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

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

1930 was the most productive hitting and scoring year in the history of the game, with the year or two before and after close behind. Any hitting records from those years, such as Hack Wilson's 191 RBI, have to be put in perspective. Look at some of the other stats from 1930, when the season average for the entire National league was .303, and you will be amazed.

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

Bill James points out that in terms of batting average there is virtually no park differential for Lefty (I have the book at the ofice and can add the #'s tomorrow). The man could flat out hit. His second title came while he was with another team (Brooklyn). The Baker Bowl largesse recipient was Chuck Klein.

[Archive]

Posted By: Tim Newcomb

James ranks O'Doul 52nd among left fielders, between Kevin Mitchell and Hal McRae. This seems about right to me--

James does note that O'Doul hit two-thirds of his home runs at home (more doubles and triples away). And that his career BA was five points higher at home.

Another point to make is that O'Doul only played those two seasons (1929-30) with the Phils. According to retrosheet.org, his other home parks, Ebbets Field (1931-33) and the Polo Grounds (1928, 1933-34), were actually functioning as pitcher's parks during the years O'Doul played there. In those years his Baker Bowl at-bats were going into his road stats. Both these things would depress his home stats during his non-Phillie years, and tend to even out the home-road stats over his whole career.

What we really need to evaluate his batting record is full stadium-by-stadium stats, which I don't think we have. I'd be comfortable speculating that his BAKER BOWL (as home and road park) stats were substantially higher than his stats in other stadia, which again calls into question his 1929-30 performance.

I'd also note that while O'Doul did lead the league in BA in 1929, seven other players batted above .350 in the National League alone. In 1930 he batted .383 but was fourth, and 10 other NL players topped .350. So he's hardly the dominant hitter of his day.

He was a career .350 hitter in an era where outfielders didn't keep their jobs if they couldn't hit .300-- in other words, he was an very good player, but hardly to be mentioned in the same breath as Wagner, Cobb, etc.

Cheers,

Tim

[Archive]

Posted By: Anson

"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. "

Not to beat a dead horse, but I beg to differ. Cobb only won two more batting titles after 1917 (1918, 1919). So, he captured most of his while Wagner was still playing. Also, Cobb had to hold off such pathetic talents as Nap Lajoie, Eddie Collins, and Tris Speaker. Wagner's National league was a little leaner, in my honest opinion.

Many of their peers would put Wagner ahead of Cobb, simply because Cobb was a real jerk (as pointed out). But, he does lead Wagner in every major offensive statistic.

Did I mention that I have yet to see someone pay $3200 for a more commonly-found PSA 1 caramel Cobb?

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Elkins

Obviously, Wagner and Cobb did play several seasons together. Cobb did outperform Wagner during these years by a wide margin. As Anson pointed out, Cobb did not take advantage of the livelier ball of the 20's. Just look at Cobb's stats for 1911!

[Archive]

Posted By: Tim Newcomb

An awesome season.

Again, I'm not claiming Cobb was an inferior hitter to Wagner.

But the fact that Cobb never won a batting title after 1919 is hardly a good argument that he DIDN'T benefit from the lively ball.

I mean, he clearly benefitted from the lively ball of the 1920s-- every batter in the league had to benefit to some extent.

True, he still hit close to .400 a couple of years in the 1920s, but this was no longer an average that could win the batting title. This means that while he was obviously still a superior hitter, he was somewhat closer to the rest of the pack than he had been before 1919.

Hence I conclude that in Cobb's case, what the introduction of the lively ball and high batting averages did was to disguise the gradually declining skills in the later years of his career. Wagner's "decline years" after 1912 may seem steeper than Cobb's, but this was because he was in a very low-offense era for the last few years of his career.

The argument is really splitting hairs-- both were among the greatest ever, clearly. But Wagner can't hold Cobb's strap???? That's a little extreme, don't you think?

Cheers,
Tim

[Archive]

Posted By: identify7

I am not of the school which thinks ... if we only had just a little more data ... we could generate correction factors which would clear everything up.

I believe that many things are already over analyzed and fully misunderstood.
Why is it not possible that Wagner was a very popular and very accomplished baseball player? His popularity results in him being favorably compared to those of perhaps slightly greater talent.

There are other players whose talent alone do not justify the pricing for their cards. Of course, the most obvious of these is Mantle.

Heck, you can manipulate analyses plenty, but a forty point BA difference is a bit to overcome.

[Archive]

Posted By: Lyle

Wagner was great and should be in the same league as Johnson , Mathewson , Cobb and Ruth .Its fun to talk about statistics . Its what baseball fans like to discuss .However , the most powerful arguement for Cobb being a bit better comes from the Hall of Fame voting in which Cobb won a higher percentage vote , DESPITE BEING UNPOPULAR WITH THE VOTERS ( although maybe they were afraid of his reaction if they didn't vote for him !

[Archive]

Posted By: Anson

True, but then Tom Seaver would be greater than everyone.

Cobb also took a backseat in the 20's due to a few strapping, young fellows named Heilmann, Sisler, and Hornsby (NL).

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Forrest

Some (not most) of Wagner and Cobb's peers put Wagner ahead of Cobb simply because they thought he was a better player - contributing to a team is more than individual statistics, a fact which is sorely lost on today's players and some modern analyses of past players' statistics.

For a great source of "straight from the horse's mouth" comments on Cobb and Wagner (and others) by their peers, pick up the "Glory of Their Times" 5-cd set.

[Archive]

Posted By: identify7

Regarding O'Doul: it is difficult in my mind to find fault with a player who has a .349 lifetime batting average. It is true, however, that he did not get much over 3000 at bats, and that is not considered a full career by some. I guess Joe Jackson has the same "what if" uncertainty associated with his abbreviated career.

I'd like to say that I dismiss this analysis, but in light of the fact that if you reduce Keeler's career to his first 3000 - 3500 AB, you wind up with a hitter who has an average 33 points higher than that of O'Doul (about .382 "lifetime").

Similarly, if you just take the last 5000 or so at bats which Heilmann had, and compare his record to that of Joe Jackson, I think that HH looks better than JJ.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anson

Heilmann is one of my favorites and certainly not ever mentioned along with the greats. 9 hits away from four .400 seasons folks.