Our love with Wagner

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

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.

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.

How many people actually understood what I just wrote?

Jay

My place is full of valuable, worthless junk.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bryan

Ted,

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.

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.


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.


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.

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.

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.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

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.

Jay

My place is full of valuable, worthless junk.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bryan

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.

Just because you are critical doesn't mean you hate it.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

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.

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.

Jay

My place is full of valuable, worthless junk.

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter Thomas

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.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bryan

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.

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.

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.

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.

Sorry Anson, I really made a mess out of your thread.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

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.

Jay

My place is full of valuable, worthless junk.

[Archive]

Posted By: John

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.

[Archive]

Posted By: identify7

John & Jay:

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.

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.

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.

[Archive]

Posted By: Daniel Bretta

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.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bryan

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.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

DANIEL

Thanx for saying this Daniel, this is exactly the argument I
presented on my 2nd post on this thread.

But, I'll even "one up you" on this by adding Ruth's Doubles
and Triples, to bring Ruth's total hits (excluding HRs) to 2100.
And, who knows how many more hits Ruth would've had if he
had not Walked 2056 times ?

Your observation on his ability to hit to all fields is very
factual. Also, keep in mind the fact that the fences in the
American League parks were somewhat farther out than the
Nat. Lge. parks in those days; therefore, consider how much
greater Ruth's "numbers" might have been if he played in the
other league.

[Archive]

Posted By: identify7

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Archive]

Posted By: identify7

Ruth? How can you guys take Bryan so seriously? He is just bustin' your chops.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bryan

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.

[Archive]

Posted By: cmoking

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).

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)

1870 .0496 19.25
1880 .0460 18.45
1890 .0436 15.60
1900 .0386 14.97
1910 .0371 13.97
1920 .0374 12.70
1930 .0340 12.00
1940 .0326 12.23
1950 .0325 12.25
1960 .0316 12.31
1970 .0317 12.13

This table is very convincing. It shows that the variability of batting averages have decreased over the years.

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...."

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.

[Archive]

Posted By: Daniel Bretta

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.

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.

The verdict is in on Ruth. I'm not sure what you want us to "think outside of the box" about?

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

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.

Jay

My place is full of valuable, worthless junk.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anson

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.

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.

Can't we all get along?

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul

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.

[Archive]

Posted By: identify7

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.

So based on this information, I conclude that not everything which is in a book, is reliable.

Please feel free to refute or ignore my opinion - or even agree with it.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anson

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.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

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.

Jay

My place is full of valuable, worthless junk.

[Archive]

Posted By: identify7

Im sorry that you conclude that the 19th Century players do not fit, Jay.

My thinking is that they fit better than modern players. Look Jay, look at the numbers.

Delahanty .346 ......... Cobb .367
Kittridge .217 ......... Bergen .170

Ward 2.10 ............. Walsh 1.82
Sullivan 5.14 .......... Hogsett 5.02

There is not much difference, Jay. Particularly with the pitchers.

Nobody today is putting these type of numbers together. And they haven't for a long time.


Edited to spell Malachi Kittridge's name correctly.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

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.

Jay



My place is full of valuable, worthless junk.

[Archive]

Posted By: identify7

But Jay: The nineteenth century stats that were cited do compare well with those shown for the early 20th century.


And further Jay:

"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".


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.

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.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

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.

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.

Jay

My place is full of valuable, worthless junk.

[Archive]

Posted By: identify7

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.

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.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

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.

Jay

My place is full of valuable, worthless junk.

[Archive]

Posted By: identify7

As always Jay, I have enjoyed our conversation. Thank you.

[Archive]

Posted By: John

Gil,

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.

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.

[Archive]

Posted By: identify7

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anson

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.

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.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

ANSON

Your last paragraph gets this thread back on it's original
track....Thank You.

In the 1980's when a T206 Wagner sold for approx. $50K,
his other contemporary cards were quite reasonably priced.
One in particular that comes to mind is the E90-2 (really
nice looking portrait of him). I remember selling a nice
one back then for $80.

Just a few years ago I sold an Ex/Mt (raw) one for over $1K.
At first I acquired it for my collection, but I made the
mistake of displaying it at my table at a show. And, the next
thing I knew some collector was offering me a lot more than
I traded for it; so, I sold it.

My point is that the market value of this E90-2 Wagner has
certainly been influenced by his T206 card. Although, we know
that his E90-2 card is no where near as rare as his T206 card.