|
|
Post by utahyank on Sept 11, 2018 10:42:36 GMT -5
Good....I am with you on ignoring the morality issue of 1919, and considering talent alone...Jackson, Cicotte, and the others should be considered without bias...I was thinking of Billy Pierce and Ted Lyons as I fell asleep last night...it should be fun...thanks for your work..
|
|
|
|
Post by pippsheadache on Sept 11, 2018 11:52:19 GMT -5
I've also thought of Melton. If I get to temporarily "OWN" the Sox, the man must have a job somewhere. I'm continuing to be more and more leery of the old pitchers, which may not be a good thing. I suppose that instead of viewing them as relics I should perhaps imagine what they might do pitching today vs. what Chris Sale and company would do if they had to endure the circumstances of the past. I attempted to do some time travel like that with players many years before we knew about things like OPS+ and ERA+ by creating simple algebraic formulas in which I would multiply or divide (or both) stats of the league averages in various decades to give a raw indication of how players numbers might have looked in different seasons. So I was doing comparisons of say, Home Run Baker to Michael Jack Schmidt. Since I have never been able to do well with spreadsheets, everything I was doing was arduous and it would take me days to do a single player's numbers transferred to say...the dead ball era, or from the dead ball era to 1978, or what ever year it was... Too bad I didn't keep the old scratch paper...I posted everything on the old Yankees forum on the Prodigy site...Prodigy. So many years ago...maybe thirty years since that was shut down and I migrated elsewhere. I was one of the few in my community that was using a bulletin board back then... I agree when you say we can only judge players by how they stacked up within the era in which they played. That is, how did Home Run Baker rank among his contemporaries as opposed to how did Mike Schmidt rank among his contemporaries. Conditions and strategies constantly change. I think Bill James was correct when he said that if you took modern players and gave them the equipment and training and ballparks and travel conditions of the nineteenth century, pretty soon they would start playing the same as the players in the nineteenth century. I remember reading Christy Mathewson's book "Pitching In A Pinch." One of the things that stuck with me is how he said he would conserve his hard stuff for what we would today call high-leverage situations. If Matty knew he was only expected to pitch five or six innings, he would have adjusted accordingly, but of course he was throwing around 350 innings every year. With his pinpoint control, ability to move the ball around and variety of pitches, I have little doubt he would still be a great pitcher today if you could magically recreate him in his prime, albeit with very different stats. |
|
|
|
Post by pippsheadache on Sept 11, 2018 11:59:29 GMT -5
Somewhat on the same topic of then versus now. When they showed that previously unknown film of Game Seven of the 1960 World Series a few years ago, I remember feeling a little trepidation about how it would look after over half a century. Would the players I grew up watching look like ponderous dinosaurs compared to the game I was watching now? Would they look amateurish and sloppy, unable to make the demanding plays? Well, to my eyes it looked pretty much the same as a game today. Different strategies, fewer delays, but not nearly as different from the current game as say basketball or football look by comparison.
|
|
|
|
Post by utahyank on Sept 11, 2018 13:23:11 GMT -5
Somewhat on the same topic of then versus now. When they showed that previously unknown film of Game Seven of the 1960 World Series a few years ago, I remember feeling a little trepidation about how it would look after over half a century. Would the players I grew up watching look like ponderous dinosaurs compared to the game I was watching now? Would they look amateurish and sloppy, unable to make the demanding plays? Well, to my eyes it looked pretty much the same as a game today. Different strategies, fewer delays, but not nearly as different from the current game as say basketball or football look by comparison. my feeling is that the players I saw play in the 30's and were good to great would be among the best today...foot speed, on the average, is probably the biggest difference...and that comes in to play more on the defensive side...there were some holes in both the outfield and infield that often do not exist to the same degree today...meaning, it is harder to hit for the high averages today...which is why the uppercut from-the-heels swing is so prevalent today...if you can't hit it through them, hit it over them....it was a little different in nuances, but essentially the same game....I expect the same would be true of the teens players...it is also true that pitchers of today throw harder, by maybe 3-5 mph than those of that era...but the old-time hitters would not have had a problem with that... which leads to another thought on defense...there were some who stood out because they were quicker or had better instincts than most...Speaker, apparently was one...DiMaggio, Rizzuto jump to mind because their defense was ahead of their time...the rosters of today are stronger top to bottom, but one could make All-Star teams of those eras that could contend with the All-star squad of today...my opinion only...it's worth exactly what you paid... |
|
|
|
Post by pippsheadache on Sept 11, 2018 13:34:06 GMT -5
Somewhat on the same topic of then versus now. When they showed that previously unknown film of Game Seven of the 1960 World Series a few years ago, I remember feeling a little trepidation about how it would look after over half a century. Would the players I grew up watching look like ponderous dinosaurs compared to the game I was watching now? Would they look amateurish and sloppy, unable to make the demanding plays? Well, to my eyes it looked pretty much the same as a game today. Different strategies, fewer delays, but not nearly as different from the current game as say basketball or football look by comparison. my feeling is that the players I saw play in the 30's and were good to great would be among the best today...foot speed, on the average, is probably the biggest difference...and that comes in to play more on the defensive side...there were some holes in both the outfield and infield that often do not exist to the same degree today...meaning, it is harder to hit for the high averages today...which is why the uppercut from-the-heels swing is so prevalent today...if you can't hit it through them, hit it over them....it was a little different in nuances, but essentially the same game....I expect the same would be true of the teens players...it is also true that pitchers of today throw harder, by maybe 3-5 mph than those of that era...but the old-time hitters would not have had a problem with that... which leads to another thought on defense...there were some who stood out because they were quicker or had better instincts than most...Speaker, apparently was one...DiMaggio, Rizzuto jump to mind because their defense was ahead of their time...the rosters of today are stronger top to bottom, but one could make All-Star teams of those eras that could contend with the All-star squad of today...my opinion only...it's worth exactly what you paid... Concur, Utah. Although my baseball memory only goes back to the 1950s, I was blessed to know quite a few people who were serious students of the game much older than me who I used to talk to incessantly as a kid. I do think the bottom rung of players going back a century or so would not make it to the majors today, but the great ones, as you note, would adjust. That's what the great ones of every era do. |
|
|
|
Post by inger on Sept 11, 2018 19:03:49 GMT -5
My theory, and I “verified” it through those painstaking calculations that I used to years ago was that if Mike Schmidt played back in Home Run Baker’s era he would have been a slugger of note with his 8-12 or so HR season like Baker hit, and he would have probably been among the league leaders in striking out, but with way fewer...
Baker in Schmidt’s era and with Schmidt’s equipment would have probably hit 30-40 HR per year with a lower BA than his actual numbers. Time travel can happen with a bit of information. Too bad i’m Not handy with spread sheets. Maybe st some point we’ll get to revisit this thought and I can do an example...the tedious way...
|
|
|
|
Post by pippsheadache on Sept 11, 2018 19:08:30 GMT -5
My theory, and I “verified” it through those painstaking calculations that I used to years ago was that if Mike Schmidt played back in Home Run Baker’s era he would have been a slugger of note with his 8-12 or so HR season like Baker hit, and he would have probably been among the league leaders in striking out, but with way fewer... Baker in Schmidt’s era and with Schmidt’s equipment would have probably hit 30-40 HR per year with a lower BA than his actual numbers. Time travel can happen with a bit of information. Too bad i’m Not handy with spread sheets. Maybe st some point we’ll get to revisit this thought and I can do an example...the tedious way... Sounds reasonable to me. Schmidt was talented enough that he might have had well above average HR totals for the deadball era, but in general I am on the same wavelength on this. Had Schmidt played in the PED era and partaken of the nectar, he would easily have been in Barry Bonds territory. Greatest third baseman ever, and I am not a big fan of his on a personal level. But talent out the wazoo. |
|
|
|
Post by inger on Sept 12, 2018 0:26:32 GMT -5
I have the Shote Sox Team completed on scrap paper, ready for final review. Too late to present it tonight. Should get it posted up tomorrow evening or night.
As usual, there may be a last minute change to the pitching staff...Those fifth starters can be tough to decide. Especially considering my predisposition to over think the old timers...
|
|
|
|
Post by desousa on Sept 12, 2018 13:27:39 GMT -5
St Louis Cardinals all time team.
SP: Bob Gibson, Mort Cooper, Bill Doak, Harry Brecheen, Dizzy Dean. AAA: Max Lanier, Howie Pollet, Adam Wainwright, John Tudor, Slim Sallee. RP: Jason Isringhausen, Todd Worrell,
Catcher: Yadier Molina, Ted Simmons. AAA: Tim McCarver
First: Albert Pujols, Johnny Mize. AAA: Jim Bottomley, Mark McGuire, Ripper Collins
Second: Rogers Hornsby, Frankie Frisch. AAA: Red Schoendienst,
Third: Ken Boyer, Scott Rolen. AAA: Whitey Kurwoski
Short: Ozzie Smith, Edgar Renteria. AAA: Marty Marion
OF: Stan Musial, Joe Medwick, Jim Edmonds. AAA: Enos Slaughter, Chick Hafey, Curt Flood, Lou Brock
Utility: Joe Torre
Tough calls at first, but the rest not that hard. For as many years that they've been around, the Cards haven't had that many great pitchers. Especially the bullpen. Players I reluctantly had to leave out, 1B Keith Hernandez, 1B Bill White, OF Matt Holiday, OF Willie McGee, OF/3B Pepper Martin,
|
|
|
|
Post by utahyank on Sept 12, 2018 14:03:41 GMT -5
wow...what a strong franchise-team......loads and loads of talent, and I thought there would be...I will make one comment now, and think a little on the rest...on my list the starters begin with Gibson, and Dean is second....sorry if that doesn't fit the numbers, but Diz was too good to not be one of my starters.....thanks for the list, and good job....
|
|
|
|
Post by desousa on Sept 12, 2018 14:35:23 GMT -5
wow...what a strong franchise-team......loads and loads of talent, and I thought there would be...I will make one comment now, and think a little on the rest...on my list the starters begin with Gibson, and Dean is second....sorry if that doesn't fit the numbers, but Diz was too good to not be one of my starters.....thanks for the list, and good job.... Thanks Utah. You may be right, I could very well replace Mort Cooper with Dean. I wouldn't want to face this tough line up. |
|
|
|
Post by utahyank on Sept 12, 2018 14:44:36 GMT -5
a couple more thoughts on the Cardinals, Paul Derringer was quite good, and I was surprised he was missing, but had forgotten he was with the team less than 5 years...he was quite good with the Reds...First Base talent is ridiculous....no dispute at all with Pujols and Mize...but then there was Jim Bottomley, who would have been the franchise player for many teams....my gosh...has ANY team, including the Yankees, had a stronger pair or trio than Pujols, Mize, and Bottomley?....that is a question for another discussion, I guess....
my Father's cattle business partner, Clarence Mitchell finished his career with the Cardinals...of the teams he talked about he disliked the Cardinals the most....there were some brash talkers on that team, and I guess they got under his skin a bit...
|
|
|
|
Post by utahyank on Sept 12, 2018 15:02:02 GMT -5
inger...after we are finished with this exercise creating all-time teams....(and there is no hurry at all)...it might be fun to rank some of the best teams at each position....looking at the Cardinals first basemen, for instance....is there any stronger, say top 5, than the Cardinals have?....I don't mean to prejudge that, but I will be surprised if any other team had better...
|
|
|
|
Post by pippsheadache on Sept 12, 2018 15:32:45 GMT -5
St Louis Cardinals all time team. SP: Bob Gibson, Mort Cooper, Bill Doak, Harry Brecheen. AAA: Dizzy Dean, Adam Wainwright, John Tudor, Slim Sallee. RP: Jason Isringhausen, Todd Worrell, Catcher: Yadier Molina, Ted Simmons. AAA: Tim McCarver First: Albert Pujols, Johnny Mize. AAA: Jim Bottomley, Mark McGuire, Ripper Collins Second: Rogers Hornsby, Frankie Frisch. AAA: Red Schoendienst, Third: Ken Boyer, Scott Rolen. AAA: Whitey Kurwoski Short: Ozzie Smith, Edgar Renteria. AAA: Marty Marion OF: Stan Musial, Joe Medwick, Lou Brock. AAA: Enos Slaughter, Chick Hafey, Curt Flood, Jim Edmonds Utility: Joe Torre Tough calls at first, but the rest not that hard. For as many years that they've been around, the Cards haven't had that many great pitchers. Especially the bullpen. Players I reluctantly had to leave out, 1B Keith Hernandez, 1B Bill White, OF Matt Holiday, OF Willie McGee, OF/3B Pepper Martin, Good job, Desousa. Definitely one of the elite squads, as you would expect from one of the true legacy franchises. Although I get tired of hearing about how great their fans are, I have a lot of respect for the Cardinals. Plus I love those classic uniforms, which have retained very similar elements since at least the 1920s. I do think I would have included Chris Carpenter on the pitching staff over Spittin' Bill Doak -- his stats are pretty amazing -- although he was a singularly unpleasant individual from what I recall. My father's first baseball glove was a Bill Doak model from sometime back in the 1930s, even though Doak had been out of baseball by then I believe. Ken Boyer was an outstanding third baseman. He was overshadowed by Eddie Mathews (one of the five greatest ever IMO) in his day, and then Brooks came along a few years into his career, but he was highly respected, so steady at the plate and in the field. I can never forgive his grand slam against Al Downing in the 1964 World Series to give the Cardinals a 4-3 win and turn the tide of that series that the Yanks could easily have won. Keith Hernandez ranks right in there with those other great first-sackers for the Cards. His stats with St. Louis were great, plus he fielded that position about as well as anybody ever. While I could not put him above Pujols, I think he is at least in the conversation with the other top first basemen. And as you noted, Bill White deserves mention too. I am guessing Cepeda did not have enough time with St. Louis, but there was another top-notch first sacker for them. Pepper Martin has always fascinated me, although I do agree with your decision not to put him on the team. Anybody nicknamed "The Wild Horse of the Osage" gets my attention. I knew people, including my father, who saw him in his prime, and they loved to watch him play. A daring, even reckless, player who would probably drive a devout Sabrmetrician nuts, but he obviously gave you a show. Maybe wrong, but I always give a few points to those guys. I might have had Dizzy Dean as a primary starter. I know his career was short, but in his prime and for a big game, I wouldn't mind having him show up the day after Gibson. Certainly another one who gave you your money's worth as a spectator. Or as an announcer, for those of you who remember his "Game of the Week" broadcasts. Branch Rickey used to say, one more like him and I would be out of this game. |
|
|
|
Post by pippsheadache on Sept 12, 2018 15:52:57 GMT -5
A few more random Cardinal thoughts. Boy was Jim Edmonds fun to watch. I was living in LA when he played for the Angels and it seemed like almost every game he would make an eye-popping catch. He and Torii Hunter were maybe the two most exciting CFers of their day. Or any day, for that matter.
Boy have they had some legendary managers. Tony LaRussa is their winningest, but they have had the likes of Bill McKechnie, Billy Southworth, Gabby Street, Frankie Frisch, Red Schoendienst, Whitey Herzog and of course Mike Metheny. Not to mention other baseball greats who didn't set the world on fire as Cards managers but certainly had success elsewhere -- Branch Rickey, Miller Huggins, Joe Torre, for starters.
Ducky Medwick was another guy my father always talked about. A doubles machine. But another of the real nasty characters who hated that nickname. Looking over this group, the Cardinals have had their fair share of guys who were very unpleasant -- in addition to the already-mentioned Carpenter and Medwick, I think we could definitely put Hornsby and Frisch and Gibson and Tudor on there. And we never even got around to the Mad Hungarian Al Hrabosky, although I think his was more of an act.
Nice to see Whitey Kurowski's name on there. Very solid hot corner guy.
|
|
