Best lefty off all time? My vote is Koufax!

[HistoricNewspapers]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Pedro wasn't exactly a big dude, maybe 5 foot 10 and 170.

That threw 97 MPH with movement and command....and would not be pitching in 1933. There was not a pitcher in MLB in 1978 that possessed what Pedro had.

Five ten is not five three. Edited to add that he was 5 '11.

Size alone does not make someone good. It has to be coupled with velocity, command, and everything else.

Do you really believe that Don Drysdale would be 'Don Drysdale' if he maintained his velocity and everything else, but was only five foot five instead of six foot five??

[HistoricNewspapers]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Maddux and Glavine were geniuses at expanding the strike zone. Pedro got a lot of those calls too.

Isn't that true of every great, in every sport...to get the calls?

[HistoricNewspapers]

I also want to add that in addition to being taller AND throwing harder, that command has gotten better over time, not worse, especially by the hard throwers.

The two kings of fastballers, Feller and Ryan, averaged 4.1 and 4.7 walks per nine innings, which is not good. They were marvels in their time and they did possess velocity as good as the best today, but they were rare in that regard...and their control was not as good as the flame throwers of now.

They were freaks of nature in their time due to their velocity, and now they would just be another pitcher in the clubhouse in regard to velocity, but with the organization waiting for them to develop command before they were good enough to contend with the big boys for awards and the big contracts.

In all of this, I do not want to minimize Koufax though. Koufax did have a great prime good enough to be in the discussion, even considering everything I've said, and it is unfortunate we didn't get to see how he would have held up. Just that Johnson was better .

PS, and a nod to Ryan for reinventing himself to gain command and that knowledge did help pitchers like Randy Johnson. The early players get their due to being pioneers, as without them the next generations of players wouldn't have learned more by watching the best of the previous generations.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by HistoricNewspapers

Isn't that true of every great, in every sport...to get the calls?

It's only completely anecdotal, but I thought especially after his 1990 playoff tirade Clemens from that point on had to earn everything he got with the umps.

Certainly true in basketball, in terms of foul calls and not calling traveling.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by tschock

It's a skill. It's a preference to do it but a skill to master it. Which they both did. So both had their own skill set which they mastered. The end result of them having a different style pitching and each pitching to their own strengths. Neither would have been nearly as successful of a pitcher had they tried to pitch in the style of the others strength.

As to the article, it is good in what it does, but it's comparing averages and really doesn't mean much when you are looking a pitchers on the elite end of the scale, as is the case with both Johnson and Maddux. They both were much more effective in what they do so you could probably ignore what any 'analysis' would say they should do.

This particular analysis says that the tradeoff evens out in terms of run production, so there isn't really a "should" here in terms of ground balls vs fly falls preferences. However, in general, the mindset that you "could probably ignore" what the data says you should is a golden ticket to the bottom of the league. Try telling an NBA team to stop shooting 3s and see how that goes.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It's only completely anecdotal, but I thought especially after his 1990 playoff tirade Clemens from that point on had to earn everything he got with the umps.

Certainly true in basketball, in terms of foul calls and not calling traveling.

I definitely subscribe to this theory. I think it's actually much more significant than people realize, across the board. I actually started including which umpires were behind the plate in my models and always wanted to include interaction variables between umps and pitchers to see who was prejudiced for and against who, but never got around to it. It was too much work and I was retiring from full time gambling anyhow (and sports betting wasn't my primary income source anyhow, poker was. Sports betting was supplementary income). The juice just wasn't worth the squeeze. But it definitely has an effect.

[tschock]

Originally Posted by Snowman

This particular analysis says that the tradeoff evens out in terms of run production, so there isn't really a "should" here in terms of ground balls vs fly falls preferences. However, in general, the mindset that you "could probably ignore" what the data says you should is a golden ticket to the bottom of the league. Try telling an NBA team to stop shooting 3s and see how that goes.

They are elite and at the upper end of the curve. They would not all of a sudden become worse for ignoring what is essentially an analysis for the average. While their preference on pitching started as such, they weren't elite because of their preference, but because of their skill they honed for their preference. You missed the point, whether purposely or not.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by HistoricNewspapers

I also want to add that in addition to being taller AND throwing harder, that command has gotten better over time, not worse, especially by the hard throwers.

The two kings of fastballers, Feller and Ryan, averaged 4.1 and 4.7 walks per nine innings, which is not good. They were marvels in their time and they did possess velocity as good as the best today, but they were rare in that regard...and their control was not as good as the flame throwers of now.

They were freaks of nature in their time due to their velocity, and now they would just be another pitcher in the clubhouse in regard to velocity, but with the organization waiting for them to develop command before they were good enough to contend with the big boys for awards and the big contracts.

In all of this, I do not want to minimize Koufax though. Koufax did have a great prime good enough to be in the discussion, even considering everything I've said, and it is unfortunate we didn't get to see how he would have held up. Just that Johnson was better .

PS, and a nod to Ryan for reinventing himself to gain command and that knowledge did help pitchers like Randy Johnson. The early players get their due to being pioneers, as without them the next generations of players wouldn't have learned more by watching the best of the previous generations.

Don't disagree with anything you've said, just not sure what the overall point is in regard to the size and condition of players today versus yesterdays, and the finesse/control versus speed/dominance comparison, and where your take is on all this. If I missed or didn't connect the dots properly from something in an earlier post, my apologies.

Your comment about Feller and Ryan being freaks of nature is not inaccurate, but then, so are all the modern pitchers that throw close to or over 100 MPH today. Just because more of them are now pitching in the majors today is probably a bigger testament to the money and modern technology fueling the search for such talent, not that there were necessarily fewer freaks back in Feller's days. The overall world population back then was smaller, as was the portion of the population even being considered as possible MLB candidates. But no average, normal human being can go anywhere near consistently throwing 80-90 MPH pitches, let alone 100 MPH, then or now.

And the talk about pitchers being taller and stronger nowadays has some equal questions I feel. The taller aspect does have some play as it does give players a physical advantage over shorter players, such as in terms of the angle at which pitches come at batters. Think back to the '60s when pitcher dominance was so great that MLB lowered the mounds. Suddenly finding a pitcher of Randy Johnson's height would negate that mound reduction. Also, someone of Johnson's height has longer legs and arms than the average MLB pitcher. So not only are his pitches coming at batters from a higher release point and angle, his increased stride distance and arm length due to height results in him actually releasing the ball a lot closer to home plate than anyone else. And if memory serves, isn't a pitcher's MPH velocity still measured at a single point just after having released the ball (if not, please correct me)? In which case, even though a shorter pitcher may be clocked at a higher absolute MPH speed, a taller pitcher's throws will have a shorter distance to go, thus reducing the amount of speed reduction during flight from the pitcher's hand to the catcher's mitt, and likewise significantly reduce a batter's time to react to a pitch. And I believe the reduced batter reaction time is a much more critical and important factor than the absolute MPH velocity of pitches in determining a pitcher's success. So it begs the question, since there are supposedly so many taller athletes today (just look at the NBA), why aren't all MLB rosters filled with multiple pitchers closer to '7 tall than to '6 tall?

And then that brings up the question of a pitcher's strength, and how that can possibly effect their ability to, as they say, "throw harder". In truth, it would seem actual physical strength has maybe very little to do with how hard and fast a pitcher throws. Otherwise you'd expect alll modern pitchers to have arms that looked like Schwarzenegger's in his prime. Fact is, most pitchers would likely tell you that bulking up makes them a worse pitcher, and they need their pitching musceles to be more flexible and resilient than as big as possible.

So my point is that as far as modern pitchers are concerned, the bigger, faster, stronger narrative may not really fit it all. Instead, it seems to be more of a question of human anatomy, dynamics and muscle and body structure all coming together in such a way as to optimize the human pitching machine, if you will. Human size, strength, and speed don't seem to matter that much, at least when it seems the optimization of the human pitching machine occurs mostly at or just a bit above the average U.S. male size and body structure, and almost never occurs at extreme outliers like being '5"3 or '6"10 tall. And those on the shorter extreme have the added disadvantage of their stride and arm length, causing their pitches to have to travel farther from hand to catcher's mitt than taller pitchers, and thus giving batters even more time to react to their pitches. So in terms of probability, I would expect there to be more very tall MLB pitchers than there ever will be very short ones. Having said that, if you think Feller and Ryan are freaks, I don't think they even come close to the super freaky level that Randy Johnson is at, to have been able to pitch like he did with those body dimensions. And no one would ever mistake Johnson for Schwarzenegger.

So because of all this, I still think that the notion of all ballplayers from past eras, especially as it concerns pitchers, not being anywhere near as good as today's players, may not stand up as much as they'd like you to believe when it comes to the elite players from those earlier eras. Such as Grove and Spahn, who stood '6"1 and '6"0, respectively, sort of in that wheelhouse size for the optimal human pitching machine.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Maddux and Glavine were geniuses at expanding the strike zone. Pedro got a lot of those calls too.

The secret, of course, is to almost always be close. The more control you show, the more control you are 'given'.

Wild pitchers almost never get the borderline calls.


.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

The secret, of course, is to almost always be close. The more control you show, the more control you are 'given'.

Wild pitchers almost never get the borderline calls.


.

Yep. If you can get a large percentage of strikes called on pitches even an inch or two off the plate, that's just a huge advantage for the pitcher against most hitters who lose efficiency very quickly as you get towards the inside or outside of the plate and even more off it. An integral part of the confrontation that just isn't measured by BABIP or whatever. And why a master of placement such as Maddux can be every bit as much a joy to watch as a dominant strikeout pitcher, if not more so.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by tschock

They are elite and at the upper end of the curve. They would not all of a sudden become worse for ignoring what is essentially an analysis for the average. While their preference on pitching started as such, they weren't elite because of their preference, but because of their skill they honed for their preference. You missed the point, whether purposely or not.

It doesn't matter whether someone is already elite or not. If the data shows that doing X yields a 5% advantage or improvement, then you should do X. However, it may also turn out that you're not good a doing X, in which case you should revert back to not doing X. But that doesn't mean X is not advantageous. It just means that your peers who are good at X are going to start closing the gap on you.

This is precisely what has happened in the NBA with respect to 3 point shooting. So much so, in fact, that its effect can even be seen in the average player heights over the past 15 years. The mean player heights have dropped in recent years because teams are selecting for players who shoot 3s well and who are more capable wing defenders. The result has been a tradeoff of the taller, slower players who previously were selected for "protecting the paint" with their rebounding and shot blocking abilities. The vast majority of big men who remain in the league today have either learned how to shoot 3s as well, or are quick and capable wing defenders who are good at preventing them. Guys like Joel Embiid, Nikola Jokic, Anthony Davis, and Kristaps Porzingis are all capable 3 point shooters. The days of guys like "Big Country" Reeves, Greg Ostertag, and Kevin Duckworth making the league are over. This is entirely the result of the data saying "you should do X" and front offices across the league respecting the data.

[Peter_Spaeth]

The NBA to me, despite the remarkable athleticism, has become boring, and in particular the incessant 3 point shooting whether or not it's statistically sound which I am sure it is.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

The NBA to me, despite the remarkable athleticism, has become boring, and in particular the incessant 3 point shooting whether or not it's statistically sound which I am sure it is.

Sadly I think it’s very statistically sound. To the point I hope they change it to a 2.5 shot.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Sadly I think it’s very statistically sound. To the point I hope they change it to a 2.5 shot.

Or move the line back. In the day it was a long shot, it isn't now.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Sadly I think it’s very statistically sound. To the point I hope they change it to a 2.5 shot.

Teams did the elementary math that 33% shooting on 3s is equal to 50% shooting on 2s. And 33% shooting on 3s is very, very easy for NBA players. So now they shoot 3s.

[frankbmd]

How does Kevin Duckworth get mentioned in a left handed pitching thread?

Where does William the Conqueror fit in?

[HistoricNewspapers]

Originally Posted by BobC

Don't disagree with anything you've said, just not sure what the overall point is in regard to the size and condition of players today versus yesterdays, and the finesse/control versus speed/dominance comparison, and where your take is on all this. If I missed or didn't connect the dots properly from something in an earlier post, my apologies.

Your comment about Feller and Ryan being freaks of nature is not inaccurate, but then, so are all the modern pitchers that throw close to or over 100 MPH today. Just because more of them are now pitching in the majors today is probably a bigger testament to the money and modern technology fueling the search for such talent, not that there were necessarily fewer freaks back in Feller's days. The overall world population back then was smaller, as was the portion of the population even being considered as possible MLB candidates. But no average, normal human being can go anywhere near consistently throwing 80-90 MPH pitches, let alone 100 MPH, then or now.

And the talk about pitchers being taller and stronger nowadays has some equal questions I feel. The taller aspect does have some play as it does give players a physical advantage over shorter players, such as in terms of the angle at which pitches come at batters. Think back to the '60s when pitcher dominance was so great that MLB lowered the mounds. Suddenly finding a pitcher of Randy Johnson's height would negate that mound reduction. Also, someone of Johnson's height has longer legs and arms than the average MLB pitcher. So not only are his pitches coming at batters from a higher release point and angle, his increased stride distance and arm length due to height results in him actually releasing the ball a lot closer to home plate than anyone else. And if memory serves, isn't a pitcher's MPH velocity still measured at a single point just after having released the ball (if not, please correct me)? In which case, even though a shorter pitcher may be clocked at a higher absolute MPH speed, a taller pitcher's throws will have a shorter distance to go, thus reducing the amount of speed reduction during flight from the pitcher's hand to the catcher's mitt, and likewise significantly reduce a batter's time to react to a pitch. And I believe the reduced batter reaction time is a much more critical and important factor than the absolute MPH velocity of pitches in determining a pitcher's success. So it begs the question, since there are supposedly so many taller athletes today (just look at the NBA), why aren't all MLB rosters filled with multiple pitchers closer to '7 tall than to '6 tall?

And then that brings up the question of a pitcher's strength, and how that can possibly effect their ability to, as they say, "throw harder". In truth, it would seem actual physical strength has maybe very little to do with how hard and fast a pitcher throws. Otherwise you'd expect alll modern pitchers to have arms that looked like Schwarzenegger's in his prime. Fact is, most pitchers would likely tell you that bulking up makes them a worse pitcher, and they need their pitching musceles to be more flexible and resilient than as big as possible.

So my point is that as far as modern pitchers are concerned, the bigger, faster, stronger narrative may not really fit it all. Instead, it seems to be more of a question of human anatomy, dynamics and muscle and body structure all coming together in such a way as to optimize the human pitching machine, if you will. Human size, strength, and speed don't seem to matter that much, at least when it seems the optimization of the human pitching machine occurs mostly at or just a bit above the average U.S. male size and body structure, and almost never occurs at extreme outliers like being '5"3 or '6"10 tall. And those on the shorter extreme have the added disadvantage of their stride and arm length, causing their pitches to have to travel farther from hand to catcher's mitt than taller pitchers, and thus giving batters even more time to react to their pitches. So in terms of probability, I would expect there to be more very tall MLB pitchers than there ever will be very short ones. Having said that, if you think Feller and Ryan are freaks, I don't think they even come close to the super freaky level that Randy Johnson is at, to have been able to pitch like he did with those body dimensions. And no one would ever mistake Johnson for Schwarzenegger.

So because of all this, I still think that the notion of all ballplayers from past eras, especially as it concerns pitchers, not being anywhere near as good as today's players, may not stand up as much as they'd like you to believe when it comes to the elite players from those earlier eras. Such as Grove and Spahn, who stood '6"1 and '6"0, respectively, sort of in that wheelhouse size for the optimal human pitching machine.

Again, if size did not matter, then where are the five foot five pitchers dominating at??

Feller and Ryan were freaks in regard to their velocity, not their size. They were marvels. They would NOT be marvels with that same velocity today because that velocity is more common now. They would just be another hard thrower, and ones with poor command.

Six feet tall is not the wheelhouse of optimal pitchers. Yeah, in 1930 it might be because the average pitcher indeed only stood six feet tall. But that is completely wrong.

Size matters and it isn't a matter of opinion. For one, a taller pitcher releases the ball closer to the plate, which makes a 95 MPH pitch from someone at six foot five come 'faster' to the plate compared to someone six feet. The MPH may be the same, but there is less reaction time for a hitter when the ball is released closer to the plate. As you know in baseball, every inch matters in everything. That makes a big difference.

Would Adam Wainright be as good as he is if he maintained his velocity and location, but was only five foot seven instead of six foot seven? Clearly not.

Everything that Warren SPahn could do with a ball, Randy Johnson could as well, except much faster, with better command, and releasing the ball closer to the plate.

Being able to throw 95 is indeed a combination of natural ability coming from how your body is built, and combined with the timing of your mechanics. There are simply more of those humans now, thus harder for the elite to separate themselves from the pack.

You are missing the overall point, which is the top pitcher from another era 'may' indeed be as good as the top three or four pitchers from a more talented era. But where everyone makes a mistake is when they look at the current numbers available and see where Lefty Grove had an era+ better than Randy Johnson, but forget that Randy Johnson had much better peers in which he had to separate himself from.

But what the numbers say is that the best pitchers and best hitters mostly come from the Pre War era, and that is foolish considering we know the population data etc.

Babe Ruth may be as good a hitter as the best hitter now, but there is no way the best hitter in the league can separate himself from his peers to the degree that Ruth did because the rest of the league is closer in ability to the top now, wheras Ruth had a lot of weak hitters that he is compared to...many guys that would have no chance of even playing single A today.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

How does Kevin Duckworth get mentioned in a left handed pitching thread?

Where does William the Conqueror fit in?

What -- ahem -- WAR was he in?

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by jgannon

The players who had to hit against Koufax would tell you just how great he was. This conversation of how great he was reminds me of Sam Neill in "Jurassic Park" trying to deal with the kid who doesn't think the velociraptor was anything to be taken seriously.

I hear you but I think there are many that would have said the same about Spahn, Grove, Randy etc. There were 365 plus games where teams couldn’t get the best of Spahn. Far fewer with Koufax, great as he was.

[egri]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

Where does William the Conqueror fit in?

At Hastings.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Teams did the elementary math that 33% shooting on 3s is equal to 50% shooting on 2s. And 33% shooting on 3s is very, very easy for NBA players. So now they shoot 3s.

It's actually not as simple as that though. Everyone has known for a long time that the expected value of a 3 from a 40% 3 point shooter is 1.2 points per attempt, which is equivalent to a 60% 2 point shot from inside the paint. But the analysis that enabled widespread changes in strategy came about through the discovery of the fact that 3 point shots offered 3 additional benefits that were previously overlooked. The most obvious of those is that it creates longer rebounds which are grabbed by the offense more often than shorter rebounds. But it also spreads the defense out wider because they have to defend against the 3 point threats. This opens up the lane, making it much easier for players like Russell Westbrook, Zach Lavine, or a Kobe type slasher to drive to the hoop without having to navigate a clogged paint with a bunch of big men. And the other value add which took a fair amount of convincing at first was that there is a great benefit to also just having your players be physically further back on the court when you miss a shot and the other team grabs the rebound. You're in a better position defensively at the start of the possession than you would be if you were down in the paint. It allows you to defend against what would have otherwise been a fast break, and fast breaks are extremely efficient scoring opportunities.

This opened the door for even much weaker shooters to be launching 3s than before. Guys who shoot 32% from 3 are now given the green light, whereas before, they rarely ever shot from long distance. Guys like Ray Allen and Reggie Miller always shot 3s because they could make them at a high enough percentage, but now we understand the added benefits even when you miss, so they shoot even more of them than before.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by HistoricNewspapers

Again, if size did not matter, then where are the five foot five pitchers dominating at??

Feller and Ryan were freaks in regard to their velocity, not their size. They were marvels. They would NOT be marvels with that same velocity today because that velocity is more common now. They would just be another hard thrower, and ones with poor command.

Six feet tall is not the wheelhouse of optimal pitchers. Yeah, in 1930 it might be because the average pitcher indeed only stood six feet tall. But that is completely wrong.

Size matters and it isn't a matter of opinion. For one, a taller pitcher releases the ball closer to the plate, which makes a 95 MPH pitch from someone at six foot five come 'faster' to the plate compared to someone six feet. The MPH may be the same, but there is less reaction time for a hitter when the ball is released closer to the plate. As you know in baseball, every inch matters in everything. That makes a big difference.

Would Adam Wainright be as good as he is if he maintained his velocity and location, but was only five foot seven instead of six foot seven? Clearly not.

Everything that Warren SPahn could do with a ball, Randy Johnson could as well, except much faster, with better command, and releasing the ball closer to the plate.

Being able to throw 95 is indeed a combination of natural ability coming from how your body is built, and combined with the timing of your mechanics. There are simply more of those humans now, thus harder for the elite to separate themselves from the pack.

You are missing the overall point, which is the top pitcher from another era 'may' indeed be as good as the top three or four pitchers from a more talented era. But where everyone makes a mistake is when they look at the current numbers available and see where Lefty Grove had an era+ better than Randy Johnson, but forget that Randy Johnson had much better peers in which he had to separate himself from.

But what the numbers say is that the best pitchers and best hitters mostly come from the Pre War era, and that is foolish considering we know the population data etc.

Babe Ruth may be as good a hitter as the best hitter now, but there is no way the best hitter in the league can separate himself from his peers to the degree that Ruth did because the rest of the league is closer in ability to the top now, wheras Ruth had a lot of weak hitters that he is compared to...many guys that would have no chance of even playing single A today.

Did you actually read what I posted? For example, I said why there probably aren't any real great short pitchers in the majors and how if there were, they would be real freaks. Yet your very first question was where all the great '5"5 pitchers were then. You didn't seem to understand my points at all. Like I never said Feller and Ryan were freaks because of their size, it was because of their speed. Yet you seemed to be arguing against me, but using my own argument. Exactly why I was asking in that earlier post what your point(s) was.

And your saying that elite pitchers from way back in the day like Feller wouldn't do as well today because more pitchers throw as fast he does now, isn't proof that he still wouldn't be elite today. Typical argument that can't be proven either way that I'm sick and tired of hearing.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by BobC

And then that brings up the question of a pitcher's strength, and how that can possibly effect their ability to, as they say, "throw harder". In truth, it would seem actual physical strength has maybe very little to do with how hard and fast a pitcher throws. Otherwise you'd expect alll modern pitchers to have arms that looked like Schwarzenegger's in his prime..

Strength matters A TON for pitchers and contributes significantly to velocity - except it's leg and core strength, not pure arm strength. Many pitchers coming back from Tommy John gain velocity - because they are in much better shape all over. Rehab from that surgery is grueling but it isn't focused on just arm and shoulder.

[carlsonjok]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

The NBA to me, despite the remarkable athleticism, has become boring, and in particular the incessant 3 point shooting whether or not it's statistically sound which I am sure it is.

Off topic, but the league has changed the rules this season so that it is harder for offensive players to draw shooting fouls (looking at you James Harden) and you are starting to see a more physical defensive game. Sure, there is still a lot of three point shooting, but you are seeing more scrums in the paint, too. My wife and I are Thunder season ticket holders and got an immense kick watching Luguentz Dort attacking the rim right at Rudy Gobert in last night's game.

[HistoricNewspapers]

Originally Posted by BobC

Did you actually read what I posted? For example, I said why there probably aren't any real great short pitchers in the majors and how if there were, they would be real freaks. Yet your very first question was where all the great '5"5 pitchers were then. You didn't seem to understand my points at all. Like I never said Feller and Ryan were freaks because of their size, it was because of their speed. Yet you seemed to be arguing against me, but using my own argument. Exactly why I was asking in that earlier post what your point(s) was.

And your saying that elite pitchers from way back in the day like Feller wouldn't do as well today because more pitchers throw as fast he does now, isn't proof that he still wouldn't be elite today. Typical argument that can't be proven either way that I'm sick and tired of hearing.

Yes, I read your post and it did not refute the size factor, so I again said, if size didn't matter, then where are the five foot five pitchers because you somehow came up with the notion that the best size for a pitcher is six foot tall or six foot one, which is wrong. So you recognized size on one hand and then made a comment like that to seemingly refute it, and that notion was wrong.

Maybe in 1940 the best size was six feet tall because that is how tall most of them were. That bar has been raised.

I said from the very start that Feller and Ryan were marvels(back then) based on their VELOCITY, not their size, so you sir are the one not reading what was written. And no, their command was not good enough for them to be elite in the modern age because their fastballs were not as special anymore because half the league had the same fastball. Still great, but not with the other stuff the pitchers have now, including superior size.

But again, to your main point about size not mattering and the point that you think six feet tall is the optimal height of a pitcher. Not sure where you got those notions, maybe they are from the same people that think size does not matter in baseball and that strength training was bad for baseball, which were both wrong.

The HOF pitchers(and the ones on track to be HOF pitchers) that pitched the bulk of their career after 2000 include:

Roy Halladay six for six 225 lbs. Elite MPH, elite command, elite off speed pitches.

Clayton Kershaw six foot four 225 lbs. Elite MPH, Elite command, elite off speed.

Max Scherzer six foot three 208 lbs. Elite MPH, elite command, elite off speed.

Justin Verlander six foot five 235 lbs, elite MPH, elite command, elite speed.

Clemens and Unit could count too, but their career spanned so long, so I would view them a little earlier. Clemens and Unit are the two best pitchers probably ever. Six four and six eleven, with off the charts measureables.

Guys like Wainwright and Jon Lester are knocking on the door and they are six foot seven and six foot five respectively. They are each missing an elite element, Wainwright not elite MPH and Lester not elite commmand. But their size and elite other aspects are there.

So this notion that six feet tall is the optimal pitcher height is completely wrong.

Size alone does not matter, but If two pitchers both possess the same MPH, same movement, same command and same EVERYTHING else, and one is six foot tall and the other is six foot seven, then the six foot seven guy will be more effective. That is reality.

When Lefty Grove is competing for his ERA+ there were no such things as a pitcher like Justin Verlander that could throw 100 MPH AND do it with command, AND have the requisit off speed/breaing pitches AND be six foot five.

Walter Johnson is hailed as the best pitcher ever, but why would he be better than Verlander?? Even 'if'(a big if) Walter Johnson did throw 99 and tied Verlander in that one aspect, he falls short in those other key areas. There would be no good reason to put Walter Johnson on the mound over Verlander or Halladay, and neither of those two are even the best pitchers of their era.

Yet WJ has a better ERA and better ERA+, both of which were attained because the hitters were nowhere near as good, and the league pitchers where nowhere near as good that Verlander had to compete against for his ERA+

Heck, a side arm RH with primarily just a fastball, standing six one, WJ would see a steady diet of modern LH hitters who see 95 MPH EVERY SINGLE DAY. WJ would be no mystery whatsoever, and there would be zero reason to pitch him over Verlander, despite what the current flawed statistics say.

[cammb]

Originally Posted by HistoricNewspapers

Yes, I read your post and it did not refute the size factor, so I again said, if size didn't matter, then where are the five foot five pitchers because you somehow came up with the notion that the best size for a pitcher is six foot tall or six foot one, which is wrong. So you recognized size on one hand and then made a comment like that to seemingly refute it, and that notion was wrong.

Maybe in 1940 the best size was six feet tall because that is how tall most of them were. That bar has been raised.

I said from the very start that Feller and Ryan were marvels(back then) based on their VELOCITY, not their size, so you sir are the one not reading what was written. And no, their command was not good enough for them to be elite in the modern age because their fastballs were not as special anymore because half the league had the same fastball. Still great, but not with the other stuff the pitchers have now, including superior size.

But again, to your main point about size not mattering and the point that you think six feet tall is the optimal height of a pitcher. Not sure where you got those notions, maybe they are from the same people that think size does not matter in baseball and that strength training was bad for baseball, which were both wrong.

The HOF pitchers(and the ones on track to be HOF pitchers) that pitched the bulk of their career after 2000 include:

Roy Halladay six for six 225 lbs. Elite MPH, elite command, elite off speed pitches.

Clayton Kershaw six foot four 225 lbs. Elite MPH, Elite command, elite off speed.

Max Scherzer six foot three 208 lbs. Elite MPH, elite command, elite off speed.

Justin Verlander six foot five 235 lbs, elite MPH, elite command, elite speed.

Clemens and Unit could count too, but their career spanned so long, so I would view them a little earlier. Clemens and Unit are the two best pitchers probably ever. Six four and six eleven, with off the charts measureables.

Guys like Wainwright and Jon Lester are knocking on the door and they are six foot seven and six foot five respectively. They are each missing an elite element, Wainwright not elite MPH and Lester not elite commmand. But their size and elite other aspects are there.

So this notion that six feet tall is the optimal pitcher height is completely wrong.

Size alone does not matter, but If two pitchers both possess the same MPH, same movement, same command and same EVERYTHING else, and one is six foot tall and the other is six foot seven, then the six foot seven guy will be more effective. That is reality.

When Lefty Grove is competing for his ERA+ there were no such things as a pitcher like Justin Verlander that could throw 100 MPH AND do it with command, AND have the requisit off speed/breaing pitches AND be six foot five.

Walter Johnson is hailed as the best pitcher ever, but why would he be better than Verlander?? Even 'if'(a big if) Walter Johnson did throw 99 and tied Verlander in that one aspect, he falls short in those other key areas. There would be no good reason to put Walter Johnson on the mound over Verlander or Halladay, and neither of those two are even the best pitchers of their era.

Yet WJ has a better ERA and better ERA+, both of which were attained because the hitters were nowhere near as good, and the league pitchers where nowhere near as good that Verlander had to compete against for his ERA+

Heck, a side arm RH with primarily just a fastball, standing six one, WJ would see a steady diet of modern LH hitters who see 95 MPH EVERY SINGLE DAY. WJ would be no mystery whatsoever, and there would be zero reason to pitch him over Verlander, despite what the current flawed statistics say.

We are talking about the greatest lefthanded pitcher not Adam Wainwright.

[Peter_Spaeth]

You could take a Nathan Eovaldi and magically transport him back to 1910 and he would completely dominate. But so what?

[frankbmd]

Deadball pitchers benefitted from their fielders lousy gloves. Lousy gloves create errors. Errors create unearned runs. Unearned runs create create lower ERAs.

I’m not sure about WAR, WHIP, BABIP, and the rest of he alphabet, but the percentage of total runs that are “earned” is a lot higher in today’s game.

The difference in eras (not ERAs) is not always reflected in the statistics.

More errors would also account for fewer hits and lower BABIPs. Do you think WaJo lost sleep because of this? or was he just WHIPPED after a complete game.

[HistoricNewspapers]

I forgot about Madison Bumgarner. Six foot five and 257 pounds of muscle in his legs and ass. As Tabe said, size does contribute to velocity. I see no valid reason why Lefty Grove would be tabbed the starter over Madison Bumgarner when Bumgarner has Grove beat in all those measurables of size, velocity, command...and of course all these modern HOF pitchers have the immeasurables too otherwise they wouldn't be good for so long.

The left handed batters that were so good in Pre War never faced pitchers as described like this. They didn't exist in the combination of size, speed, command.

As Frank pointed out above there are also minute details to cause statistical achievement simply not attainable in modern times.

I often talk about Ruth Out homerering every team in the league. That isn't a point of how great he was, but more of a point of how bad the league hitters were compared to modern times. Then add the fact that Ruth never faced these pitching monsters that have been roaming the earth in the last 35 years, you get statistical achievements from Ruth that are simply unattainable now.

That isn't even going over the fact that Ruth faced the same pitcher three or four times and really beefed up his stats on the fourth time through. Now he would have to face a six foot seven Andrew Miller coming out of the pen throwing left handed at 96 MPH...and again, six foot seven. Heck even guys like Drew Pomeranz didn't exist back then.

The modern hitters have it tougher than ever and the modern pitchers have it tougher than ever, because both groups are at the pinnacle of the best ever.

And this isn't a knock on pre war players. They were special players worthy of study.

But the reality is, WJ would not get the ball over Justin Verlander despite what the current stats say.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by HistoricNewspapers

Heck, a side arm RH with primarily just a fastball, standing six one, WJ would see a steady diet of modern LH hitters who see 95 MPH EVERY SINGLE DAY. WJ would be no mystery whatsoever, and there would be zero reason to pitch him over Verlander, despite what the current flawed statistics say.

How do you know what kind of movement was on Walter's fastballs? It isn't just about catching up to speed.

Back in Walter's day, hitters were a lot better at making contact, due to the nature of the game. Yet, Walter led his league in strikeouts 12 times. Batters were choking up, just trying to punch the ball, and often they couldn't even make contact. Nobody was holding the bat down at the knob and swinging from the heels against Walter. So, I conclude his pitches must've been moving, sailing, sinking, tailing, or something.

[HistoricNewspapers]

Originally Posted by Mark17

How do you know what kind of movement was on Walter's fastballs? It isn't just about catching up to speed.

Back in Walter's day, hitters were a lot better at making contact, due to the nature of the game. Yet, Walter led his league in strikeouts 12 times. Batters were choking up, just trying to punch the ball, and often they couldn't even make contact. Nobody was holding the bat down at the knob and swinging from the heels against Walter. So, I conclude his pitches must've been moving, sailing, sinking, tailing, or something.

Yes indeed his pitches probably were, and why he had great success and why he is still an all time great...but none of that refutes what I said about Verlander and the Superior stuff that modern hitters see, and the superior pitchers that modern pitchers are....and the silly numbers Johnson put up both in raw form and compared to his peers that guys like Verlander cannot do due to superior hitters to face and superior pitchers to compete against.

[HistoricNewspapers]

Six of the top ten pitchers in WAR(including the top two) were born in:

1867
1887
1869
1887
1900
1880

Knowing the population information, the discrimination factor, and the world wide talent added since then, if that doesn't make one scratch their head, then there is nothing that will.

Geronimo was still running wild in the west while some of those guys were alive. Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid were still at large as late as 1908 to give a snap shot of how different the landscape in the US was...let alone the rest of the world where talent also comes from now.

To make matters even worse, a common top three player list of all-time is Ruth, Cobb, and Wagner...more guys born before the turn of the century.

WAR has its problems but it is one of the few that accounts for ERA, IP, and the peers, and is generally close enough. Generally.

Some objective information:

There are going to be other variables that will sway the information below, such as other modern sports taking athletes away more than pre war sports. However, pre war sports ALSO paid athletes in sports other than baseball. But when other societal factors from Pre war are added in, it mostly washes away that variable. Things in early 1900's such as kids having to work earlier in life to live and never even getting the chance to play sports, kids having Polio or other debilitating diseases that eliminated them from the player pool; and acute injuries back then such as broken bones or torn ligaments that can be fixed now, but back then were career enders(sometimes before the careers even started). Then also families simply not allowing their kid to play sports in PRE WAR because their belief was to get a stable career. That is completely opposite in modern times where the goal is to get a career in sports and get a scholarship or big contract.

Then one other big factor that hurts the early 1900 player pool is the fresh immigrants coming into the US that are eventually counted in the population below. Kids weren't coming from Italy through Ellis Island with baseball gloves in their hands...so even though they are counted in those populations, they simply were not viable candidates for MLB players(until their families started having kids IN the United States).

Putting that stuff as basically a wash, it could be rehashed over and over. Lets look at the reality of what is more certain.

First and foremost, I am going to take away the African American population from available human males in the pre war time. It isn't going to be a footnote or variable. They will be lumped off right off the bat since they were barred. By the 1970's African American players comprised 18% of MLB, so to take into account any plus/minus I am going to lump off 15% to leave some margin of error.

That is just African American. The Latin American population is still not deducted and they were banned for the most part too.

The below figures represent available male humans to form the player pool of potential players of which MLB had to populate their teams with.

I purposely used age 12-17 year old humans so as to eliminate the birth mortality as a factor or variable.

Here is the number of viable American Born humans available in the United States to form the player pool.

In 1890 there were 3.6 million males aged 12-17 in the United States .
In 1900 there were 4.5 million males aged 12-17 in the United States.
In 1910 there were 5.4 million males aged 12-17 in the United States.
In 1920 there were 6.2 million males aged 12-17 in the United States.

In 1950 there were 12.9 million males aged 12-17 in the United States.

In 1970 there were 24.3 million males aged 12-17 in the United States.
In 1980 there were 23.0 million males aged 12-17 in the United States.
In 1990 there were 20.0 million males aged 12-17 in the United States.

Babe Ruth's most direct peer group would be 1910 and Lefty Grove floating between the 1910 and 1920 group, and of course they would touch peers of the sandwhich groups.

Similarly, Rand Johnson's birth puts him floating between the 1970 and 1980 group.

The 1910 and 1920 group gives Lefty Grove 11.6 million peers.
The 1970 and 1980 group gives Randy Johnson 47.3 million peers.

I'm not sure those vast differences need to be expounded upon. I will differ to common sense and logic.

But as can be seen, Randy Johnson had four times as many peers to compete with/against from the available population compared to Grove.

People often make the point that there were only 16 teams, but that doesn't change how many 95 MPH pitchers were born or not. But even considering that, Johnson had four times as many peers and Grove had(16 teams compared to 28/30 for Johnson).....so less than half in Grove's favor, while Johnson is four times as many in his favor.


....that is just the United States! By 1970 and onward, the world stage got bigger and bigger as time went on...and of course the last ten years the world stage is at its biggest point.

In 2017 29.8% of MLB players were born outside of the United States. That is another 13 million peers that Johnson had to contend with.

So in reality;

Johnson had 60 million peers in which to compete against and separate himself from.

Grove had 11 million peers in which to compete against and separate himself from.

We know for a fact that these numbers produced taller and heavier players. We know that fastball velocity has been steadily increasing over time and that size can help velocity. We know that command has stayed at least even, but in reality has improved with the science of mechanics.

In reality, half the league in the early pre war years most likely does not even get drafted now, let alone make the minor leagues or having any chance at MLB. A five foot five 130 pound ground ball hitter with a subpar arm does not get a job on a college team now.

MLB could expand its league to twice the size right now and still have more overall talent than 1920.

I'm not sayings its impossible that Babe is still the best player ever, or that WJ at 6 foot one with really one pitch is the best pitcher ever(I have a hard time saying that part seriously)...but looking objectively we see factually how the height and weight has changed over time. We know the fastball MPH has risen steadily in the last 30 years, and that size and selective breeding does lead to increased velocity.

We see the elite pitchers of modern times being bigger, throwing harder(with movement), having as good or better command, and better breaking pitches.

I'm not certain everyone watches these pitchers closely anymore otherwise they would not be so set in their stance of the older guys being as good.

I'm not trying to prove anything. I don't have a personal stake in this, but am offering information that I hardly ever see taken into account. Factual measureable information.

Given two pitchers, if I know one is 9 inches taller, throws harder, has a littler better command, and the mental acuity to dominate for two decades...there is nothing that would point any level headed person to choose to take the lesser of those two physical attributes. That isn't even accounting for the peers. Just what that person can provide to a team trying to get hitters out.



i

[Peter_Spaeth]

It seems apparent that like every other human athletic endeavor, baseball has evolved and on an absolute level, all things being equal, today's players are "better." Perhaps the disparity is a little less than in track and field etc. because a great deal of skill is involved in baseball that is somewhat distinct from pure athleticism, but I don't think there's any denying the part that involves athleticism.

I guess to me it's an obvious point but one that doesn't really detract from the players of the past, if one evaluates them on a relative, era-neutral basis which I think is legitimate. I don't really care if Lefty Grove as he was then would be mediocre if fast forwarded 8 decades. It's meaningless.

A fair question is why some people seem to have such a nostalgia bias that they resist the arguments about advances in athleticism, and seem to think baseball is immune from that.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

Deadball pitchers benefitted from their fielders lousy gloves. Lousy gloves create errors. Errors create unearned runs. Unearned runs create create lower ERAs.

To your point: 25.2% of all runs allowed by Walter Johnson were unearned. 8.4% of runs allowed by Clayton Kershaw have been unearned. So Johnson had 3x as many unearned. At 8.4%, Johnson would have an ERA of 2.65 - still great but far higher. Kershaw at 25.2% would have an ERA of 2.03 - 5th all-time despite playing in a live ball era.

[AndrewJerome]

I agree with most of Peter’s post #1233.

And I don’t think anyone in here is arguing that 1910s 1920s and 1930s players overall are “better” than the modern players. Yet this thread is bombarded with arguments against the overall play of the old guys. You are arguing against no one. No one is arguing the overall play from 1910 or 1930 is better than 2021. So that argument can be put to rest. Except I guess those posters who think Grove is the best ever? Even those posters are selectively taking one player and not an entire era of players.

However, I think there are interesting questions to ponder. Overall quality of play is very difficult to evaluate. Snowman thinks a model could be made to try and get some answers. Who knows. Personally, I think it is much more complicated than just saying players are bigger, taller and stronger now, so every year the quality of play goes up slightly. I think there are more ebbs and flows based on the number of elite players at any one time. Again, who knows. I also think that there is a limit to how much bigger, taller and stronger helps a baseball player. I used around 6’ 3” or 6’ 4” as about the max height that it helps a baseball player. I’ll stick to that. Absolutely for the 8 position players. There are very few 6’ 5”+ players who can play any semblance of defense for the 8 fielding positions (sure, a very tall guy can try to play 1st). There is a point where very tall human simply can’t function as a middle infielder or outfielder. It would be like having a bunch of DH type guys playing in the field. It doesn’t work.

Similarly, no one is arguing short players are abundant or better than 6’ 3” guys. So put this argument to rest. Altuve is 5’ 4” and won a MVP, so clearly short players can be elite. However, no one is saying there are 100s of short guys dominating. But there clearly are some short/small guys who are elite. Height is not a barrier to entry for baseball. Which is what makes baseball great. Just like there are some really tall guys who are elite like Randy Johnson. But certainly there are not 100s of super tall guys dominating either. It would be fun to see a list of the best modern players 6’ 5” and taller. Freddie Freeman is elite at 6’ 5”. However, this 6’ 5”+ list does not include most of he best modern players:

Trout 6’ 2”
Vlad Jr. 6’ 2”
Acuna 6’ 0”
Harper 6’ 3”
Soto 6’ 2”
Jose Ramirez 5’ 9”
Ohtani 6’ 4”
Schertzer 6’ 3”
Kershaw 6’ 4”
Degrom 6’ 4” and 180 pounds!
Cole 6’ 4”

Glasnow is a great example of modern bigger, taller, stronger that isn’t really better. He’s 6’ 8” and throws 99. So what? He’s 27 years old and pitched 403 innings for his whole career. He likely will miss much of his age 28 season with injury and be stuck on 403 innings. He can’t stay healthy because he is too big, tall, and strong. He gets you like 60-70 innings per year before his body breaks down. This is an epidemic for modern bigger, taller, stronger pitchers. The force on their bodies of throwing so hard leads to lots and lots of injuries. It is debatable how much better you can be than previous players if you are constantly hurt.

Randy again is a massive outlier at his height, dominance, and longevity. I have Randy as the best lefty ever. The reasons have been given in great detail. So again to be clear, I am NOT saying old time players are better than modern players. I just think the analysis is much more complicated than some in here seem to think.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I've seen a number of arguments, although I can't specifically now say where, that the overall level of play was better in decades past, or that players were as good or better, not just on a relative basis but on an absolute basis. People cite that other sports hadn't made inroads into the talent pool, the smaller number of teams, that increases in athletic ability aren't all that relevant to baseball because so much of it is skill, etc.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by HistoricNewspapers

Again, if size did not matter, then where are the five foot five pitchers dominating at??

Feller and Ryan were freaks in regard to their velocity, not their size. They were marvels. They would NOT be marvels with that same velocity today because that velocity is more common now. They would just be another hard thrower, and ones with poor command.

Six feet tall is not the wheelhouse of optimal pitchers. Yeah, in 1930 it might be because the average pitcher indeed only stood six feet tall. But that is completely wrong.

Size matters and it isn't a matter of opinion. For one, a taller pitcher releases the ball closer to the plate, which makes a 95 MPH pitch from someone at six foot five come 'faster' to the plate compared to someone six feet. The MPH may be the same, but there is less reaction time for a hitter when the ball is released closer to the plate. As you know in baseball, every inch matters in everything. That makes a big difference.

Would Adam Wainright be as good as he is if he maintained his velocity and location, but was only five foot seven instead of six foot seven? Clearly not.

Everything that Warren SPahn could do with a ball, Randy Johnson could as well, except much faster, with better command, and releasing the ball closer to the plate.

Being able to throw 95 is indeed a combination of natural ability coming from how your body is built, and combined with the timing of your mechanics. There are simply more of those humans now, thus harder for the elite to separate themselves from the pack.

You are missing the overall point, which is the top pitcher from another era 'may' indeed be as good as the top three or four pitchers from a more talented era. But where everyone makes a mistake is when they look at the current numbers available and see where Lefty Grove had an era+ better than Randy Johnson, but forget that Randy Johnson had much better peers in which he had to separate himself from.

But what the numbers say is that the best pitchers and best hitters mostly come from the Pre War era, and that is foolish considering we know the population data etc.

Babe Ruth may be as good a hitter as the best hitter now, but there is no way the best hitter in the league can separate himself from his peers to the degree that Ruth did because the rest of the league is closer in ability to the top now, wheras Ruth had a lot of weak hitters that he is compared to...many guys that would have no chance of even playing single A today.

Exactly. Glad to see that at least one other person gets it.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Strength matters A TON for pitchers and contributes significantly to velocity - except it's leg and core strength, not pure arm strength. Many pitchers coming back from Tommy John gain velocity - because they are in much better shape all over. Rehab from that surgery is grueling but it isn't focused on just arm and shoulder.

Am aware of that. Was speaking to arm strength, not overall body strength, that is often also referred to in relation to being able to throw harder. Of course they need leg/core strength to throw harder, but again, that alone will not get them to an elite pitching level velocity.

The main point I was trying to make, and which HistoricNewspapers didn't appear to grasp, is that the human body is basically a biomechanical machine. And when it comes to pitching, there would appear to be a specific makeup of the human body that optimizes that human biomechanical machine to throw baseballs faster and harder than anyone else. And that was the context I was referring to in regards to size not mattering so much. When most people refer to someone's size, it invariably always seems to go to height and weight for that measure. And that seemed to be the course a lot of people were pushing, that when it comes to pitching, bigger (in this case primarily height) is always better. My point is that despite the obvious physical advantage a much taller pitcher has over a shorter one (because the ball they throw has less distance to get it to the catcher's mitt), it seems that a pitcher can be too tall and thus the human biomechanical pitching machine falls out of that optimal condition for throwing harder and faster than anyone else. If not, then one would assume the best pitchers today would all be '7 foot or taller. Just look at all the taller basketball players out there in the world today, its not like we have a complete dearth of tall athletes. So why aren't there more Randy Johnson types (super tall) pitching in MLB then? Gee, maybe its because they get too tall and their biomechanical pitching machine, which is their body, no longer operates at that optimal level for pitching. And the drop off is apparently so drastic at some point that it even negates the physical pitching advantage their height otherwise brings them. That was why I referred to RJ as a possible super freak in terms of pitching, his body type (height) appears to be way outside the parameters of the optimal human pitching machine, yet he excelled, and endured, as an elite pitcher for a considerable period of time.

If size (height) is so big a deal in athletes as some have stated, here's maybe an even easier example to explain how a biomechanical human machine has an optimal area/range where size does indeed matter, but not in terms of the tallest or biggest. Take sprinters for example. It is obvious that a taller person has a longer stride than a shorter person, so when they go run a 100 yard dash, they can do so in fewer strides than a short person. So why aren't the fastest sprinters in the world all over '7 tall? C'mon size matters people, please explain that one to me! Could it be that the human biomechanical machine for sprinters has an optimal size range somewhere more towards the average, plus a few inches or so to also take into account the physical advantage a taller person also has? And how many really short, say '5"5, world class sprinters are out there? Could this be because the biomechanical bodies of shorter people, plus the shorter physical stride disadvantage, combine to make them slower than taller people? And if that is the case, it will be even rarer to find really short world class sprinters, just like I alluded to in an earlier post how it would likely be even rarer to find elite and successful '5"5 pitchers throwing even close to 100 in MLB. And HistoricNewspapers, that is exactly what I was talking about in my earlier post that apparently you didn't understand. But you responded by asking me if size doesn't matter, then where are great are all the great '5"5 tall pitchers. Asked and previously answered counselor, move on. This sprinter example is similar to explaining how the human biomechanical machine works in pitchers, and there being an optimal sort of mid-range size and body type (plus a few inches to take into account the obvious physical advantage). Obviously there is more to being a great pitcher than just velocity, but I specifically picked sprinters for my biomechanical human comparison because unlike the more involved skill of pitching, sprinting (running) is a basic human activity we pretty much all have done at some time in our lives. And there are fewer variables in running than in pitching, as well as sprinters having a much more objective and easily measurable way to determine actually who was the best.

Endurance, which I previously brought up and feel is also an unbelievably important part in this debate, is something that others seem to brush aside. (The best ability is availability!) I refer to a pitcher as a biomechanical pitching machine, and IMO an important factor in how well any type of machine operates is how it doesn't break down from stress or use all the time, and continues to operate at, or near, its optimal level for a long and continuous period. As was alluded to in a recent post by AndrewJerome, it seems that some of these taller pitchers tend to have injury or endurance issues. For an elite few taller pitchers, their biomechanical machines may operate better than almost everyone elses in terms of velocity, but in regards to endurance, the human body/machine wasn't designed for what they're doing to it, and therefore it suffers breakdowns (injuries) or is unable to maintain that optimal operating level for long (lack of endurance). Even RJ was sidelined with injuries for a significant time, was he not? And HistoricNewspapers, I mentioned Grove's and Spahn's heights in that earlir post being '6"1 and '6"0 to show they were not real short, but more toward's average, or slightly above average, height so their biomechanical pitching machines operated at what appears to be a more optimal body size/type for them to be operating at a combined higher level for velocity and endurance. Their human bodies/machines were built to not just pitch faster than a normal human, but also to be able to do so longer and much more often than a typical human as well.

And to further point out how this pushing of a taller pitcher's biomechanical machine is indicative of them maybe not always being the best, isn't one method people use to not have a somewhat sensitive machine, like a human body, continually having issues and breaking down, is to use it less often and not run the machine as long and as hard as they otherwise could. Gee, kind of like how starting pitchers almost never pitch complete, or near complete, games anymore. Management today doesn't want to break the machines, er...pitchers. Yet pitchers like Grove and Spahn regularly started, and completed, games they pitched in, without a big, quick dropoff in their optimal performance or experiencing debilitating and career threatening injuries. I know, Grove had some issues in 1934, but came back afterward to still great performance levels, after taking into consideration other factors such as his ever advancing age, and did so without the benefit of modern medical advances.

What scares me is if you statisticians and other always talking up about how today's players are always bigger, stronger, faster (and thus always better) than yesterday's players are even remotely right, we're going to eventually end up with all MLB rosters having 8-9-10 pitchers on every staff that are all '6"11 or taller, and all able to throw over 100 MPH. So their managers will have a different pitcher come out every inning so they don't overwork and blow-out anyone's arm out, and a pitcher's wins truly will be meaningless. And if that does turn out to be the case, will this type of pitcher really turn out to be the future talent all these brilliant statisticians will then be pushing as their choice for greatest of all time?

Statisticians in their use of numbers and stats dehumanize MLB baseball and it's players by trying to look at only statistics to measure and compare the players, and how best to play the game itself. So I think it only fair then that I can equally push my point as to pitchers being dehumanized as biomechanical machines. (What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?) And so if you think about it in those terms, what if you went out to buy the greatest washing machine or car (both machines), to actually use, that you could. Would you really want to buy a car or wash machine that ran unbelievably great at some point, but broke down and needed repairs a lot, or that you couldn't use all the time and/or always count on when really needed it, and ended up having to replace after not too many years? Or would you rather buy something that ran pretty great from the start and you could count on to use pretty much whenever and for however as long as you needed it, with minimal repairs and maintenance, and you didn't need to replace it for 20+ years? If anyone reading this is actually being honest with themselves, I think we all know what the answer will be. And if you do recognize how statistics dehumanize players and try to turn them into nothing more than numbers, then considering them as nothing much more than biomechanical machines is a simple logical extension of that thinking. So to follow statistical reasoning alone and ignore the human factor so much, without giving equal consideration and credit to my points, would tend to make one a hypocrite!!!

[BobC]

Originally Posted by AndrewJerome

I agree with most of Peter’s post #1233.

And I don’t think anyone in here is arguing that 1910s 1920s and 1930s players overall are “better” than the modern players. Yet this thread is bombarded with arguments against the overall play of the old guys. You are arguing against no one. No one is arguing the overall play from 1910 or 1930 is better than 2021. So that argument can be put to rest. Except I guess those posters who think Grove is the best ever? Even those posters are selectively taking one player and not an entire era of players.

However, I think there are interesting questions to ponder. Overall quality of play is very difficult to evaluate. Snowman thinks a model could be made to try and get some answers. Who knows. Personally, I think it is much more complicated than just saying players are bigger, taller and stronger now, so every year the quality of play goes up slightly. I think there are more ebbs and flows based on the number of elite players at any one time. Again, who knows. I also think that there is a limit to how much bigger, taller and stronger helps a baseball player. I used around 6’ 3” or 6’ 4” as about the max height that it helps a baseball player. I’ll stick to that. Absolutely for the 8 position players. There are very few 6’ 5”+ players who can play any semblance of defense for the 8 fielding positions (sure, a very tall guy can try to play 1st). There is a point where very tall human simply can’t function as a middle infielder or outfielder. It would be like having a bunch of DH type guys playing in the field. It doesn’t work.

Similarly, no one is arguing short players are abundant or better than 6’ 3” guys. So put this argument to rest. Altuve is 5’ 4” and won a MVP, so clearly short players can be elite. However, no one is saying there are 100s of short guys dominating. But there clearly are some short/small guys who are elite. Height is not a barrier to entry for baseball. Which is what makes baseball great. Just like there are some really tall guys who are elite like Randy Johnson. But certainly there are not 100s of super tall guys dominating either. It would be fun to see a list of the best modern players 6’ 5” and taller. Freddie Freeman is elite at 6’ 5”. However, this 6’ 5”+ list does not include most of he best modern players:

Trout 6’ 2”
Vlad Jr. 6’ 2”
Acuna 6’ 0”
Harper 6’ 3”
Soto 6’ 2”
Jose Ramirez 5’ 9”
Ohtani 6’ 4”
Schertzer 6’ 3”
Kershaw 6’ 4”
Degrom 6’ 4” and 180 pounds!
Cole 6’ 4”

Glasnow is a great example of modern bigger, taller, stronger that isn’t really better. He’s 6’ 8” and throws 99. So what? He’s 27 years old and pitched 403 innings for his whole career. He likely will miss much of his age 28 season with injury and be stuck on 403 innings. He can’t stay healthy because he is too big, tall, and strong. He gets you like 60-70 innings per year before his body breaks down. This is an epidemic for modern bigger, taller, stronger pitchers. The force on their bodies of throwing so hard leads to lots and lots of injuries. It is debatable how much better you can be than previous players if you are constantly hurt.

Randy again is a massive outlier at his height, dominance, and longevity. I have Randy as the best lefty ever. The reasons have been given in great detail. So again to be clear, I am NOT saying old time players are better than modern players. I just think the analysis is much more complicated than some in here seem to think.

Great points, you think a lot like a do.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It seems apparent that like every other human athletic endeavor, baseball has evolved and on an absolute level, all things being equal, today's players are "better." Perhaps the disparity is a little less than in track and field etc. because a great deal of skill is involved in baseball that is somewhat distinct from pure athleticism, but I don't think there's any denying the part that involves athleticism.

I guess to me it's an obvious point but one that doesn't really detract from the players of the past, if one evaluates them on a relative, era-neutral basis which I think is legitimate. I don't really care if Lefty Grove as he was then would be mediocre if fast forwarded 8 decades. It's meaningless.

A fair question is why some people seem to have such a nostalgia bias that they resist the arguments about advances in athleticism, and seem to think baseball is immune from that.

Great points Peter. No question today has advances in athleticism, but agree with your view on how to not also try to interpret yesterday's athletes based on that modern athleticism alone.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It seems apparent that like every other human athletic endeavor, baseball has evolved and on an absolute level, all things being equal, today's players are "better." Perhaps the disparity is a little less than in track and field etc. because a great deal of skill is involved in baseball that is somewhat distinct from pure athleticism, but I don't think there's any denying the part that involves athleticism.

I guess to me it's an obvious point but one that doesn't really detract from the players of the past, if one evaluates them on a relative, era-neutral basis which I think is legitimate. I don't really care if Lefty Grove as he was then would be mediocre if fast forwarded 8 decades. It's meaningless.

A fair question is why some people seem to have such a nostalgia bias that they resist the arguments about advances in athleticism, and seem to think baseball is immune from that.

I can fully appreciate the nostalgic aspect and relative value of players like Walter Johnson, Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, and others. There's a distinct beauty to the early years of baseball that will almost assuredly never return. There's something special about how Ruth changed the game and became the icon he did. After all, it's why I collect vintage cards, and why every set I own or am chasing is from well before I was ever even born.

The part I have difficulty with is it seems that many people in this thread, and elsewhere on this forum, appear to be operating under the delusion that not only were those players incredible relative to their own eras, but that they would still be elite today. And some even take it a step further with claims that these early players were somehow actually better as if baseball talent has somehow magically devolved in the modern era. This is of course purely delusional. If people wish to believe in fantasies, who am I to rob them? But if you want to have an honest conversation about who the "better" player was, Randy Johnson or Walter Johnson, it's a borderline laughable comparison. Walter Johnson might not have even made the league today, let alone be a star (though I'd like to believe he would have at least made a roster). That's how much baseball has evolved since he was pitching. That's the reality. Now if we instead ask the question of "who was the best lefty relative to their peers?", then we can begin to formulate arguments that include guys like Lefty Grove (and Warren Spahn still doesn't even enter into the conversation at that, in my opinion, unless we again change the question to, "who provided the most cumulative career value relative to their peers?"). But this discussion is about who was the best in the absolute sense. And in that sense, you're completely delusional if you think Lefty Grove would outpitch Randy Johnson in some sort of fictional pitch-off competition. Yet there is no shortage of people here who actually believe just that. This is why I, and others, push back. If you want to rephrase the question in the OP to one that is more interesting to you, then go ahead and ask a different question. But as stated, the question is simple. Who was the best? You lawyers can try to start twisting around definitions of basic words like "best", pretending as if it's actually ambiguous here, or as if it could be redefined in the context of cumulative career value relative to one's peers or some such nonsense. But none of those qualifiers were posed in the original question in this thread. So you don't get to add them and redefine what best means. Everyone knows what it means to be the best. The best basketball player to ever play is not some guy who was above average for 40 years, or some guy who absolutely dominated against a bunch of 6 foot tall white dudes who shot 35% from the field launching "jump shots" with two hands. The best sprinter of all time is not some guy who beat his peers by the largest gap, it's the guy with the fastest time ever recorded. Michael Phelps is the best swimmer of all time because he has more gold medals and world records than anytime else, regardless of whether or not some other swimmer may have a larger total trophy shelf adorned with enough bronze to make 14 statutes of David. And the best pie of all time is not rhubarb, it is clearly pumpkin.

If you guys want to have a different discussion, then I suggest phrasing it as such. But only a lawyer could pretend that 'best' actually means something other than best or that "it depends on what the definition of the word 'is' is."

[HistoricNewspapers]

Originally Posted by BobC

Am aware of that. Was speaking to arm strength, not overall body strength, that is often also referred to in relation to being able to throw harder. Of course they need leg/core strength to throw harder, but again, that alone will not get them to an elite pitching level velocity.

The main point I was trying to make, and which HistoricNewspapers didn't appear to grasp, is that the human body is basically a biomechanical machine. And when it comes to pitching, there would appear to be a specific makeup of the human body that optimizes that human biomechanical machine to throw baseballs faster and harder than anyone else. And that was the context I was referring to in regards to size not mattering so much. When most people refer to someone's size, it invariably always seems to go to height and weight for that measure. And that seemed to be the course a lot of people were pushing, that when it comes to pitching, bigger (in this case primarily height) is always better. My point is that despite the obvious physical advantage a much taller pitcher has over a shorter one (because the ball they throw has less distance to get it to the catcher's mitt), it seems that a pitcher can be too tall and thus the human biomechanical pitching machine falls out of that optimal condition for throwing harder and faster than anyone else. If not, then one would assume the best pitchers today would all be '7 foot or taller. Just look at all the taller basketball players out there in the world today, its not like we have a complete dearth of tall athletes. So why aren't there more Randy Johnson types (super tall) pitching in MLB then? Gee, maybe its because they get too tall and their biomechanical pitching machine, which is their body, no longer operates at that optimal level for pitching. And the drop off is apparently so drastic at some point that it even negates the physical pitching advantage their height otherwise brings them. That was why I referred to RJ as a possible super freak in terms of pitching, his body type (height) appears to be way outside the parameters of the optimal human pitching machine, yet he excelled, and endured, as an elite pitcher for a considerable period of time.

If size (height) is so big a deal in athletes as some have stated, here's maybe an even easier example to explain how a biomechanical human machine has an optimal area/range where size does indeed matter, but not in terms of the tallest or biggest. Take sprinters for example. It is obvious that a taller person has a longer stride than a shorter person, so when they go run a 100 yard dash, they can do so in fewer strides than a short person. So why aren't the fastest sprinters in the world all over '7 tall? C'mon size matters people, please explain that one to me! Could it be that the human biomechanical machine for sprinters has an optimal size range somewhere more towards the average, plus a few inches or so to also take into account the physical advantage a taller person also has? And how many really short, say '5"5, world class sprinters are out there? Could this be because the biomechanical bodies of shorter people, plus the shorter physical stride disadvantage, combine to make them slower than taller people? And if that is the case, it will be even rarer to find really short world class sprinters, just like I alluded to in an earlier post how it would likely be even rarer to find elite and successful '5"5 pitchers throwing even close to 100 in MLB. And HistoricNewspapers, that is exactly what I was talking about in my earlier post that apparently you didn't understand. But you responded by asking me if size doesn't matter, then where are great are all the great '5"5 tall pitchers. Asked and previously answered counselor, move on. This sprinter example is similar to explaining how the human biomechanical machine works in pitchers, and there being an optimal sort of mid-range size and body type (plus a few inches to take into account the obvious physical advantage). Obviously there is more to being a great pitcher than just velocity, but I specifically picked sprinters for my biomechanical human comparison because unlike the more involved skill of pitching, sprinting (running) is a basic human activity we pretty much all have done at some time in our lives. And there are fewer variables in running than in pitching, as well as sprinters having a much more objective and easily measurable way to determine actually who was the best.

Endurance, which I previously brought up and feel is also an unbelievably important part in this debate, is something that others seem to brush aside. (The best ability is availability!) I refer to a pitcher as a biomechanical pitching machine, and IMO an important factor in how well any type of machine operates is how it doesn't break down from stress or use all the time, and continues to operate at, or near, its optimal level for a long and continuous period. As was alluded to in a recent post by AndrewJerome, it seems that some of these taller pitchers tend to have injury or endurance issues. For an elite few taller pitchers, their biomechanical machines may operate better than almost everyone elses in terms of velocity, but in regards to endurance, the human body/machine wasn't designed for what they're doing to it, and therefore it suffers breakdowns (injuries) or is unable to maintain that optimal operating level for long (lack of endurance). Even RJ was sidelined with injuries for a significant time, was he not? And HistoricNewspapers, I mentioned Grove's and Spahn's heights in that earlir post being '6"1 and '6"0 to show they were not real short, but more toward's average, or slightly above average, height so their biomechanical pitching machines operated at what appears to be a more optimal body size/type for them to be operating at a combined higher level for velocity and endurance. Their human bodies/machines were built to not just pitch faster than a normal human, but also to be able to do so longer and much more often than a typical human as well.

And to further point out how this pushing of a taller pitcher's biomechanical machine is indicative of them maybe not always being the best, isn't one method people use to not have a somewhat sensitive machine, like a human body, continually having issues and breaking down, is to use it less often and not run the machine as long and as hard as they otherwise could. Gee, kind of like how starting pitchers almost never pitch complete, or near complete, games anymore. Management today doesn't want to break the machines, er...pitchers. Yet pitchers like Grove and Spahn regularly started, and completed, games they pitched in, without a big, quick dropoff in their optimal performance or experiencing debilitating and career threatening injuries. I know, Grove had some issues in 1934, but came back afterward to still great performance levels, after taking into consideration other factors such as his ever advancing age, and did so without the benefit of modern medical advances.

What scares me is if you statisticians and other always talking up about how today's players are always bigger, stronger, faster (and thus always better) than yesterday's players are even remotely right, we're going to eventually end up with all MLB rosters having 8-9-10 pitchers on every staff that are all '6"11 or taller, and all able to throw over 100 MPH. So their managers will have a different pitcher come out every inning so they don't overwork and blow-out anyone's arm out, and a pitcher's wins truly will be meaningless. And if that does turn out to be the case, will this type of pitcher really turn out to be the future talent all these brilliant statisticians will then be pushing as their choice for greatest of all time?

Statisticians in their use of numbers and stats dehumanize MLB baseball and it's players by trying to look at only statistics to measure and compare the players, and how best to play the game itself. So I think it only fair then that I can equally push my point as to pitchers being dehumanized as biomechanical machines. (What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?) And so if you think about it in those terms, what if you went out to buy the greatest washing machine or car (both machines), to actually use, that you could. Would you really want to buy a car or wash machine that ran unbelievably great at some point, but broke down and needed repairs a lot, or that you couldn't use all the time and/or always count on when really needed it, and ended up having to replace after not too many years? Or would you rather buy something that ran pretty great from the start and you could count on to use pretty much whenever and for however as long as you needed it, with minimal repairs and maintenance, and you didn't need to replace it for 20+ years? If anyone reading this is actually being honest with themselves, I think we all know what the answer will be. And if you do recognize how statistics dehumanize players and try to turn them into nothing more than numbers, then considering them as nothing much more than biomechanical machines is a simple logical extension of that thinking. So to follow statistical reasoning alone and ignore the human factor so much, without giving equal consideration and credit to my points, would tend to make one a hypocrite!!!

I grasp and experience every single thing you said...and none of it refutes the facts and the basic common sense and reality.

First of all, I'm not sure you are aware of this, but John Rauch was six foot eleven, Eric Hillman six foot ten, Chris Young six foot ten. So Johnson is not a unique example in size and also being able to be a viable MLB pitcher. He just happens to be the best of them.

You are trying to hold onto a bias or legend of the bygone eras.

And again,you have still said nothing to refute the fact that size does matter(even though you say you are aware of that, but then later say it really doesn't matter).

As pointed out above, yes, the body make-up in a biomechanical nature does create a 95 MPH pitcher and many of those people are simply born with that ability. I have said that from the beginning, so why you keep trying to bring this to my attention is odd. In fact, it adds to what I am saying about the population. You know that it is a unique make up to throw 95, so...

When you have only 3 million people to choose from to find those 95 MPH players, and then another era has 67 million people to choose from to find those people, it becomes quite obvious that you will find many more among a larger pool of people. Then the chances also increase that you find a human that is six foot eleven AND have the ability to throw 100 MPH with control, becomes available. That is basic logic....and it actually happened, so there is it.

That does not mean that every player will eventually be six foot eleven throwing 100....but there will certainly be more that are closer to that standard, and indeed there are. Indeed there are. That is pure fact.

You ignored that when you made a false assumption that strength does not matter and that the optimal height for a pitcher was six feet tall(which is utterly false).

Then I pointed out all the guys that exist that show what I am talking about. They may not be six foot eleven, but six foot six, or six foot 8....are far different than the typical five ten or six foot pitcher of 1930, and the number of those very big and tall players has grown over time.

The bar has been raised and keeps rising. These six foot six giants throwing 98 MPH are indeed pushing out the six foot pitcher throwing 86 MPH, which were common in baseball at one time, but indeed are coming to extinction, if not already extinct.

Does that mean that everyone will be six eleven throwing 98?? No, but it keeps getting closer and closer to that number and farther and farthe away from the pre war era littered with five foot ten pitchers throwing 84 MPH. The population growth in the world will dictate that. Population is still growing as I type this, but it is slowing down...so I don't know what that future will be, or what the future of society will be in 200 years.

BTW, all this same stuff applies toward the hitters too.


PS: Snowman, I have read all your posts and have not responded because you have been nailing points without the need of further expounding. You have a strong grasp on the topic.

PS Bob C, its easier to pitch a complete game against hitters where the strike zone is bigger and 80% of the hitters pose no threat. Has nothing to do with size. Walter Johnson would not be pitching complete games at all against a lineup of modern hitters with modern umps. He would have to throw MORE pitches per batter and work harder on every batter because any mistake on a location or speed has a chance to be a home run at any given time. That simply was not the case. If Johnson was even good enough to be a starting pitcher on a modern staff.

And one of the reasons starters are not throwing complete game has to do with strategy and the fact that almost every pitcher in the bullpen is six foot four throwing 96 MPH+, so there is not a drop off in pitching ability compared to the starter, whereas in Lefty Grove era where the bullpen guy was garbage becasue the talent was not nearly as good, so it makes more sense strategically to let him pitch instead of a guy who would struggle to make a college team today.

BTW, Cy Young and WJ were big for their time. They were 'giants'. So back then some guy was probably saying "the optimal height for a pitcher is 5 foot 9 because that is the height of the best pitchers in 1867."

The bar keeps rising. How high it will rise we shall see.

PS Randy JOhnson, despite all the factors making it harder to throw a complete game in modern time, pitched just as many innings as Lefty Grove.

[Carter08]

Warren Spahn

[G1911]

If we ignore how they performed in their time and place, and count only modernity because of it’s advances both physical and non-physical, and drop Grove, Plank, etc. into modern times without the benefit of being raised in modern times, it still leaves a problem (as well as being an argument designed to twist “all-time” to effectively refer to a single time). It has merits and, in the scope of its narrow construct with a test designed to punish anybody who wasn’t very recent, is probably true in its example. As I’ve said before several times over the last year, if you had a time machine and picked up Grove to throw against Johnson in 2001 without any of the benefits of modernity available to him, of course Johnson will probably do better: the test is entirely designed so that he will win.

But how is Sandy Koufax, and evidently Sandy Koufax alone, immune from this effect and the only old pitcher allowed to rank near the top or as the #1? If Spahn, who last pitched in 1965, can only be mediocre due to his time, how is Koufax who last pitched in 1966 still at or near the very tip top? How is five seasons over 50 years ago about equal too or better than Johnson’s entire career, if we take the argument of modernity? This makes no sense whatsoever.

I would like to see folks embrace the argument of modernity or dismiss it. The all time team should only include players from the last 20-30 years if it is true. It is not an invalid argument, but it’s selective application is completely nonsensical.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I can't help you there, I'm just someone who twists words.

On that note, I still don't see how "best" objectively is an absolute, not relative, inquiry. It's a value judgment and everyone here can define it his own way. IMO a guy who shattered the world record in some track or field event decades ago and dominated the sport for a long time may still be the "best" of all time even if someone eventually shaved a fraction of a second or an inch off his record.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I can't help you there, I'm just someone who twists words.

Incidentally, on that note, inevitably people will obliterate all of Phelps' times. I would still say Phelps is the BEST (yep, say it again, BEST) swimmer of all time unless and until someone tops his record of RELATIVE success in the sport.

I agree, I don’t think the argument of modernity is invalid but I don’t think it’s the strongest one. Everything occurs in context, context is a key factor that must not be ignored (including time, place, home park, and a whole lot more). “All time” is clearly an indicator of more than one generation. The all time team should include all times, not in perfect proportion because of the random chance of greatness, but if long periods are absent from the top, one is probably not looking fairly at an era.

But the appeal to modernity, by simply looking at a timeline, quite obviously hurts Koufax who many of its adherents over the last year have tried to use it or a form of it to protect. And frankly, Johnson doesn’t need it to have an excellent argument for the top spot. Logical, fair, consistent arguments can be made for more than one candidate. Koufax is modern, Spahn is ancient isn’t one of them.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

I agree, I don’t think the argument of modernity is invalid but I don’t think it’s the strongest one. Everything occurs in context, context is a key factor that must not be ignored (including time, place, home park, and a whole lot more). “All time” is clearly an indicator of more than one generation. The all time team should include all times, not in perfect proportion because of the random chance of greatness, but if long periods are absent from the top, one is probably not looking fairly at an era.

But the appeal to modernity, by simply looking at a timeline, quite obviously hurts Koufax who many of its adherents over the last year have tried to use it or a form of it to protect. And frankly, Johnson doesn’t need it to have an excellent argument for the top spot. Logical, fair, consistent arguments can be made for more than one candidate. Koufax is modern, Spahn is ancient isn’t one of them.

Notwithstanding our resident genius, one can't help but notice that nearly every list ranking baseball all-time greats that's ever been put together, including by statisticians, has Ruth and Cobb and Mays in the top 5 hitters/fielders and WALTER Johnson as the top pitcher. They must be lawyers who twist words too.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Notwithstanding our resident genius, one can't help but notice that nearly every list ranking baseball all-time greats that's ever been put together, including by statisticians, has Ruth and Cobb and Mays in the top 5 hitters/fielders and WALTER Johnson as the top pitcher. They must be lawyers who twist words too.

And that’s why the appeal to authority never works - another authority can always be found and then the ‘logic’ an appeal to authority works on, that of unquestionable expertise, completely falls apart.


Just to make sure we hit 2,000 posts here, contextual best team, using the conventional definition of an all time team that has been in use for many decades:

RHP Walter Johnson (though I think Cy Young is right there due to his insane amount of effective innings)

LHP Lefty Grove

Relief Pitcher - Mariano, Hoyt Wilhelmina second but the gap here is big.

C - Berra, for his consistency but this is hard to pick. Bench is close,

1B - Gehrig, Pujols and Anson are close.

2B Collins, Joe Morgan is right there.

3B Schmidt, pretty wide margin I think.

SS Wagner, pretty wide margin I think.

LF Bonds or Williams, entirely dependent on steroid philosophy.

CF Mays, but it hurts to leave off Cobb.

RF Ruth, it’s not even close.





The best team if we ignore everyone before current times:
RHP: Clemens

LHP Johnson (I don’t see Kershaw passing him)

RP: Mariano

C: Ivan Rodriguez, but boy Piazza could hit and peak Posey and Mauer were fantastic

1B: Pujols, Thomas second

2B: Biggio, but there’s several close

3B: Chipper

SS: A-Rod

LF: Bonds

CF: Griffey, probably today. Will end up as Trout soon

RF: Gwynn? Walker? Ichiro? Would have to look up the numbers instead of using memory.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Notwithstanding our resident genius, one can't help but notice that nearly every list ranking baseball all-time greats that's ever been put together, including by statisticians, has Ruth and Cobb and Mays in the top 5 hitters/fielders and WALTER Johnson as the top pitcher. They must be lawyers who twist words too.

And Wagner competes with Ripken.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

And that’s why the appeal to authority never works - another authority can always be found and then the ‘logic’ an appeal to authority works on, that of unquestionable expertise, completely falls apart.


Just to make sure we hit 2,000 posts here, contextual best team, using the conventional definition of an all time team that has been in use for many decades:

RHP Walter Johnson (though I think Cy Young is right there due to his insane amount of effective innings)

LHP Lefty Grove

Relief Pitcher - Mariano, Hoyt Wilhelmina second but the gap here is big.

C - Berra, for his consistency but this is hard to pick. Bench is close,

1B - Gehrig, Pujols and Anson are close.

2B Collins, Joe Morgan is right there.

3B Schmidt, pretty wide margin I think.

SS Wagner, pretty wide margin I think.

LF Bonds or Williams, entirely dependent on steroid philosophy.

CF Mays, but it hurts to leave off Cobb.

RF Ruth, it’s not even close.





The best team if we ignore everyone before current times:
RHP: Clemens

LHP Johnson (I don’t see Kershaw passing him)

RP: Mariano

C: Ivan Rodriguez, but boy Piazza could hit and peak Posey and Mauer were fantastic

1B: Pujols, Thomas second

2B: Biggio, but there’s several close

3B: Chipper

SS: A-Rod

LF: Bonds

CF: Griffey, probably today. Will end up as Trout soon

RF: Gwynn? Walker? Ichiro? Would have to look up the numbers instead of using memory.

Depending on whether you put him at 3b or ss and his games played at each are very close, I think ARod could compete for the all time team at either position, if you overlook the PED and his personality. He had some SERIOUS numbers. His stature also suffered from being paired with the beloved Jeter even though Jeter was far inferior.