getting 3000 hits was about the only thing Ruth didn't do. I'm not a Yankee fan, but who can take away from what Ruth did? He was an amazing talent that DID party too much, didn't take care of his body, and still was heads above the rest. I can't imagine what today's conditioning and a little dietary discretion would have done for him.<br /><br />Claiming that Ruth wouldn't have been successful in the Dead-Ball era is like saying that Clemens wouldn't have success during the post-WWI era. I believe that the top players of any era would stand out, regardless of when they played. The physical body is only a small part of what's responsible for their success. The knot on top of their necks is where it's all at.

Our love with Wagner
 

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakisc</b><p>Anson<br /><br />I really appreciate your comments. Ruth fell short of 3000<br />hits by only 127. But, if you look at his BB column, you will<br />understand why. He was walked an unbelievable 2056 times.<br /><br />The closest players to this figure are Williams (2019) and <br />Yaz (1845) and Mantle (1734). All four of these guys could<br />have achieved even greater hitting numbers if it wasn't for<br />all these Walks.

Our love with Wagner
 

Posted By: <b>Bryan</b><p>My problem with Ruth is the pedestal he is put upon. Half of his fame is due to dumb luck. He was a strong man with a powerful swing to take advantage of the new baseball in the largest city in the greatest country which also happened to be the center of the media world and baseball world from the 1920s to the late 1950s.<br /><br />Nevermind the FACT that he was a womanizing drunk. The media covered that up for him and called him a "large personality." If Ruth wasn't such a friendly guy to everyone I think a very different picture would have been painted of Ruth. Besides covering up his off field behavior they sometimes elavated his play to levels it probobly didn't deserve. Take the called shot incident. Everyone involved said the only thing he called was the fact that he had only two strikes. Ty Cobb was a villian in the media. Not saying what Cobb did was justified. I know there is a double standard and the the Ruth lovers are ignorant to that. If Cobb had Ruth's personality and Ruth had Cobb's personality there probobly wouldn't even be much discussion on Ruth.<br /><br />As far as his pitching goes, he did have a good, short run at it. But it is kind of hard to be a bad pitcher on a great team. He pitched on the Red Sox's greatest team. Let's see him on the Washington Senators. Ruth was no Walter Johnson. Like I said Ruth has a similar pitching career to Smokey Joe Wood. He was a fireballer who had an incredible short career until an injury forced him to the outfield.<br /><br />As far as his batting average is concerned it is absolutely impossible to compare Ruth's average to Speaker, Wagner, Anson, Lajoie, or Ted Williams. Ruth played in the most hitter friendly era ever. The NL average was .301 in the early 1930s. It isn't like he was playing in 1968. That argument holds no water what so ever. A better way would be to compare batting titles. Ruth has one in 1924. And yes I am hung up on his HRs since that is what he is famous for. Not like I am comparing the number of triple he hit.<br /><br />I give Ruth his credit as being one of the baseball greats but he needs to take his place behind Ty Cobb and Honus Wagner in the list of baseball players. They were all around players. Ruth was a one trick pony.

Our love with Wagner
 

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>A one trick pony? Ruth was an outstanding pitcher and hitter. Can't say that about Cobb or Wagner. Ruth not only hit HRs, he hit for average, hit for power and stole bases. He didn't steal 500+ like Cobb and Wagner, but he stole a lot more than people think. I was also lucky enough to talk to a number of former major leaguers that player with and against Ruth. They all mentioned that he was one of the smartest baserunners they ever say play the game. He also had 136 triples. Since Ruth retired, only 20 players have hit more triples than he did.<br /><br />Ruth was not the large, oafish man that could only hit HRs that you seem to think he is. I think you've confused him with Mark McGwire.<br /><br />There is no arguing he was the right man, in the right place, at the right time, but you can say this about pretty much any other great athlete. Would we talk about Magic and Bird the way we do if they hadn't played for 2 of the most storied NBA fanchises in history? <br /><br />Jay<br /><br />My place is full of valuable, worthless junk.

Our love with Wagner
 

Posted By: <b>Bryan</b><p>I just get a kick how people take personal shots at me when all I am doing is presenting some facts and some arguments about Babe Ruth especially when they can't back up what they say or present any argument otherwise.<br /><br />So here we go again. Everyone hit for average in the 1920s to 30s. Ruth won one batting title in his career and he was tied for having the second lowest average of the decade out of the players who won it over that decade.<br /><br />He had 123 stolen bases out of 240 tries. Not too impressive over a 22 year career.<br /><br />He had 3 good years pitching and two average years on a WORLD CHAMPION ballclub. If you look at the stats of the other pitchers on the team you will see they have similar numbers (Dutch Leonard, Rube Foster) with Carl Mays having better numbers than Ruth. Ruth isn't the great pitcher that everyone thinks. Probobly just average at best.<br /><br />Ruth was an average fielder. Ty Cobb and Honus Wagner are considered all time greats at their position.<br /><br />I am not arguing he was a bad player. I believe he was a great player. He just isn't the greatest that people absentmindedly believe him to be. I will give him the nod that he was one of the best things that could have ever happened to the game. He also benefitted greatly from being in the right place at the right time (pitching in Boston, playing in NY with all of the other greats.) But yes, so do many others have that benefit in some shape or form. On the flip side, Ty Cobb fought hard for everything he got.<br /><br />I still believe Ruth to be a one trick pony. Take away his powerful swing and the only threat he poses is to a hotdog or glass of beer.<br /><br />

Our love with Wagner
 

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>Bryan, someone disagreeing with your opinion is not a personal attack. Questioning your partentage, or something alse about you that has nothing to do with this topic, that is a personal attack. <br /><br />Since you seems to like to talk about things being normalized (for those that don't know what them means, it's how much better or worse a player is than the league average), let's look at how Ruth fares that way then. All-time ranking in parenthesis.<br /><br />.........Ruth...........Cobb.............Wagner<b r />OBA +33.0% (2).. 28.0% (7)... 19.5% (28)<br />SLG +70.7% (1).. 44.1% (13).. 35.1% (24)<br />AVG +18.8% (13). 34.7% (1)... 24.1% (9)<br /><br />Based on these numbers, Ruth is far and away the better player when you naormalize their numbers for league average.<br /><br />you claim Ruth was an overrated pitcher all you want, but you don't go and throw 29 consecutive scoreless innings by being a mere mortal on a good team. If that were the case, there should have been a bunch Yankees pitchers beating that record. <br /><br />Jay<br /><br />My place is full of valuable, worthless junk.

Our love with Wagner
 

Posted By: <b>Bryan</b><p>Your right Jay, not sure what I was thinking. I reread the posts and not much for personal attacks. (Although you did remove the "what color is the sky where you are from comment.") No big deal though.<br /><br />Good job on comparing the stats. Only problem is those three stats paint a very small picture. There is so much more to a baseball player than that. I would like to see the comparison for stats across the board (fielding, base stealing, strikeouts, ect...)<br /><br />I am stiking to my guns on him being a pitcher. Compare the pitchers of that time period and you will see Ruth is not one of the best. And someone please look up Joe Wood. His short stint at pitching blows Ruth out of the water.<br /><br />Although on the other hand if Ruth stayed as a pitcher he may have gone on to become one of the greats. You never know. Just like he may have been a failure if he played 15 years earlier.<br /><br />This whole debate came from my comment on how I thought Ruth isn't necessarily the best player to build a dynasty. He had a lot of help in accomplishing what he did. Having the rest of the Yankee line up probobly helped is cause greatly. I think Ruth was a man who definately made the best out of the situation he was in. Guess that is all that anyone can ever expect of somebody.

Our love with Wagner
 

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>I jsut went with the three obvious one, trying not to bore everyone to death. Here are some more, all normalized...<br /><br /><br />Isolated power (this is 2B, 3B and HR divided by AB)<br />Ruth 199.0%(1) Cobb 58.8%(78) Wagner 68.9%(43)<br /><br />Gavvy Cravath was tops for deadball era players and was 6th overall. Joe Jackson was second and 13th overall. Third is Sam Crawford. He was 23th overall. Wagner was 8th overall for BDers and Cobb was 17th.<br /><br />The only normalized numbers I have for SBs are Pete Palmers linear weighted numbers. Ruth was -1.2, Cobb +0.2 and Wagner was 0.0. (The number is the number wins the player's base stealing was responsible for. This means that Ruth's base stealing actually cost his team a win over the course of his career.<br /><br />The only normailized fielding numbers are also Palmer's Defensive wins. Ruth was -2.0, Cobb +5.0, Wagner +8.8.<br /><br />As for Ruth pitching, once again referning to Palmer's linear weights. Ruth never have fewer than 6.5 wins in a year during the years he pitched. An average of 6.0 wins over 10 years would have landed him in the top 100 pitcher of all time.<br /><br />Jay<br /><br />My place is full of valuable, worthless junk.

Our love with Wagner
 

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>Jay B.<br /><br />While I understand and appreciate all your statistics, you are<br />not going to in any way sway Bryan (much less convince him<br />that his thinking on Ruth is totally way "out in left field").<br /><br />In my posts on this thread I have presented the very basic and<br />easy to comprehend statistcs and facts of Ruth's career. Yet,<br />Bryan just ignores them, and then his discussion degenerates to<br />Ruth being a "drunk" or "womanizer". And, that the "media" back<br />then covered it all up. GIVE Me A BREAK....everyone back in the<br />1920's and '30s knew of Ruth's personal "escapades".<br /><br />However, he is quick to criticize you for what he claims are<br />your personal attacks on him. It's apparent that Bryan does not<br />want to be "Confused by the Facts". So, he just simply detests<br />Ruth for whatever emotional reasons; and, we should just leave<br />it at that. The last time I met someone that disliked Ruth with<br />such intensity, was many years ago when I lived in Maine and<br />this guy was a Red Sox fan.<br /><br />But, I will add to the "mix" another favorable Ruth statistic. The<br /> comment was made that Cobb and Wagner were better all-around<br />players. I guess this impied that Ruth was not a good fielder.<br />Well, when you do the math:<br /><br />Ruth in the OF averaged 8.5 errors per year.<br /><br /> Cobb in the OF averaged 12.8 errors per year.<br /><br />And, while it is not fair to compare Wagner since he was a SS;<br />he averaged 36.4 errors per year. Finally, I will add that Ruth<br />being a former pitcher, made some great throwing plays from<br />his RF position. A fact that never shows up in the record book. <br /><br />OK, we can all argue "raw statistics" on this thread till we set<br />a new record for posts on this Forum. But, I don't believe any-<br />one on this Forum ever saw Ruth play (and certainly not Cobb<br />or Wagner).<br /><br />But, my Father-in-Law saw Ruth play (live at Yankee Stadium<br />and old Shibe Park in Philly). The stories he tells us of seeing<br />Ruth in action are exciting, and how the fans reacted to the<br />"Babe" (even in Philly) was amazing. He still recalls all these<br />fond memories as if they were just yesterday. <br /> <br />

Our love with Wagner
 

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>Fielding is a rela nebulous thing. If you look at the errors, Ozzie Smith doesn't look that great. He commited 281 errors with approximately 13k chances in 19 years. Cal Ripken on the other hand made 225 errors on 10k chances in 21 years. No one would would ever confuse Ripken with a great fielding SS, yet according to to these numbers, he was.<br /><br />Part of the reason that Ozzie's numbers don't look great is because his range was such that he could get to balls that no other SS could get to. Ozzie had 684 chances per year, where as Ripken only had 487. That's more than hit a game getting past Ripken that Ozzie Smith turns into an out.<br /><br />I'm willing to be that Cobb's range was much greater than that of Ruth's. You also need to factor in changes in equipment. Gloves had improved from the time Cobb came into the game until Ruth retired. Parks had also change dramtically in this time too.<br /><br />I will agree with you that I probably won't change Bryan' mind since his dislike for Ruth seems to be for the type of type he was and not as a player. Which doesn't make a lot sense since Cobb was a truly dispicable person on so many more levels than Ruth.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>My place is full of valuable, worthless junk.

Our love with Wagner
 

Posted By: <b>Darren J. Duet</b><p>Ruth filled the stands like no one else.<br /><br />To build a dynasty more than a great player is needed. A great player with flair and popularity is what is needed. Fill the stands, fill your coffers, afford the best players.

Our love with Wagner
 

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>I fully understand what you are saying about Fielding Stats.<br />and how you cannot take them literally in comparing<br />players' performance in the field. And, you certainly<br />do not get any argument from me regarding Ozzie Smith.<br />I was at Cooperstown when he was inducted into the HOF.<br />I met him and what a great guy and what a great story.<br /><br />Ruth played RF in the old Yankee stadium and it was not<br />as easy a field to play in. Cobb roamed the spacious CF<br />of the old Briggs Stadium; and having been there, I can<br />tell you it was easier ground to cover.<br /><br />It's subtle factors like these that you have to consider<br />when comparing ballplayers. But, like I mentioned in my<br />last post, actual eyewitness accounts are the only true way<br />to judge how well these oldtimers played their position.<br />And, my wife's Father saw Ruth close up, as he always made<br />sure he had seats between 1B and the RF foul post. He re-<br />calls Ruth unleashing throws from deep RF and throwing out<br />runners who dared to take an extra base.

Our love with Wagner
 

Posted By: <b>John</b><p>Ruth, even today, is the symbol of American baseball. In his time he was bigger than the game. The culture of the 1920's thrived on feats and accomplishments. Ruth was in the right place at the right time. There is no doubt that Ruth took care of his own needs, but he was also good to his fans. Wagner was recognized in his time as a great player, but never became the larger than life icon like Ruth. Pittsburgh still embraces Wagner as one of their own. My "love" with Wagner stems from his loyalty to the city of Pittsburgh.

Our love with Wagner
 

Posted By: <b>identify7</b><p>Cobb fought every pitch, pitcher, base and every obstacle between him and scoring a run. So did Wagner.<br /><br />Ruth played baseball. Effortlessly, carelessly and skillfully. Perhaps the most talented thus far.

Our love with Wagner
 

Posted By: <b>Patrick McHugh</b><p>I think that the T206 does influence the values of all Wagner cards. With all sports it turns into a popularity contest. Not alway's who was or is better. Babe Ruth is the most popular player, card values overall reflect this. Was Ruth the best player? I can't say.It can be alot of fun to try to compare players of back then or now but because stats happen in different situations - meaning compared players did not face same pitchers, teams, parks, equipment, etc. there is really no way to know who is better.

Our love with Wagner
 

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>You can't compare Ruth to Cobb directly, but you can compare the players against those they competed against and see how much better they were than everyone else they played against. This what normalized stats does.<br /><br />One of the arguments against normalized numbers is that talent is not consistant. In Cobb's day, the bell curve for talent was somewhat flat, with the talent difference between Cobb and Bergen quite dramatic. That same bell curve today is quite pronounced with the difference between A-Rod and the worst player not being as dramatic. Essentially, the left end of the bell curve (the worst players) gets pushed closer to the great players, thus forcing the peak to rise.<br /><br />How many people actually understood what I just wrote? <img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />Jay<br><br>My place is full of valuable, worthless junk.

Our love with Wagner
 

Posted By: <b>Bryan</b><p>Ted,<br /><br />Where do you get off saying I hate Ruth? I have more than once given him props for what he is done and said he was probobly the best thing that ever happened to the game.<br /><br />I also stated early in this thread that one of the most important aspects to a player is how they filled the stands. In the early days, gate receipts were everything.<br /><br /><br />As far as personal attacks I was referring to you. I know what I am talking about. Can't say that about you. Jay did edit out a comment. It didn't bother me that much though. I did apologize because I was being overly sensitive. I could have a field day ripping apart your argument but that isn't what this board is about.<br /><br /><br />Jay did have a good argument and backed it up with facts. Your argument had more holes than swiss cheese. I pointed out how it was impossible to compare hit to other players due to the eras they played in. You have yet to say anything intelligent to rebut that. I am not the ignorant one. You are hung up on Ruth and will not see elsewise. Get a clue.<br /><br />Cobb did bad things and I more than once mentioned that. In fact I strongly criticized him in the Cobb thread. I am pointing out that Ruth did some bad things too but that never gets mentioned. Cobb is synonimous for being a bad man. Ruth gets off scotch free.<br /><br />Now please, don't talk about what it needs to change my mind until you open your own mind. Honestly. Some people are just a bunch of sheep.

Our love with Wagner
 

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>While womanizing and being a drunk may be bad things, per se, they are also things that Americans love to glorify in their heros. A hero that beats other people and is jsut generally downright nasty will get vilified. This is the big difference between the public personae of Ruth and Cobb. Ruth did bad things that the public glorified adn approved, while Cobb did things that you do not get rewarded for. Right or wrong, it is how or media and public looks at their heros.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>My place is full of valuable, worthless junk.

Our love with Wagner
 

Posted By: <b>Bryan</b><p>I am not trying to compare what they did. Cobb bragged that he killed a man for gosh sakes. I was trying to point out that they both had off the field behavoir problems that may cause problems for the team (back to that whole dynasty issue.) However Ruth's behavior was largely covered up by a friendly media where as Cobb's behavior was front page news. If you can't understand that the media is biased you are a damn fool.<br /><br />Just because you are critical doesn't mean you hate it.<br />

Our love with Wagner
 

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>I just pointed out how the media is biased. Ruth's sins are forgivable to the public. Cobb's are not. That is the big difference. <br /><br />The reason this got brought up is that every time he made claims about Ruth being a lesser player, you also had to throw in remarks about what an unsavory character he is in your eyes. Ommit those remarks, and no one cares about this issue. You brought it up, no one else.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>My place is full of valuable, worthless junk.

Our love with Wagner
 

Posted By: <b>Peter Thomas</b><p>Jay, I think you have your bell curves reversed. A sharp dropoff in talent would occur more easily on a steep rather that a flat bell curve. But I do understand your point.

Our love with Wagner
 

Posted By: <b>Bryan</b><p>you finally agreed with me. The reason why I brought up Ruth's character is because if you are building a dynasty around one person you may want that person to be of good character. Ruth was not the worst person. All in all he was a good man with some flaws. But those flaws did affect his ability. That is something to be considered if you are creating a team around one person.<br /><br />Another thing to consider is the player's situation. Would Ruth have been as great if he played on say Brooklyn. Ruth is who he is because he was on a great team. Would he have been that good on a bad team? A very logical question and something to throw around. However, no right or wrong answer on a hypothetical.<br /><br />I had no intention of degrading Ruth. It just came out that way when someone couldn't understand my posts. I'm no lawyer either but I do know what I am talking about. I have been studying baseball history for years. The only reason I collect cards is because of their relation to baseball history. But obviously this was my opinion based on some facts.<br /><br />Trust me, my questioning of Ruth's character isn't the only problem people have with my comments. No one wants their hero badmouthed, especially the Yankee faithful across the country.<br /><br />Sorry Anson, I really made a mess out of your thread.

Our love with Wagner
 

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>My bell curves are correct. If you were to plot talent on a graph, the worst is on the left side and the best, the right side. In early baseball, the talent difference between Cobb and the worst player was very significant, making talent spread over a larger distance on the horizontal, making the bell curve somewhat flat. As more and more people start playing ball and training methods improved, the talent needed to get to the major was much greater than in earlier years. Talent is now spread over a smaller area of the horizontal part of graph since the talent level of great players is relatively the same and doesn't move along the horizontal. Since the area underneath the curve remains the same, the bell curve must become more pronounced. A player of average ability in the deadball era is not likely to even make a major league roster because of this talent shift.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>My place is full of valuable, worthless junk.

Our love with Wagner
 

Posted By: <b>John</b><p>Jay is correct. A bell curve is a visual representation of standard deviations from a mean. Major league batting averages at the turn of the 20th century consist of many outliers, players that had very low averages and players that had very high averages. As the leagues have solidified over the years and every drop of potetial talent is scouted and analyzed, a compression of the curve occurs (the gap between the best and worst is much narrower, a steeper bell). This compression of talent includes pitchers as well. Cobb would still be on the right side of the distribution today but probably not batting at a career .367 clip. Just check out the backs of your t205's, how many low .200 hitters are described as solid or steady. Those players would be in the minors or out of ball today. The Mendoza line was lower then. For any of you whose careers or interests cross over into biology or statistics, Stephen Jay Gould's "Triump and Tradegy in Mudville" is an excellent read. Gould merges his love of baseball with interesting commentary regarding natural history in a series of essays.

Our love with Wagner
 

Posted By: <b>identify7</b><p>John & Jay:<br /><br />Two data points do not prove a theory. While the bell curve relationship for early 20th century players compared to those of today is a logical progression; for the theory to have merit, it has to be applicable to the 19th century as well.<br /><br />Is it? An initial glance at the players involved appears to indicate that in some cases (single season hitting stats, for example) the theory is borne out. But I am not sure that this is the case for career stats applied to hitters and pitchers.<br /><br />Again, this is currently only a question. I have not yet looked at the actual data. But the disparity between the highest career 19th century batter and the lowest may be less than that in the 20th century.

Our love with Wagner
 

Posted By: <b>Daniel Bretta</b><p>It is absurd to say that Babe Ruth would just be a flyout hitter in the Deadball era. Ruth hit 1,517 singles in his career and he hit to all fields. Even Ty Cobb praised Ruth in his autobiography for being able to hit the ball to all fields. I'll take Cobb's word for it over Bryan's or any other of Ruth's detractors in this thread.<br /><br />

Our love with Wagner
 

Posted By: <b>Bryan</b><p>Can't you read? Any what the hell is a Ruth detractor anyways? One who doesn't worship the almighty Ruth? I wouldn't put too much stock in Cobb's words about Ruth. Cobb was not a fan of Ruth. Guess free thinking and and posting challenging thoughts/opinions isn't welcome here.

Our love with Wagner
 

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>DANIEL<br /><br />Thanx for saying this Daniel, this is exactly the argument I<br />presented on my 2nd post on this thread.<br /><br /> But, I'll even "one up you" on this by adding Ruth's Doubles<br /> and Triples, to bring Ruth's total hits (excluding HRs) to 2100.<br />And, who knows how many more hits Ruth would've had if he<br /> had not Walked 2056 times ?<br /><br />Your observation on his ability to hit to all fields is very<br />factual. Also, keep in mind the fact that the fences in the<br />American League parks were somewhat farther out than the<br />Nat. Lge. parks in those days; therefore, consider how much<br />greater Ruth's "numbers" might have been if he played in the<br />other league.

Our love with Wagner
 

Posted By: <b>identify7</b><p>Actually, with Delahanty @ .346 and Kittredge at .219, the 19th Century players have a higher curve (based on that statistic), than that of Cobb and Bergen.<br /><br />Similarly, looking at ERA: Ward at 2.10 and Sullivan at 5.14 is tighter than the 20th Century counterparts of Walsh at 1.82 and Hogsett at 5.02.<br /><br />Unless the above information is faulty, it does not appear consistent to conclude that the talent spread of ballplayers has changed in a predictable pattern.<br /><br />Of course, any analysis of all of the players since the formation of the National League, based on so few items of information is deserving of criticism. However, the purpose here is not to establish a theory, but to question one.

Our love with Wagner
 

Posted By: <b>identify7</b><p>Ruth? How can you guys take Bryan so seriously? He is just bustin' your chops.

Our love with Wagner
 

Posted By: <b>Bryan</b><p>You just don't get it. The ball was a different composition. The game was completely different. Gavvy Cravath could have been a better power hitter than Ruth if he played 20 years later. Ruth tremendously benefitted from his situation on the Yankees. If you can't see that, well I will keep that comment to myself. The tunnel vision of some people here is amazing. Oddly enough I have yet to see any comment refuting my points (other than Jay.) All I am asking is for you to think outside the box. Nothing more, nothing less.<br /><br />

Our love with Wagner
 

Posted By: <b>cmoking</b><p>In Jay Gould's book "Triumph and Tragedy in Mudville", chapter "Why No One Hits .400 Any More", he uses "Difference between high average and league average in percentage points" and "difference between low average and league average in percentage points" from 1880 thru 1980. The graph he presents looks convincing. It is clearly sloping towards zero (less variability).<br /><br />Later in the chapter, he presents similar data (using batting averages) separated in Decades and presents his evidence in Standard Deviation and Coefficient of Variation. Here is the table (first number = decade, second number = SD, third number = CoV)<br /><br />1870 .0496 19.25<br />1880 .0460 18.45<br />1890 .0436 15.60<br />1900 .0386 14.97<br />1910 .0371 13.97<br />1920 .0374 12.70<br />1930 .0340 12.00<br />1940 .0326 12.23<br />1950 .0325 12.25<br />1960 .0316 12.31<br />1970 .0317 12.13<br /><br />This table is very convincing. It shows that the variability of batting averages have decreased over the years. <br /><br />He started the chapter by asking "Were the old guys really better?" And he concludes with: "we've exposed the extinction of .400 hitting as a sign of progress, not degradation - the paradoxical effect of declining variation as play improves and stabilizes, and as average contestants also approach the right wall of human limits. Do not lament the loss of literally outstanding performance....Celebrate instead the immense improvement of average play...."<br /><br />I don't know enough about this stuff to back up his point or debate it, all I can suggest is for someone to read his book and see Jay Gould's argument.<br /><br /><br /><br />

Our love with Wagner
 

Posted By: <b>Daniel Bretta</b><p>So what are you trying to say Bryan? You called Ruth a one trick pony and it has been demonstrated to you that he was not a one trick pony. He could hit for power, he could hit to all fields and he wasn't a poor fielder relative to the league, and if you'll look at his statistics he hit 29 homeruns in 1919 his first full year playing everyday and that was before the new rules concerning how a baseball was used in the game.<br /><br />Also one trick ponies don't normally win 94 games with a 2.24 ERA as a pitcher and hit 714 homeruns and hit .342 as a hitter.<br /><br />The verdict is in on Ruth. I'm not sure what you want us to "think outside of the box" about?<br /><br />

Our love with Wagner
 

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>Gil, I'm not going to go into detail on the talent bell curve. It would bore people to tears. If you really need the info, get Pete Palmer's Hidden Game of Baseball and various Bill James books. They will do a much better job explaining it than I could.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>My place is full of valuable, worthless junk.

Our love with Wagner
 

Posted By: <b>Anson</b><p>Very interesting stuff. With the development of the game (many changes from year-to-year), it's hard to truly devlop accurate statistical analysis to support theories. We can look at things on a year-to-year basis, but there will still be the half-empty, half-full perspective of each player.<br /><br />I think it's safe to say that Wagner, Cobb, and Ruth were certainly at the top of the chain for their respected careers. Like them on and off the field or not, they played the game like few others. You can say Big Train and Matty benefited from the Dead-Ball era just as you can say Ruth benefited from playing after it. It's all how you look at things.<br /><br />Can't we all get along? <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Our love with Wagner
 

Posted By: <b>Paul</b><p>One thing people seem to forget about Ruth is that he was switched from pitcher's mound to the outfield by the Red Sox during the deadball era. So, even during the deadball era, his hitting was so impressive that the Red Sox decided to switch one of the best left handed pitchers in baseball to an outfielder. As a result, he broke Ned Williamson's single season home run record, again during the dead ball era. For this reason, I can't accept the idea that Ruth would have been just another face in the crowd if the live ball wasn't introduced. He wouldn't have hit 700 home runs with the deadball, but he might have hit 400, at a time when 100 was damn impressive.

Our love with Wagner
 

Posted By: <b>identify7</b><p>Jay: Ive read as much about that theory as I care to. I simply do not believe that the stats from the 19th century support the hypothesis. Specifically: 7 of the 8 lowest ERA pitchers are from the 20th century, as are two of the three highest. Additionally 4 of the 5 highest lifetime batters are from the 20th century, as are 6 of the 7 lowest.<br /><br />So based on this information, I conclude that not everything which is in a book, is reliable.<br /><br />Please feel free to refute or ignore my opinion - or even agree with it.

Our love with Wagner
 

Posted By: <b>Anson</b><p>My only comment is that you're working with a much larger sample in regards to the 20th century. I would expect those numbers to be the outcome.

Our love with Wagner
 

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>Gil, I'm willing to bet the big reason 19c stats don't fit into your reasoning is that the game was constatly changing and evolving during the 19c. The game as we know it didn't really come into existance until 1894 when the pitchers mound was moved back to it's current distance. You basically get 7 years of 19c ball that were played under current rules. This is the reaosn most people that make a distinction between 19c and modern baseball. The game, although essentially the same, were also very different in form and how it was played. !9c ball was played showcase the most difficult and celebrated aspect of the game, fielding. This changed over time to where it today, celebrating the HR.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>My place is full of valuable, worthless junk.

Our love with Wagner
 

Posted By: <b>identify7</b><p>Im sorry that you conclude that the 19th Century players do not fit, Jay.<br /><br />My thinking is that they fit better than modern players. Look Jay, look at the numbers.<br /><br />Delahanty .346 ......... Cobb .367<br />Kittridge .217 ......... Bergen .170<br /><br />Ward 2.10 ............. Walsh 1.82<br />Sullivan 5.14 .......... Hogsett 5.02<br /><br />There is not much difference, Jay. Particularly with the pitchers.<br /><br />Nobody today is putting these type of numbers together. And they haven't for a long time.<br /><br /><br />Edited to spell Malachi Kittridge's name correctly.

Our love with Wagner
 

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>You are doing exactly what you cannot do, compare 19c numbers to the modern game. The games were radically different and scoring was very different. If you honestly believe that the talent level in 19c was greater than that of the 20c, then go right ahead and keep believing that. <br /><br />Jay<br /><br /><br><br>My place is full of valuable, worthless junk.

Our love with Wagner
 

Posted By: <b>identify7</b><p>But Jay: The nineteenth century stats that were cited do compare well with those shown for the early 20th century.<br /><br /><br />And further Jay:<br /><br />"If you honestly believe that the talent level in 19c was greater than that of the 20c, then go right ahead and keep believing that". <br /><br /><br />Where did this statement come from? I never said that Delahanty had a higher batting average than Cobb. Nor do I remember stating that Monte Ward's 2.10 ERA was lower than Walsh's 1.82.<br /><br />What I did say is that current players statistics do not approach the extremes noted in those earlier players. If you disagree with that statement, please be advised that it is the foundation of the theory you are offering for discussion.<br /><br />

Our love with Wagner
 

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>ok, let's make this as simple as possible for you since you don't seem to get it. The discussion about the bell curve involved talent. Nothing more, nothing less. Talent is not quanitfiable, per se, so you thorwing numbers out there does no good in this situation. As I said, if you honestly believe that there was more talent in the 19c game than even early part of the 20c, then that is your choice, but you will be in the minority. As the game progressed and it's popularity grew and became a more acceptable way to make a living, more and more people started playing the game. This brings more and better talent to the pool. For much of the 19c, baseball was played by rich, white guys. Not exactly a huge talent pool to draw from.<br /><br />If you want to put AVG under a bell curve, than that is what you have under that curve. Same goes for ERA, or any other stat you want to talk about. All I have ever talked about is TALENT under the bell curve. PLease stop confusing TALENT with AVG, ERA or any other stat. That's not what is being talked about.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>My place is full of valuable, worthless junk.

Our love with Wagner
 

Posted By: <b>identify7</b><p>Jay: There is no need to be condescending. I do not treat you as a dummy simply because you disagree with me. Please provide me with the same courtesy.<br /><br />It is my understanding that in order to have a curve, it is necessary to have points which are plotted. If statistics are unacceptable as points, please advise me of how you quantify talent.

Our love with Wagner
 

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>It's called a mental exercise. You don't need actual points to plot. It just helps a person visualize what you are talking about. If it came across as condescending, then so be it. You kept trying to say one thing when I was saying something completely different and you weren't getting it. If you really understand what is represented under the curve, in this case "talent", the you would know that talking about the bell curve for AVG and ERA isn't the same thing as talking about the bell curve for talent. Apparently, you don't get that.<br /><br />Jay<br /><br />My place is full of valuable, worthless junk.

Our love with Wagner
 

Posted By: <b>identify7</b><p>As always Jay, I have enjoyed our conversation. Thank you.

Our love with Wagner
 

Posted By: <b>John</b><p>Gil,<br /><br />You are referring to the extremes of the data which are called outliers. They are often not even considered when doing statistical analysis because they fall more than three standard deviations from the mean. What must be considered is how large or small the standard deviations fall from the mean. This can then be related to the equality or disparity of talent within the groupings we are discussing. Standard deviations for ERA and batting averages are much smaller for modern players than players from the deadball era and before. The Wagners and Cobbs would probably stand out in today's game as well, but the average player of today's game would be better than the average player from the deadball era or before. <br /><br />What does this all mean in reference to the original topic of the thread? Our attraction to Wagner, Cobb, and other deadball era players has little to do to with how they would compare with today's players. It is the fact they were less removed from the common person of their era in terms of finances. They played to make a living at something they enjoyed, not to get rich. I would rather read about the exploits of players that have been gone for one hundred years rather than getting wrapped up in the melodramatic media saturated atmosphere that surrounds modern sports.<br /><br />

Our love with Wagner
 

Posted By: <b>identify7</b><p>John, since the premise of the proposed theory is the disparity between the extremes in (talent, I guess) performance as described as the steepness of a bell curve; it is necessary to draw from what is normally considered outliers. <br /><br />As I indicated though, these outliers have company, specifically 7 of the 8 lowest ERA pitchers are from the 20th century, as are two of the three highest. Additionally 4 of the 5 highest lifetime batters are from the 20th century, as are 6 of the 7 lowest.<br /><br />So, I conclude that evidence regarding a greater extreme in performance is substantiated for the early 20th century players, as compared to 19th century players.<br /><br />I believe that the approach to an analysis of the statistical data which you suggest will address the capabilities of the population of players from each era, rather than focus on those who perform in the extreme. (Which of course would be interesting and valuable information ie. the performance of all players).<br /><br />But if the subject of the theory is not the generation of statistical values, and the bell curve is simply utilized as an analogous tool; then its author has placed himself on firm footing since it is impossible to refute a conceptual tool.<br /><br />Further this discussion is viewed by me as a digression from the thread's intent. Its path was only followed because I had not mentally resolved this theory when I first came across it. And I thought others may enjoy it.

Our love with Wagner
 

Posted By: <b>Anson</b><p>In regards to Gil and Jay's discussion, I agree with both of you......to some degree. Today's players have many other factors that influence their ability and approach to the game. These factors have evolved since the dawn of the game until now. Whether it's changes in the physical characteristics of the game features, the rules, the conditioning, the travel, the size of the league and dilution of talent, or the perception of the game through the players' eyes, you can argue your points until you're blue in the face. It's not an apples to apples situation. With too many factors, all we can do is take educated guesses. Yes, Anson, Kelly, Young, Johnson, Matty, Cobb, Wagner, Ruth, Williams, Musial, Mays, etc...would probably excel in any era. Sure, the approach would be different in every time period. However, these players showed a true ability to elevate their game above all others. It's not a matter of the average athlete....it's the legends and their place in history.<br /><br />On the track of the thread, I find that Wagner is one of the few players where a single card impacts the value of his others. A case can be made for Plank and Lajoie, but I don't think that they get quite the boost.

Our love with Wagner
 

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>ANSON<br /><br />Your last paragraph gets this thread back on it's original<br />track....Thank You.<br /><br />In the 1980's when a T206 Wagner sold for approx. $50K,<br />his other contemporary cards were quite reasonably priced.<br />One in particular that comes to mind is the E90-2 (really<br />nice looking portrait of him). I remember selling a nice<br />one back then for $80.<br /><br />Just a few years ago I sold an Ex/Mt (raw) one for over $1K.<br />At first I acquired it for my collection, but I made the<br />mistake of displaying it at my table at a show. And, the next<br />thing I knew some collector was offering me a lot more than<br />I traded for it; so, I sold it.<br /><br />My point is that the market value of this E90-2 Wagner has<br />certainly been influenced by his T206 card. Although, we know<br />that his E90-2 card is no where near as rare as his T206 card. <br />