meant to follow up on the Wagner thread-- Context

[Archive]

Posted By: Tim Newcomb

Scott: "Cobb's numbers blow him away, and at the same era!"

Hardly "the same era." Wagner 1897-1917; Cobb 1905-1928. There's a big difference in those 8-10 years. If you look at it carefully, the era Wagner played in was, overall, MUCH leaner offensively than Cobb's.

Anyway, c'mon guys: going on raw statistics is absurd-- any comparison has to try to take into account the contexts of those stats.

If you use even a fairly simple sabermetric stat like

player runs created per game / runs created per team per game in that year,

Wagner comes out WAY ahead of most 1920s-1930s guys we think of as "great hitters", and competitive with Cobb and Ruth-- FOR HIS ERA.

Don't get me wrong, Cobb was one of the greatest hitters ever, maybe the greatest. But he played through the early 1920s when there was vastly more offense than any year Wagner ever played in. Comparing Wagner to the span of Hornsby's and Ruth's careers, the disparity in offensive context is even greater.

And notice I didn't claim Wagner was a BETTER hitter than Cobb. I'd call them about even given their eras, but when you factor in defense and leadership (not to mention Cobb's tendency to punch out fans, umpires, opposing players, teammates, etc.), I agree with James: I'd pick Wagner for my team over Cobb in a heartbeat.
_____________________________________________

HORNSBY

Obviously Hornsby was an incredible hitter, and his 1924 is an incredible season. But it's all about context: does anyone seriously think Hornsby (or anyone) could have hit .424 and slugged .696 in the NL in 1908, when the NL team batting average was .239 and slugging average was .306??

Holy Cow, two NL teams scored less than 375 runs in 1908, and the best offense scored 651. The NL average in runs per game was 517-- 3.35 runs per team per game. Playing in the worst hitters park in the league that year, Wagner hit .354 and slugged .542, leading the league in eight major offensive categories (Hits, 2B, 3B, RBI, SB, BA, OBA, SLG). He was second in runs scored (by one) and homers (by two). He had a lot of seasons kinda like that-- adds up to dominance of his era.

When Rajah did his thing in 1924, the NL batted .283 and slugged .392. Runs per game per team about 4.10. It's still a season for the books, but that's a big difference in offensive context.

In Player runs created per game / runs created per game per team, it's not even close. And then there's that little difference in the quality of their defense....

________________________________________________
O'DOUL

And sorry, but yes, I think Lefty O'Doul IS highly overrated. He was obviously an excellent hitter, but not a great complete ballplayer (kinda like Easler).

Two seasons (1929-30) account for 40 percent of O'Doul's career offensive production (456 hits out of 1140). His two "great seasons" (.398 and .383) took place in two of the most extreme hitter's years in ML baseball history, in one of the most extreme hitter's parks in history.

The NL TEAM batting averages in 1929-30 were .294 and .303. The Phillies hit .315 as a team and finished dead last in 1930.
Because:

Baker Bowl
--In 1929-30 the Phillies scored 1046 runs in Baker Bowl, only 795 in other parks.
--NL teams scored an average of 826 runs in 1929-30. Outside Baker Bowl the Phillies were merely an average offense for those years.
--Against Phillie pitching, other teams scored a whopping 1224 runs in Baker Bowl in those two years (1007 elsewhere).
--In 143 games there in those two seasons, the park produced almost 16 runs per game! I guess the average score was Anybody else 9, Phillies 7. And that's the AVERAGE score! For every 4-3 game, there was a 13-12 game.
--Baker Bowl was increasing offense by about 30% during those two years. No other park ever increased offense like that except Coors.

Don't you think maybe something a little unusual is at work, and needs to be factored into how we evaluate any stats from those years, and particularly a guy who really only had a couple of other good years??

This is all straight outta retrosheet.org-- you can look it up!

All done in the spirit of friendly banter--

Cheers,
Tim