Pujols at 2B? - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2015 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to Baseball Leftovers

Pujols at 2B?

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Re: Pujols at 2B?

Postby Matthias » Wed Apr 23, 2008 10:35 am

Well, FWIW, the pitcher widely considered to have the fastest fastball to ever play the game was Walter "The Big Train" Johnson and he pitched in 1920.

Sure, you can't play the but-for game. You can't drop a player from 1920 into today's game or vice versa. There's a number of things that are different. That's why historical comparisons are done against a player's peers. What was the league-wide OPS or ERA when a certain player played? How much was the player above or below that number? What about players now? How much are they above or below? It's not perfect, but people much more obsessed about stats than you or I have deemed it acceptable and that's fine by me.
0-3 to 4-3. Worst choke in the history of baseball. Enough said.
Matthias
General Manager
General Manager


Posts: 4860
Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Pujols at 2B?

Postby Tavish » Wed Apr 23, 2008 10:49 am

Whisp wrote:it's ridiculous to say hornsby is better than pujols. if pujols could face the pitchers from the 1920's he'd probably hit .700 and knock in 300 HR. while if hornsby faced the hurlers of today, he'd hit about .150 with no stats.

Exactly. Ruth would likely bat .075 because the game of throwing a ball and hitting a ball has changed drastically in 80 years. Players back then didn't have to contend with gravity like players do now and most players in the 1920s were 4'10" and had no athletic ability whatsoever.
Image

Bury me a Royal.
Tavish
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterWeb Supporter
Posts: 11071
(Past Year: 25)
Joined: 3 May 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Pujols at 2B?

Postby AussieDodger » Wed Apr 23, 2008 11:00 am

Tavish wrote:
Whisp wrote:it's ridiculous to say hornsby is better than pujols. if pujols could face the pitchers from the 1920's he'd probably hit .700 and knock in 300 HR. while if hornsby faced the hurlers of today, he'd hit about .150 with no stats.

Exactly. Ruth would likely bat .075 because the game of throwing a ball and hitting a ball has changed drastically in 80 years. Players back then didn't have to contend with gravity like players do now and most players in the 1920s were 4'10" and had no athletic ability whatsoever.


And everything was in black and white so it was harder to see the ball.
ATTENTION LONG-TIMERS! NEW FBC: http://fbc2.freeforums.net/
AussieDodger
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterEagle Eye
Posts: 11363
(Past Year: 25)
Joined: 22 Jan 2006
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: What do you mean, Flash Gordon approaching?

Re: Pujols at 2B?

Postby Slow Pitch » Wed Apr 23, 2008 11:04 am

Whisp wrote:1920 vs. 2000

how fast did the pitchers pitch?

90's fastballs were not uncommon, some hit the 100's like Big Train

was there as much movement on their pitches?

Yes Spit balls & other foreign substances were not regulated like they are today.

was there as much variety from pitch to pitch?

Yes

were players as fast in the field?

Some were, some were not

were players as adept at (getting to and) catching the ball?

Some were, some weren't. The greatest ranging CF to ever play was Taylor Douthit of the Pirates playing from 1922-1933

were gloves as good for catching?

In the 1885-1900's clearly not, after that it is argueable, but then again the balls were not nearly as good for hitting, hence the 'deadball' era(1900-1919). The baseballs werent bright shiny white every pitch. They were often dirt colored, making them much more difficult to pick up out of the pitchers hand. The baseball's were much softer as well and stayed in the game much longer to further deaden. There was not lighting either for games that went into the evening or cloudy days. Bats are not what they are today either. Imagine if those guys had baseball bats that were researched and developed for optium results back then....it balances itself out.

were defensive players as well conditioned?

No. Conditioning is obviously better now, but there were no questions about performance enhancing drugs either.

were defensive players and managers as smart at positioning?

I am sure there were smart players/coaches then as well, just like there are bad one's too. The hitters didnt have video & insanely in depth scouting reports done for them for every pitcher they might face also

why were stats so different back then? why were people hitting over .400? why were so few home runs hit?

For many reasons. One I explained was the ball first & foremost. As for home runs the stadium fences were MUCH MUCH deeper. There werent any bandboxes like today's stadiums. (The Long Ball Era 1994-2005) Two examples The West Side Grounds in Chicago the CF fence was 560 feet deep. The Palace of the Fans in Cincy had these dimensions LF450 LCF475 CF510 RCF475 RF450. How many parks today are 450 down the line??? Think that would help take away some of today's Hrs?

why could pitchers pitch so many innings? were they not pushing themselves to the limit?

Because they werent babied millinoaires with guarnateed $$ These guys were pitching for realisitc livelyhood, not for the extremes of wealth given to even the most average of pitchers. :-t

it's nice to honor the past, the stats, the players of old. but you simply cannot compare them as athletes to today's players. there are too many reasons to think that players from the past played a different game of baseball and if they hit in today's game, they'd realize they are facing a much harder competition. you can't judge by stats alone, although thats what youre doing.


I am doing no such thing. A formula known as a Log5 allows one to rather accurately tell stats very accurately over any era. For example: Hornsby's 1924 season where he hit .424 is according to the Log5 dropped to a .411. Tony Gwynn's 1994 .394 is dropped to a .391 because these were both season's offense dominated.

Now 1908 is considered to be the best year ever for pitching. In that year the best hitter was Honus Wagner who batted a .354 his Log5 jumps his average to an actual .368.

If you think stats are so skewed back then towards offense why is 1994 the 3nd best year in the history of baseball for hitters? (1894 is #1, 1930 is #2)

The 1930's were the most offensive based decade in baseball...The 2nd...1990's.

You are also forgetting the talent pool was not so diluted back then as well. There weren't 30 teams with 15 pitchers each. Only the best of the best made it back then in the days of 3 man rotations w/ barely any Rps.

!994-2005 was a time that greatly favored hitters.

You really need to enlighten yourself to some baseball history, you are missing out on some good stuff. ;-D
Last edited by Slow Pitch on Wed Apr 23, 2008 11:12 am, edited 3 times in total.
Image
Slow Pitch
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 2395
Joined: 11 Apr 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Pujols at 2B?

Postby BronXBombers51 » Wed Apr 23, 2008 11:04 am

Lmao. :-b
25
BronXBombers51
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Mock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 11949
(Past Year: 54)
Joined: 8 Apr 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Pujols at 2B?

Postby J35J » Wed Apr 23, 2008 11:08 am

:-° :-b
J35J
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterPick 3 Weekly Winner
Posts: 10467
(Past Year: 363)
Joined: 26 Jan 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Pujols at 2B?

Postby thursday_13 » Wed Apr 23, 2008 11:18 am

Ok, I really wish I hadn't missed this whole thread until now, great stuff.

First, the statement "the league back in the 1920's was all white" and therefore, the numbers are inherently flawed is an insult to all races. This is the same pathetic argument that keeps many of the records from the Negro Leagues from being recognized; that the league was only black and the competition wasn't the same. Now I see this argument frequently used against MLB prior to integration. It's a terrible argument. While the league's quality of play, dynamic landscape, and talent level would have clearly improved with integration from the start, it can't be used as an argument against the league because the erosion of quality comes at all ends. Hitting, pitching, and fielding all erode at the same rate without black players. So, the best players may have stood out a little more, but it's no different than what we are seeing right now with, what I think was, only 8.5% of the league african american. Are we supposed to just assume that the records of the 70's are invalid because the racial profile of the league today is different from the 70's? I realize that is not an exact comparison, but it relflects the issue. It ignores many other ethnic groups. As pointed out, there were some hispanics...few, but some. And we insult ethnic diversity by just calling the league back then "white", because we forget that we had Irish, Italian, and Polish immigrants. This is the equivialence in my mind of our lumping of Venezuelan, Dominican, and Cuban players together. And why I think the WBC was one of the best things baseball has done in years.

So, to make a long story short, we need to stop insinuating that any record set in the past doesn't count because the players were not allowed to compete against what was truly the best talent. Even 20 years ago we played without Japanese players. It was an unfortunate era, one baseball has made great strides to appologize for.

Second, why do we think Pujols is so great? I realize he is a fantastic hitter, but Pujols in real baseball terms, he only has one season in the top five in fielding percentage. As a first baseman, that's pretty essential. I'm not going to bother arguing that Hornsby is better than Pujols, because I see that gets a lot of people's panties in a bind. (but seriously, a hall of fame 2B, with some serious career numbers vs a guy who could crap out and be done in 2 years and shock no one). In fact, let me expand on that point a little more. Many baseball pundits are quick to call out the "actual age" issue of many hispanic ball players, and I've seen this issue come up about Pujols before. If Pujols' injury situation worsens, and he is out of baseball in 3 years, 85% of you will talk about how you saw it coming, and that Pujols had to be older than he claimed, etc. Yet, at the same time, the most vocal on in this thread talk about him like he is one of the 10 greatest players ever. Not even close. (Bonds prior to the steroids is just outside of the top 10 for me, the era after that still has the jury out for me.). Lets give Pujols a few more years before we start crowning him. I am not saying he isn't good enough to belong in the top ten. But he hasn't proven himself an HOF player yet, and frankly, arguing that Hornsby wasn't better right now makes you look pretty silly. (P.S. Imagine you are from 1930, having watched Horsnby and Ruth and Gehring play....how arogant and elitist did most of you just sound in your arguments about Hornsby vs Pujols? Lets be fair, in 50 years, we'll get the same arguments about our players, and you know as well as I do, that it is BS)
thursday_13
College Coach
College Coach

User avatar

Posts: 100
Joined: 4 Sep 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Pujols at 2B?

Postby Slow Pitch » Wed Apr 23, 2008 11:26 am

I think the 'knowledable' members are being re-defined. :-?
Image
Slow Pitch
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 2395
Joined: 11 Apr 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Pujols at 2B?

Postby Matthias » Wed Apr 23, 2008 11:32 am

Nice post, Slow Pitch.

I'd add in that Branch Rickey is considered one of, if not the, most innovative GMs in the game's history and he started managing in 1919. Also another reason that HRs were low is because players pre-Ruth weren't swinging for them. I forget the exact reason they were discouraged, but Ruth went for the fences because he figured as a pitcher he didn't have much to lose. And then it caught on.
0-3 to 4-3. Worst choke in the history of baseball. Enough said.
Matthias
General Manager
General Manager


Posts: 4860
Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Pujols at 2B?

Postby J35J » Wed Apr 23, 2008 11:44 am

Slow Pitch wrote:I think the 'knowledable' members are being re-defined. :-?


Why? Because we are having a debate over something that can't be proven one way or another? This topic is just opinion and will always just be opinion. This is why I rarely even get involved in these debates its fun to talk about at times but really silly at the same time because there isn't anything that can be done to prove one way or another if a guy in 1920 is better or worse than a guy in 2010. Its funny that this topic alone redefines who's knowledgable or not.... :-?
J35J
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterPick 3 Weekly Winner
Posts: 10467
(Past Year: 363)
Joined: 26 Jan 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

PreviousNext

Return to Baseball Leftovers

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


  • Fantasy Baseball
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact