babyruth: Please offer your analysis of why I am wrong.

I agree. It LOOKS wrong. It cannot be right. And I've presented a number of shortcomings that COULD account for it. I am being very unbiased with what my results and methodology are showing.

But to say "well, that can't be right" does not add anything to the argument. I'm not taking a poll here. I'm providing evidence.

Hopefully, we can make sense of the evidence to show proof. I have not done that yet.

quote:

---

originally posted by tangotiger
babyruth: Please offer your analysis of why I am wrong.

I agree. It LOOKS wrong. It cannot be right. And I've presented a number of shortcomings that COULD account for it. I am being very unbiased with what my results and methodology are showing.

But to say "well, that can't be right" does not add anything to the argument. I'm not taking a poll here. I'm providing evidence.

Hopefully, we can make sense of the evidence to show proof. I have not done that yet.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by tangotiger
post 1 of 3

First, let me respond to those with concerns.

16 teams instead of 30? No. There are 30 teams because there is demand for it. As well, since the population has increased dramatically from 70 years ago, I would guess that the per capita rate is probably constant.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by David Smyth
Based on Tango's clarification, I recomputed what McGwire's 1998 stats would have been in 1927:

207 H
95 HR
221 BB
.460 BAvg
.638 OBA
1.158 SLG
185 runs scored (est.)
210 RBI (est.)

---

quote:

---

originally posted by BJG
[


And actually, there is not a market for 30 teams today.


[edited by BJG on February 4th, 2001 at 07:39 PM]

---

Ruth was buildt like a tank, the guy was a great hitter and pitcher, he was a good OF before the stomach got Krukish, and he managed to be a great player in two distinct eras-dead ball and lively. He was buildt like Willie Stargell or Mo Vaughn but faster. That ain't small.

Yeah the average player is better now than they were in '27, '48, '78, etc. But you don't wanna go too far with this. Sure the modern players are great. But where do you draw the line?

Using this kinda logic-guys like Phil Caveretta, Dave Philley, Elmer Valo, Rick DEMPSEY('68-92!!), Charlie Hough and Jaime Quirk could not POSSIBLY have lasted for more than 5 years tops. None of them were anything special(save Caveretta, and that during WWII), yet golly gee, they somehow managed to squeeze in on the average close to a 20 year career each. Did anyone ever see Jaime Quirk playing and think, gee-that guy is playing in 1992-isn't he so much better than all the guys he came up with in '73? Don't think so.

Take a good hard look at Tony Gwynn's physique sometime. Does that look like a lifetime .338 hitter to you? Check out Tom Gordon-5-9 175 or so max when he came up. Throws 90 and had a 46 save year. Real giant compared to Lefty Grove and Dizzy Dean I know.

If Ruth would be only average today, does that mean Dimaggio would be Dante Bichette? How about, oh someone who came up all of 6 years after Ruth left-Stan Musial. Musial, if you look at the stats, his .330 in a full year, '62 in his 40s. He couldn't be a top player now though, of course not....

And then if you check to see the average sizes of some of the game's greats-Yaz-5-11" 180 or so, ditto Willie Mays, Hank Aaron about the same, hmmmm-Mantle was maybe 5-11 200 lbs. That's basically Gary Sheffield.

Point is-the changeover from one era to the next in player quality and difficulty in playing it, is so gradual, so slow-you can't just arbitrarily throw up a curtain and say YEP, before year X everyone stunk and couldn't play with Bonds, Big Mac, Big Unit, Big Hurt, etc because of reasons A, B and C.

Sure they're Better, somewhat, now over say when I was a kid in the 70s--but c'mon. Guys who saw Ruth play all will tell ya, they don't think he'd exactly be mowed down by the likes of Brian Bohanon, Pat Rapp or Bob Wickman. But hey, I could be wrong.....
__________________
"Manny, Castillo and Hideo-Makes ya feel Good, doesn't it?!"

quote:

---

originally posted by BJG
[B
And actually, there is not a market for 30 teams today.

---

Somebody posted that the results probably don't apply to Ruth because he was an unusual talent--a super-duper star. But he was only a ballplayer, not a God. According to the terms of Tango's stat, the average hitter today is twice as good as the average 1927 hitter, and Ruth was also twice as good as the average 1927 hitter. Until someone clearly explains why it should't be, I'm gonna assume the result is applicable to the Babe.

And all of the stuff about population ratios, etc., etc., simply can't change the obvious truth--today's ballplayer is better than the 20's ballplayer. All you need to do is look at old film to see that's the case. There is reason to question whether Tango's 1% per year figure is correct. And so we should be suggesting overlooked, quantifiable factors which can be a part of a refinement of the study.

I feel this is leaving sabermetrics to go into science-fiction. The only way this can be used is if we take an average hitter from today and timewarp him in the 20s. I'm pretty sure that average hitter (let's take Bichette, average hitter for more than 5 years) with his collection of skills, training and knowledge of the game would revolutionize the game then. Also, if you take Ruth from the 20s and trow him in the game today, he would be lost and wouldn't know any pitcher.
But if Bichette was borned and raised in Ruth's time, he would probably still be an average hitter (maybe a good one) if discovered by a scout. If Ruth was borned and raised in Bichette's time, he would probably develop again in a superstar (5 tools plus superior pitcher, either at least a Bonds or Bagwell or a Clemens) and he would have been in a better shape.
Ruth wouldn't revolutionize the game today (he already did it 80 years ago) and would probably not post his gaudy 20s stats, but he would surely be one of the best player again today.
__________________
Nouvelles tounes pour récurer les oreilles

quote:

---

originally posted by effel
I feel this is leaving sabermetrics to go into science-fiction. The only way this can be used is if we take an average hitter from today and timewarp him in the 20s. I'm pretty sure that average hitter (let's take Bichette, average hitter for more than 5 years) with his collection of skills, training and knowledge of the game would revolutionize the game then. Also, if you take Ruth from the 20s and trow him in the game today, he would be lost and wouldn't know any pitcher.
But if Bichette was borned and raised in Ruth's time, he would probably still be an average hitter (maybe a good one) if discovered by a scout. If Ruth was borned and raised in Bichette's time, he would probably develop again in a superstar (5 tools plus superior pitcher, either at least a Bonds or Bagwell or a Clemens) and he would have been in a better shape.
Ruth wouldn't revolutionize the game today (he already did it 80 years ago) and would probably not post his gaudy 20s stats, but he would surely be one of the best player again today.

---

David: well said. I agree. Let's figure out where I could be wrong. I already pointed out my pool of players could be wrong. If we used the age pool of 24 to 28, I've already admitted that the talent pool was pretty stable from 1946 onwards. So, as you can see, there is GREAT error range potential in what I am doing.

reg: who could argue with all that? I NEVER said it was not possible. I am looking for answers, and opening possibilities. And yes, I could be wrong.

boy: each era has its own advantages and disadvantages. have they all been balances out so that we can say for a certainty that that is the case? i don't think so. it is even possible that the hitters of the 20s were even BETTER. but doesn't it make more sense to look for answers, than to hold a pre-decided view?

shoe: yes, it is very possible that big mac could have hit 90 HR 70 years ago. this is what we are trying to figure out. what kind of pitching did he face today, and what kind of pitching would he have faced then. what kind of hitting environment and parks, compared to back then.

BJG: very interesting. can you pull out your census book, and tell me what the white population, males aged 18-35 was in 1920 and 1990? I'm curious, now.

as for the business of baseball, and 30 teams or 15 teams. we have attendance of 2 million / team on average today. that is about 70 million people who pay to watch baseball in the year 2000. The 1927 yanks drew 1.1 million. Probably 15 million in all back then?

quote:

---

originally posted by Patriot

quote:

---

originally posted by BJG
[B
And actually, there is not a market for 30 teams today.

---

Shoeless Joe, math is not the focus of sabermetrics. You need math in physics too even though it really has NOTHING to do with physics; same for sabermetrics. Can you make a good estimate of runs scored in your head without a formula?

---

quote:

---

originally posted by tangotiger

boy: each era has its own advantages and disadvantages. have they all been balances out so that we can say for a certainty that that is the case? i don't think so. it is even possible that the hitters of the 20s were even BETTER. but doesn't it make more sense to look for answers, than to hold a pre-decided view?

---

quote:

---

originally posted by tangotiger

shoe: yes, it is very possible that big mac could have hit 90 HR 70 years ago. this is what we are trying to figure out. what kind of pitching did he face today, and what kind of pitching would he have faced then. what kind of hitting environment and parks, compared to back then.

Tango I Am finding some of you statements to be beyond belief. You earlier stated that because of the level of talent in 1927 some of Ruth's stats could be reduced to half of what they were.Two examples you gave were his HRs from 60 to 30 and his hits from 192 to ( hard to believe) 96 hits. Now you say that Mac could possibly hit 90 HRs if he were playing in that era. So Ruth in his greatest HR year of 1927 should be reduced to about 30 HRs and Mac if he were playing then could easily double Ruth's total and almost triple Ruth's total. For sure if you think Mac might hit 90 HRs then hitting 60 or 70 would be a yearly event for him.

IP

If we allow McGwire to go back to 1927 do we allow him to take all of the amenities of 2000 with him? Does he get:

1. shiny and contantly new 2000 balls or does he get gray and dinged up ones that stayed in the game way past their prime in 1927?

2. chartered jets or creaky trains?

3. a toothpick bat that generates high bat speed or a Ruthian tree trunk?

4. a huge 2000 firstman's mitt or a paltry 1927 one?

5. first-class hotel accomodations or more modest ones?

6. pitchers who are afraid to throw inside or ones will judiciously challenge him?

7. and most importantly - Andro (sp?)?

quote:

---

originally posted by tangotiger
[

shoe: yes, it is very possible that big mac could have hit 90 HR 70 years ago. this is what we are trying to figure out. what kind of pitching did he face today, and what kind of pitching would he have faced then. what kind of hitting environment and parks, compared to back then.

Tnago, Tango, Mac at possibly 90 HRs and Ruth at his best HR season maybe at 30+ HRs. You may not be saying that exactly in those words but if we are to believe your formulas and your assessment that the talent level in the 1920s is about half the level of todays game what else are we to believe. I also would like to see you reply to the conditions that are so favorable to todays players, advancements in physical training( less time to recuperate from injuries), smaller parks, expansion, travel time 8 to 10 hour overnight train rides as oppossed to less travel time on air conditioned planes and most of all the pea sized strike zone started this wiffle ball game in the 1990s. As ROCKHOPPER asks if Mac were to be transported back to the 1920s could he bring all the conditions of todays game with him. Mac is some slugger but Ruth is in a class all his own.

IP

tangotiger,

The problem I have with your methodology is that you seem to be assuming linearity where you can't make the assumption. Here's the gist of that problem as I see it.

I suspect that hitting ability is distributed according to the bell curve. (Probably a skewed curve, with a longer tail to the right where the exceptional players would be found, but we'll ignore that.) That being the case, you would expect two things to happen as the pool of players increases: 1) The average would move somewhat to the right, and, 2) The standard deviation would decrease. It would seem to be a more reliable measure to figure the distribution of OPS for players in Ruth's era and our era, and use that as the basis of comparion. I would suggest that you do something like this. Determine the standard deviation for Ruth's era and our era. I would expect the latter to be smaller. Divide the modern era standard deviation by the Ruthian era standard deviation and adjust his OPS by that amount. There might be an even better way to make this comparison but I'm not knowledgeable enough about statistics to say whether there is or not.


[edited by Dactyl on February 5th, 2001 at 08:23 AM]

This is more like it! I didn't think going after such an icon would put me in such hot water.

Let me preface (again) that I am just looking for answers, and by looking at this particular methodology, we are getting some shocking conclusions. As I have stated (already) that because I used a pool of players of 23 to 33 instead of 24 to 28, it shows that the talent level has been increasing by 1% every year. The methodology, repeated for the 24 to 28 age group shows NO INCREASE IN TALENT WHATSOEVER FROM 1946 to today. And I am VERY INCLINED TO BELIEVE THAT THE PRIME AGE CLASS IS 24 to 28. On that basis, what Ted Williams hit then, he would hit today, and make him probably the best hitter ever.

As for the mound, the strike zone, etc, as I have stated, the purpose of the methodology was to distinguish between the playing conditions (those things I just mentioned) and the talent level. If the talent level has not been increasing by 1% every year, then it is VERY VERY possible that the playing conditions have been bumping players stats up. This is what I am trying to find out. Again, using the 24 to 28 age group is showing that maybe the playing conditions have more to do with this than the talent.

However, you have to believe that the hitters hit their prime from 24 to 28, and not 23 to 33. And I am much more inclined to believe the 24 to 28. However, MOST people go against that, and believe the 23 to 33 age group. If you are part of those people, then you believe that the change in perfomance is based on talent level changing. If you believe in the 24 to 28 prime age class, then you believe that the change in performance is based more on playing conditions changing.

I will reiterate again that just because the "average" player is affected "linearly" that maybe we shouldn't apply this to ALL players. As we've seen in today's game, Larry Walker plays in Coors, but his homers don't go from 30 to 60. But you put some weak punk hitters in Coors, and their homers can go from 5 to 15, no sweat.

As for Ruth and 30 HR and 92 hits, I offered a correction on that, and which David then added to. It is more like 38 HR and 122 hits. However, if I were to re-run using the 24 to 28 prime age class, I am sure I'd get something like 50 HRs.

As well, as I have stated, not every player follows the same aging pattern. HR hitters mature much later, while speed demons mature earlier. What I SHOULD do is to find those aging patterns. It may show that players like Ruth are not as affected as everyone else.

As for the standard deviation, etc, the problem is that in 1927, you had say 160 hitters, and today you have 300 hitters. It's not the same sample size to begin with, and so, I would not be able to make any kind of conclusive statements.

Again, I want to reiterate that I did not consider ball parks. When hitters go from pitcher's ball parks to hitters ball parks it may look like their talent level increased, but really it is all due to the park. I see this kind of jump when Coors came into play.

As for all the amenities, etc, yes, he gets all those things. As I have stated (already), there are 2 types of "time transport" you can do. One is to pluck him out of 1997 and bring him to 1927. (This is what my methodology is doing.) The other is to make him born in 1900, instead of 1950. Again, it makes more sense to show the "born in 1900" process, but that is beyond what I can do here. I have instead taken the basis of "instant time travel" instead.

Guys, I have stated so many shortcomings to my methodology, that I believe I am my worst critic. There is LOADS to consider. Given that major uncertainty, I don't think that either camp can say with a straight face what's what. The easy thing would be to maintain status quo, and just use "relative averages". But then that won't consider all the variables I've already mentioned.

I like these kind of discussion. While using Ruth is a stretch, there are other conclusions very interesting:

You have no increase for the 24 to 28 group, but a 1 % increase for the 23 to 33 group. This probably means the increase of talent is because of the 29-33 group. Players seem to stay in shape longer.
__________________
Nouvelles tounes pour récurer les oreilles

quote:

---

originally posted by tangotiger


BJG: very interesting. can you pull out your census book, and tell me what the white population, males aged 18-35 was in 1920 and 1990? I'm curious, now.

as for the business of baseball, and 30 teams or 15 teams. we have attendance of 2 million / team on average today. that is about 70 million people who pay to watch baseball in the year 2000. The 1927 yanks drew 1.1 million. Probably 15 million in all back then?

---

quote:

---

originally posted by BJG



. Was anyone surprised that McGwire broke Maris' record in an expansion year?

---

Your census figures and your point about sports/education are both very interesting.

First your census numbers. The number of white young americans has basically doubled (more or less) from the 20s to today. The number of white young americans pitchers in MLB has gone from about 10 * 16(160, more or less), to, I would guess, 7 * 30 (210, more or less). Based solely on the census numbers, we could expect to see 320 white young american pitchers pitching today. And we have only 210.

However, and this is a big however, you make an excellent point that baseball was the sport du jour in the 20s, while, today, you have to compete with football and basketball. Perhaps there are actually 320 white young american pitchers AVAILABLE, and maybe 110 of them happen to be playing football and basketball and practicing law and engineering. It's possible, and would point to the fact that pitching in Ruth's era was just as tough as it is today.

It's a tough call, of course, and I'm not in a position to comment further.

This is all to continue to say that a cursory look at all the data, no one here is in a position to pronounce with any certainty what's what.

As for the "beefed up" comment, I don't believe that they all got bigger all of a sudden. But some of them have. Does anyone remember Sammy Sosa in the early 90s? As well, it used to be that the big guys used to be pitchers. That shift has been happening, where you don't have as many Roger Clemens types pitching. That kind of watered-down pitching, and beefed-up hitting could account for the "phony" HRs.

Lots of work to be done....

quote:

---

originally posted by tangotiger
Barry Bonds, 1997 or Babe Ruth, 1927?


B>Part 1 - the pool of players
Let's start the exercise in 1945. And let's look at all those hitters who played in BOTH 1945 and 1946. The first thing we want to do is to limit our pool of players to only those hitters between the ages of 23 to 33. If we allow all the players into our pool, then we might have too many players over the age of 33, which will skew our results, since most "old" players have diminished abilities. By concentrating on a pool of players aged 23-33 we are in effect only counting players who are at their prime.

The next thing we do is to weight the stats by the lower of the PA of the 2 years. So, if you had 20 PA in 1945, and 500 PA in 1946, then we'll prorate the 1946 stats to the 1945 PAs.


Part 3 - Start comparing year x to year x+1
The LW ratio (LWR) of our pool of players in 1945, AL, was .555. That EXACT SAME POOL of players had an LWR of .527 in 1946. This difference is caused by exactly two things: one is the ability of the players to increase, and two is the change in playing conditions (pitchers, parks, weather, strike zones, balls, etc). Since we've already established that these hitters are a stable group in their prime, this implies the difference is COMPLETELY due to the playing conditions. And this means that the PLAYING CONDITIONS caused the players to lose 5% (1 - 527/555) of their hitting stats.

Part 4 - Compare the whole league
The league LWR was .514 in 1945, and .535 in 1946. Again, two things cause the change: playing conditions and talent of the players. In 1946 there was an influx of alot of good players, as you'd expect, both hitters and pitchers. Both these variables caused the hitting stats to go up by 4.1% (535/514 - 1).

Part 5 - Put the two together
Since we know that the playing conditions caused a 5% drop in hitters stats, and since we know that the playing conditions + talent level caused a 4% increase in hitters stats, then we can conclude that the talent level alone was increased by 9.6% (1.041/.950).



<

---

A comment about the census data....
When you look at the talent base, it's not merely the numbers that matter, it's also the efficiency of the sports system in identifying athletes. Remember the Romanian Olympic teams? They often came fourth, even though Romania has a small population base. Steroids notwithstanding, Romania had a system in place where every school kid was tested, and if they showed any promise, were moved into a sports school by age 6. NO athletes escaped.
When you read the early baseball stories, it's hard not to notice how hit and miss finding talent was. Paul Waner said that he was found basically because a scout went on a bender, and needed a name to pretend he had done something. Lloyd came up on Paul's recommendation. Many of the stories are the same.
Without a doubt, it's harder for a good prospect to get missed today, considering the school sport's system. There probably isn't much of a difference even with more sports - certain body types play football and basketball, and the overlap may not be that huge.

baby: when I mean the EXACT SAME PLAYERS, I mean the exact same players. I specifically chose 45/46 to show the major effect. As I showed, those players who played in BOTH 45 and 46 had their stats DROP. The league OVERALL stats INCREASED. All changes in stats are due to 2 things: change in talent and change in playing conditions (park, quality of pitching, mounds, strike zones, weather, umpires, etc).

If we know that the "controlled" group of players (those who played in both 45/46 and were in their prime, so that they plateaud in talent) went down by 5%, we know this was due for one reason, and one reason only: the playing conditions changed. In this example, it is easy to say that the playing conditions was mostly the increased level of pitching talent.

Since we also know that the league in general INCREASED by 5%, we also know this is due to TWO reasons: talent and playing conditions. IF WE ARE TO ASSUME THAT THE PLAYING CONDITIONS AFFECTED THE LEAGUE TO THE SAME EXTENT OF THE CONTROLLED GROUP (and this assumptions forces us to accept a "linearity" in effect among all types of hitters, which may not necessarily be the case, I agree), then we can assume that the league should have ALSO had its stats drop by 5% due to playing conditions.

Since change in stats = change in talent and change in playing conditions, and since change in stats was +5%, and change in playing conditions was -5%, then we are left to assume (based on the multitude of assumptions of the methodology), that the change in talent INCREASED by 10%.

Again, this is easy to believe, because of the great hitters that came back, and the no good hitters that were sent back down to the minors.

admin options:
>open / close topic
>move thread
>delete topic
>edit topic