The GOAT debate and era/timeline adjustments

[Seitas]

But let’s be real, wouldn’t the talent level have been higher if everyone was allowed to play? That seems obvious. I don’t know how much, or even if, it effects WAR. But to dismiss that it impacted the talent pool and ultimately the level of play is just plain wrong.
Even if you only add josh Gibson and satchel and remove the two worst players in the league the talent pool gets better. Extrapolate that over even 20 players and the league and game is different.

[cardsin47]

Lots of “ifs” in this thread ( it’s basis ) - it makes an interesting read. The whole WAR adjustment idea is really impossible—- if players that never played each other really did play each other —- would effect much more then WAR —- like World Series / batting averages / W’s and L’s / HOF / where Teams are located ..... everything today would be completely different ( just think if the 2 worlds - real and “what if?” played out side by side in front of us, and we could watch both on a split screen - talk about revenue from Pay-per-view! )

There was a book or movie some time ago - time travelers went back to prehistoric times / they were warned not to change anything. One of them accidentally stepped on/killed a plant, which in turn fed one less dinosaur —— when they traveled back to the present, everything was different ... because of the ripple effect from that one dead plant (something like that )

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Seitas

But let’s be real, wouldn’t the talent level have been higher if everyone was allowed to play? That seems obvious. I don’t know how much, or even if, it effects WAR. But to dismiss that it impacted the talent pool and ultimately the level of play is just plain wrong.
Even if you only add josh Gibson and satchel and remove the two worst players in the league the talent pool gets better. Extrapolate that over even 20 players and the league and game is different.

No one knows that. There were 16 teams. Today there are 30. If baseball had never banned black players, how many teams are there at any point before 1961? You don't know that. This is just the same people inserting their political views into threads.

Since integration, there have been two black starting pitchers that have made the HOF. If he had been allowed to play Satchel Paige would have made three. Blacks make up 8% of MLB or 2 players per team. You really think there would have been that much difference and if there had been, more teams wouldn't have been added? WAR is a theoretical stat. This is all irrelevant to the OP.

[Stifle]

Some of the greatest players in recent memory past 50 years in RISP, MOB & RISP W/ 2 outs, and how they did in Post Season. Does GOAT just apply to regular season because I would want my GOAT to step up in the Post Season as well.

POST SEASON performances

RISP 1-9 RISP “Reaching base safely” 2-10 J. Mauer
RISP 0-9 RISP “Reaching base safely” 1-10 J. Votto
RISP 0-5 RISP “Reaching base safely” 1-6 R. Carew
RISP 7-23 RISP”Reaching base safely” 11-27 T. Gwynn

RISP W/2 outs 1-7 “Reaching Base safely” 1-7 J. Mauer
RISP W/2 outs 0-3 “Reaching base safely” 1-4 J. Votto
RISP W/2 outs 0-1 “Reaching base safely” 0-1 R. Carew
RISP W/2 outs 2-11 “Reaching base safely” 5-14 T. Gwynn

MOB 4-16 “Reaching base safely” 7-19 J. Mauer
MOB 4-18 “Reaching base safely” 7-21 J. Votto
MOB 1-13 “Reaching base safely” 3-14 R. Carew
MOB 13-41 “Reaching base safely” 19-46 T Gwynn

Look at each result and I’ll tell you Votto and Mauer were identical at losing 3 series and 1 losing a play-in game. Carew not much better. Gwynn much better but not Gwynn like.

I’ll let you see how Cabrera, Pujols and Ortiz performed in the playoffs and it’s unworldly in these situations.

Value is producing. Production “Runs crossing the plate” is a greater tool than accumulation “WAR”. It does take longer to apply.

[NYBBFAN]

Originally Posted by Chris Lyle

This thread would be a great discussion, but instead in turns into -isms and you don't understand, no you don't understand. Why can't there just be a conversation about baseball without it turning borderline political or whatever you want to call it??

Because this is the Internet in the smartphone era. Back in the days of just desktops, there were fewer morons on the Internet. I miss those days.

[chilly55]

Originally Posted by NYBBFAN

Because this is the Internet in the smartphone era. Back in the days of just desktops, there were fewer morons on the Internet. I miss those days.

You and me both. Now they let anyone on the internet.

[GOATcards]

Hey, I figured it might go without saying that in an era where MLB competition levels were lower than today, as evidenced by things like the color barrier, you'd see a greater spreading-out of performances, i.e., greater gaps between the top players and the next-best competitors, and so on all the way down to the replacement level. In the distribution of player performances, standard deviations would be wider back then than today. That kind of thing. You see this in the greater bunching-up closer to the replacement-level among the likes of Cano, Cabrera and Votto.

This is a discussion among experts, no?

[boston12]

No thanks

[GOATcards]

Originally Posted by boston12

No thanks

thanks for the contribution

[GOATcards]

Originally Posted by Stifle

Some of the greatest players in recent memory past 50 years in RISP, MOB & RISP W/ 2 outs, and how they did in Post Season. Does GOAT just apply to regular season because I would want my GOAT to step up in the Post Season as well.

POST SEASON performances

RISP 1-9 RISP “Reaching base safely” 2-10 J. Mauer
RISP 0-9 RISP “Reaching base safely” 1-10 J. Votto
RISP 0-5 RISP “Reaching base safely” 1-6 R. Carew
RISP 7-23 RISP”Reaching base safely” 11-27 T. Gwynn

RISP W/2 outs 1-7 “Reaching Base safely” 1-7 J. Mauer
RISP W/2 outs 0-3 “Reaching base safely” 1-4 J. Votto
RISP W/2 outs 0-1 “Reaching base safely” 0-1 R. Carew
RISP W/2 outs 2-11 “Reaching base safely” 5-14 T. Gwynn

MOB 4-16 “Reaching base safely” 7-19 J. Mauer
MOB 4-18 “Reaching base safely” 7-21 J. Votto
MOB 1-13 “Reaching base safely” 3-14 R. Carew
MOB 13-41 “Reaching base safely” 19-46 T Gwynn

Look at each result and I’ll tell you Votto and Mauer were identical at losing 3 series and 1 losing a play-in game. Carew not much better. Gwynn much better but not Gwynn like.

I’ll let you see how Cabrera, Pujols and Ortiz performed in the playoffs and it’s unworldly in these situations.

Value is producing. Production “Runs crossing the plate” is a greater tool than accumulation “WAR”. It does take longer to apply.

With postseason performances, particularly in baseball, the issue of sample size tends to come up. There also should be an adjustment for the caliber of competition faced so that we don't treat a .300 BA in the postseason the same as a .300 BA in the regular season.

[GOATcards]

Originally Posted by GOATcards

Hey, I figured it might go without saying that in an era where MLB competition levels were lower than today, as evidenced by things like the color barrier, you'd see a greater spreading-out of performances, i.e., greater gaps between the top players and the next-best competitors, and so on all the way down to the replacement level. In the distribution of player performances, standard deviations would be wider back then than today. That kind of thing. You see this in the greater bunching-up closer to the replacement-level among the likes of Cano, Cabrera and Votto.

This is a discussion among experts, no?

Also: I would think that, surely by 2020 or so, some statisticians would have run the numbers on the whole standard-deviation thing to give us a better idea of where relative to the distribution of performances a Trout compares with a Ruth? Anyone with some leads on where to look if this has been done? It should settle a lot of unknowns (but not all - e.g., fielding performance, as someone has mentioned) about who stands out the most in real terms.

I tout the Bambino as a GOAT in my .sig but I'm testing that proposition out against statistical tools that presumably could be applied across eras. (Still, I don't know how you'd quantify the fact that Ruth was a league-leading pitcher before becoming the Sultan of Swat. Is that sort of career even possibly repeatable today?)

[GOATcards]

In terms of top-10 WAR seasons at least, I think Mays' total of 100 could very well be comparable to Ruth's 115 when you consider that they played nearly 4 decades apart. It might also mean that Trout should already be considered at the level of these other two.

[RiceBondsMT2Yng]

Originally Posted by GOATcards

Also: I would think that, surely by 2020 or so, some statisticians would have run the numbers on the whole standard-deviation thing to give us a better idea of where relative to the distribution of performances a Trout compares with a Ruth? Anyone with some leads on where to look if this has been done? It should settle a lot of unknowns (but not all - e.g., fielding performance, as someone has mentioned) about who stands out the most in real terms.

I tout the Bambino as a GOAT in my .sig but I'm testing that proposition out against statistical tools that presumably could be applied across eras. (Still, I don't know how you'd quantify the fact that Ruth was a league-leading pitcher before becoming the Sultan of Swat. Is that sort of career even possibly repeatable today?)

I was hoping Ohtani would become a perennial all-star two-way threat to sort of see how we would slot a player like that into the all time lists. I don’t think there’s an easy way to do it right now. I also tend to think it’s easier to strike out butchers and carpenters who play baseball part time than it is to homer off them. Especially if you’re an elite athlete at the time like Ruth was. He was amazing but his quality of competition was probably laughably bad.

Someone mentioned the shortcomings of dwar to measure defensive value. Is there any merit to using TZR instead if that’s even feasible?

[rman112]

Originally Posted by RiceBondsMT2Yng

I was hoping Ohtani would become a perennial all-star two-way threat to sort of see how we would slot a player like that into the all time lists. I don’t think there’s an easy way to do it right now. I also tend to think it’s easier to strike out butchers and carpenters who play baseball part time than it is to homer off them. Especially if you’re an elite athlete at the time like Ruth was. He was amazing but his quality of competition was probably laughably bad.

Someone mentioned the shortcomings of dwar to measure defensive value. Is there any merit to using TZR instead if that’s even feasible?

You do realize players back then had offseason jobs because baseball didn't pay enough, right?

Or maybe we should refer to the following players as such:

Yogi - Suit Salesman that played baseball part time.

Rizzuto - Also suit sales man that played baseball part time.

Jim Palmer - Men's clothing salesman that played baseball part time.

Jackie Robinson - Appliance salesman that played baseball part time.

John McGraw - Vaudeville star that managed baseball part time.

Roy Campanella - Liquor store owner that played baseball part time.

Lou Brock - Flower store owner that played baseball part time.

Mordecai Brown - Coal miner who played baseball part time.

Christy Mathewson - Gas pump operator who played baseball part time.

Walter Johnson - Telephone company hole digger who played baseball part time.

Musial - Christmas tree salesman who played baseball part time.

Red Schoendienst, Marty Marion - Also Christmas tree salesmen who played baseball part time.

These aren't guys on the end of the bench who had to work other jobs. These are all-time greats.

[RiceBondsMT2Yng]

Originally Posted by rman112

You do realize players back then had offseason jobs because baseball didn't pay enough, right?

Or maybe we should refer to the following players as such:

Yogi - Suit Salesman that played baseball part time.

Rizzuto - Also suit sales man that played baseball part time.

Jim Palmer - Men's clothing salesman that played baseball part time.

Jackie Robinson - Appliance salesman that played baseball part time.

John McGraw - Vaudeville star that managed baseball part time.

Roy Campanella - Liquor store owner that played baseball part time.

Lou Brock - Flower store owner that played baseball part time.

Mordecai Brown - Coal miner who played baseball part time.

Christy Mathewson - Gas pump operator who played baseball part time.

Walter Johnson - Telephone company hole digger who played baseball part time.

Musial - Christmas tree salesman who played baseball part time.

Red Schoendienst, Marty Marion - Also Christmas tree salesmen who played baseball part time.

These aren't guys on the end of the bench who had to work other jobs. These are all-time greats.

Awesome info. I didn’t know all of that, no, but for everyone of these all time legends, there were hundreds who wouldn’t be able to keep up in a 24hr a day job in the sport honing their craft. No doubt those badasses could though.

[rman112]

Originally Posted by RiceBondsMT2Yng

Awesome info. I didn’t know all of that, no, but for everyone of these all time legends, there were hundreds who wouldn’t be able to keep up in a 24hr a day job in the sport honing their craft. No doubt those badasses could though.

The point is that the reason they had to is because baseball didn't pay anywhere near what it does now. Having another job doesn't relate whatsoever to their skill set on the field. It didn't make them any less of a good player. Now the worst players make $570,000 as the league minimum.

[RiceBondsMT2Yng]

Originally Posted by rman112

The point is that the reason they had to is because baseball didn't pay anywhere near what it does now. Having another job doesn't relate whatsoever to their skill set on the field. It didn't make them any less of a good player. Now the worst players make $570,000 as the league minimum.

So your theory is that if baseball was extremely well compensated back then, the only difference would be that the same population of players would forgo a second job. The money would not draw a more elite crop of talent if baseball were professionalized and lucrative?

[rman112]

Originally Posted by RiceBondsMT2Yng

So your theory is that if baseball was extremely well compensated back then, the only difference would be that the same population of players would forgo a second job. The money would not draw a more elite crop of talent if baseball were professionalized and lucrative?

I'm saying that working a non-baseball job while being an active ballplayer back then is not a detriment in the way that you implied.

[RiceBondsMT2Yng]

Originally Posted by rman112

I'm saying that working a non-baseball job while being an active ballplayer back then is not a detriment in the way that you implied.

I guess I read it differently. If baseball is a job that requires a real job in order to support it, then it’s akin to a paid hobby. Wouldn’t that tend not to draw the best talent Bc they could be working toward mastering a craft like stonemasonry or becoming a warrior in the military. They’re by far the more viable career paths.

Also, if you can make a comfortable living just playing baseball, then you would train harder to get yourself into better physical shape I would think.

You don’t believe both these factors put downward pressure on quality of competition?

[rman112]

Originally Posted by RiceBondsMT2Yng

I guess I read it differently. If baseball is a job that requires a real job in order to support it, then it’s akin to a paid hobby. Wouldn’t that tend not to draw the best talent Bc they could be working toward mastering a craft like stonemasonry or becoming a warrior in the military. They’re by far the more viable career paths.

Also, if you can make a comfortable living just playing baseball, then you would train harder to get yourself into better physical shape I would think.

You don’t believe both these factors put downward pressure on quality of competition?

This is a different argument than you originally made. Before, it was that competition was probably laughably bad because they were butchers and carpenters. Ruth wasn't great because he was an elite athlete. What he was was incredibly skilled. Big difference. And you didn't mention that he dominated in a way that is almost unbelievable, homering more than other teams and almost singlehandedly ending the deadball era.

[RiceBondsMT2Yng]

Originally Posted by rman112

This is a different argument than you originally made. Before, it was that competition was probably laughably bad because they were butchers and carpenters. Ruth wasn't great because he was an elite athlete. What he was was incredibly skilled. Big difference. And you didn't mention that he dominated in a way that is almost unbelievable, homering more than other teams and almost singlehandedly ending the deadball era.

Hold on, I’m trying to understand what you’re saying and discuss it. I’m not trying to win a pissing contest. I don’t need to twist your words so try not to misinterpret mine. I never said Ruth wasn’t great. If I did, show me where.

I did however say that he was an elite athlete. I believe deeply that he is probably the greatest of all time in any era, with Mays and Bonds being the other contenders. I’ve never thought or said anything differently.

That is separate from my point, which you haven’t even tried to address, that there were aspects to Ruth’s era that would make a not insignificant amount of competition laughably bad. I would argue that the vast majority was probably laughably bad. I’m sure that’s debatable.

Of course, all we really know is what someone else wrote in a book or said in a documentary. And maybe a grainy clip on YouTube here or there so let’s have some humility too about what it is we really know of some of these long dead legends.

Back to the point I was trying to make: I see it kind of like college football. The best are going to dominate the competition, and dominate any competition, but it’s not a league of world class. It’s a pool diluted heavily by art history majors.

[rman112]

Originally Posted by RiceBondsMT2Yng

Hold on, I’m trying to understand what you’re saying and discuss it. I’m not trying to win a pissing contest. I don’t need to twist your words so try not to misinterpret mine. I never said Ruth wasn’t great. If I did, show me where.

I did however say that he was an elite athlete. I believe deeply that he is probably the greatest of all time in any era, with Mays and Bonds being the other contenders. I’ve never thought or said anything differently.

That is separate from my point, which you haven’t even tried to address, that there were aspects to Ruth’s era that would make a not insignificant amount of competition laughably bad. I would argue that the vast majority was probably laughably bad. I’m sure that’s debatable.

Of course, all we really know is what someone else wrote in a book or said in a documentary. And maybe a grainy clip on YouTube here or there so let’s have some humility too about what it is we really know of some of these long dead legends.

Back to the point I was trying to make: I see it kind of like college football. The best are going to dominate the competition, and dominate any competition, but it’s not a league of world class. It’s a pool diluted heavily by art history majors.

Baseball is a game of skill, not athleticism. Joey Gathright was a great athlete. Ruth? Not really.

[RiceBondsMT2Yng]

Originally Posted by rman112

Baseball is a game of skill, not athleticism. Joey Gathright was a great athlete. Ruth? Not really.

That’s semantics. Are you saying you think baseball should rightfully be on ESPN 4 with bowling and pool?

[rman112]

Originally Posted by RiceBondsMT2Yng

That’s semantics. Are you saying you think baseball should rightfully be on ESPN 4 with bowling and pool?

No.... What?

But again, baseball is a game of skill. Being athletic on top of your skill set is obviously going to help, but simply being athletic isn't going to get you anywhere, either.

While it's true that Ruth wasn't the fatty that he is known as for his entire career, he wasn't an elite athlete. Mays, Mantle, Jackie Robinson.. those guys were elite athletes.

[Skipscards]

Originally Posted by rman112

Baseball is a game of skill, not athleticism. Joey Gathright was a great athlete. Ruth? Not really.

Ruth was an elite athlete.