The GOAT debate and era/timeline adjustments

[RiceBondsMT2Yng]

Originally Posted by rman112

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.

I mean Steph Curry can barely dunk but I think he’s still a world class athlete in his own way. Barry Bonds could barely dunk too if you ever want to check out the vid. That helps your point.

I think the distinction is not as great as you say. Pardon me btw, I realize I misread your post. You were distinguishing between great athleticism and skill as an explanation for how extraordinary Ruth was. Not claiming that I said he wasn’t great.

I think most reasonable people would agree that his quality of competition was one of the things that tempers his legacy and colors his greatness.

[rman112]

Originally Posted by Skipscards

Ruth was an elite athlete.

At what point? I wouldn't consider someone with a gut an elite athlete. Not as baseball player, at least.

[rman112]

Originally Posted by RiceBondsMT2Yng

I mean Steph Curry can barely dunk but I think he’s still a world class athlete in his own way. Barry Bonds could barely dunk too if you ever want to check out the vid. That helps your point.

I think the distinction is not as great as you say. Pardon me btw, I realize I misread your post. You were distinguishing between great athleticism and skill as an explanation for how extraordinary Ruth was. Not claiming that I said he wasn’t great.

I think most reasonable people would agree that his quality of competition was one of the things that tempers his legacy and colors his greatness.

It's all good.

With Ruth though, even if the competition could've been better, he still did things that no one was coming close to previously. Mays, Bonds, Aaron, etc.. Trout now.. they never revolutionized the game in that way.

[WizardofOz1982]

Originally Posted by rman112

At what point? I wouldn't consider someone with a gut an elite athlete. Not as baseball player, at least.

Is Bartolo Colon an elite athlete? I'd argue he is, or at least was. Was Prince Fielder an elite athlete? Again I'd argue yes.

You can't do the things they did, make the athletic movements necessary to repeat a pitching deliver for instance, at that size without being an elite athlete. No they weren't physical specimens, more in line with what you're defining as an elite athlete, but did they possess elite athletic ability? Absolutely.

Balance, muscle control, hand eye coordination, etc. These guys all have those athletic abilities and facets at an elite level.

[Skipscards]

Originally Posted by rman112

At what point? I wouldn't consider someone with a gut an elite athlete. Not as baseball player, at least.

He didn’t always have a gut. In his 20s, Ruth wasn’t only cracking Homeruns, he was top 5-10 in triples several times and was a good fielder, with a great arm. The most common images of him are the movies from when he was in his 30s. He also swung a 50+ ounce bat. The strength it takes to swing a bat that heavy with the velocity he needed to swing it is pretty remarkable. Not too many modern players would able to wield lumber like that.

[rman112]

Originally Posted by WizardofOz1982

Is Bartolo Colon an elite athlete? I'd argue he is, or at least was. Was Prince Fielder an elite athlete? Again I'd argue yes.

You can't do the things they did, make the athletic movements necessary to repeat a pitching deliver for instance, at that size without being an elite athlete. No they weren't physical specimens, more in line with what you're defining as an elite athlete, but did they possess elite athletic ability? Absolutely.

Balance, muscle control, hand eye coordination, etc. These guys all have those athletic abilities and facets at an elite level.

Yeah, definitely agree to disagree.

With the fat guys, I'm going the Kruk quote route.

[Skipscards]

This man was elite...

[rman112]

Originally Posted by Skipscards

This man was elite...

I'm looking at pics dated 1927, where he's gotta have at least 40 more pounds. I don't think anyone is saying he wasn't in much better shape when he was younger.

[cardsin47]

Originally Posted by Skipscards

This man was elite...

Skipscards is ALWAYS right! ( FYI )

[Skipscards]

Originally Posted by rman112

I'm looking at pics dated 1927, where he's gotta have at least 40 more pounds. I don't think anyone is saying he wasn't in much better shape when he was younger.

Yeah, those are far more common so everyone has this picture in their head of Ruth with a gut. But he still had a lot of strength. I remember about 20 or 30 years ago, they had all-star mlb players trying to swing one of his bats. And they couldn’t believe it.

But in his 20s, he was just as elite an athlete as any other.

[Skipscards]

Originally Posted by cardsin47

Skipscards is ALWAYS right! ( FYI )

[Skipscards]

PS. It’s probably because I graduated from WMC.

[rman112]

Originally Posted by Skipscards

Yeah, those are far more common so everyone has this picture in their head of Ruth with a gut. But he still had a lot of strength. I remember about 20 or 30 years ago, they had all-star mlb players trying to swing one of his bats. And they could believe it.

But in his 20s, he was just as elite an athlete as any other.

Yeah, the bat thing is pretty ridiculous.

He's like Gwynn in the way that both are remembered as fat, but they weren't always like that. Both were still great, though, even as they got heavier. Maybe even better.

[Skipscards]

Originally Posted by rman112

Yeah, the bat thing is pretty ridiculous.

He's like Gwynn in the way that both are remembered as fat, but they weren't always like that. Both were still great, though, even as they got heavier. Maybe even better.

Yeah, Gwynn is a good example.

[Skipscards]

The reason Ruth is the greatest baseball player of all time is simply because his offensive numbers are as good or better than any player in history...and oh yeah, he won about 100 games as a pitcher. If they unfreeze Ted’s head one day, maybe he could come back as a robot and win 100 games to make it a conversation. Or perhaps mlb could decide to un-black-ball Bonds and he could start loosening up on the mound. Or maybe Trout is getting some tips from Ohtani and plans to finish his career with a pitching flourish. Until then, that really explains why he is most often cited as the greatest.

As for the rest, I’ve said this before, but it bears repeating. Every era has good and bad. Every era has flaws. Every era has advantages and disadvantages. Better to debate who was the greatest of each era and leave it at that.

[cardsin47]

Originally Posted by Skipscards

PS. It’s probably because I graduated from WMC.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stifle]

Originally Posted by GOATcards

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.

To be fair, isn’t sample size predicated on performance. Unlike the regular season, the players who are unable to capitalize in the playoffs in vital opportunities especially those that are of this caliber, will not receive many more opportunities. You have to earn opportunities by capitalizing on them.

As far as batting .300 in the playoffs as a measuring tool. I prefer WPA in the Playoffs. I don’t care if a batter forces a fielder to have to make a play and reaches base on a error and their BA takes a hit. If the batter helps increase the odds of winning, that is my measuring stick.

[RiceBondsMT2Yng]

Originally Posted by Stifle

To be fair, isn’t sample size predicated on performance. Unlike the regular season, the players who are unable to capitalize in the playoffs in vital opportunities especially those that are of this caliber, will not receive many more opportunities. You have to earn opportunities by capitalizing on them.

As far as batting .300 in the playoffs as a measuring tool. I prefer WPA in the Playoffs. I don’t care if a batter forces a fielder to have to make a play and reaches base on a error and their BA takes a hit. If the batter helps increase the odds of winning, that is my measuring stick.

This is baseball not tennis. Ted Williams says hello.

[Stifle]

Originally Posted by RiceBondsMT2Yng

This is baseball not tennis. Ted Williams says hello.

Todd Helton hears you loud and clear as one of the best 00-09 players of the decade at your 53.3 WAR. Though he did this in Playoffs.

WAR followers believe these situational performances are disregarded. I don’t believe that.
RISP 0-13. With 1 BB
RISP W/2 outs 0-6 1 BB
MOB 2-22 / 2 BB & a ROE so 5-24 reaching base safely.

But his WAR was great.

[RiceBondsMT2Yng]

Originally Posted by Stifle

Todd Helton hears you loud and clear as one of the best 00-09 players of the decade at your 53.3 WAR. Though he did this in Playoffs.

WAR followers believe these situational performances are disregarded. I don’t believe that.
RISP 0-13. With 1 BB
RISP W/2 outs 0-6 1 BB
MOB 2-22 / 2 BB & a ROE so 5-24 reaching base safely.

But his WAR was great.

You can go 0-13 RISP like 4 different times in a single regular season and still be a deserving all star. That's the point of calling out a low sample size. I don't disagree that playoff clutch performances matter. But what are you supposed to glean from that. Baseball is inherently streaky

[Stifle]

Originally Posted by RiceBondsMT2Yng

You can go 0-13 RISP like 4 different times in a single regular season and still be a deserving all star. That's the point of calling out a low sample size. I don't disagree that playoff clutch performances matter. But what are you supposed to glean from that. Baseball is inherently streaky

If you are stating that the opportunities are limited or the sample size is small, then I can show players who have much larger sample sizes because they did capitalize in the vital opportunities.

It’s not the size of the dog in the fight but the size of the fight in the dog. There isn’t “My Bad’s” at this time. You either perform or fail, opportunities are created by succeeding.

Failure doesn’t accumulate in the Post Season like WAR.

What is the combined WPA of the 5 players I have utilized stats of in the Post Season. These are 5 of the top 8 over the past 50 seasons in RISP during the regular season. Many are near or on the original list of decades GOAT’s.

[Skipscards]

Originally Posted by cardsin47

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Truth. Love Westminster.

[GOATcards]

Originally Posted by RiceBondsMT2Yng

You can go 0-13 RISP like 4 different times in a single regular season and still be a deserving all star. That's the point of calling out a low sample size. I don't disagree that playoff clutch performances matter. But what are you supposed to glean from that. Baseball is inherently streaky

I've seen this kind of debate for decades. There are those who simply refuse to accept this simple point, there's really no point in trying to change their minds, and they want badly to believe in this thing called "clutch ability" or similar euphemisms. They're typically of the same mentality that ascribes a lot of meaning to numbers like RBI and batting average, and denigrate more comprehensive measures like WAR (which don't purport to be perfect, just more comprehensive).

I brought up the sample-size issue just in case there are those who bring up postseason performances (in baseball, no less) who are open to having their minds changed. The postseason format in baseball is quite unlike those of basketball or hockey in that (a) baseball is streaky and (b) the percentage of a regular season that's a 4- to 7-game series in baseball is basically half that of a series in those other sports. (Football has the wonderful distinction of a 1-and-done format. If you want to minimize the chances of real postseason upsets (flukes), the basketball format is the way to go. I can't speak to the sport of hockey in terms of fluke opportunities. With the 8-team baseball playoff format of recent years, even the strongest team tends to have all of a 20-25% chance of winning the WS, i.e., of being crowned "the best.")

[jswest18]

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.

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 think there’s two different truths in this discussion. First, if baseball had been lucrative enough to allow players to be full time and make money comparable to today then I think there’s no question the talent pool would have been higher to some extent because it would have allowed more people to seek this as a full time profession and would have drawn people to play who might have had little interest otherwise. It would have likely elevated the “bottom level” talent to some degree and perhaps given us another player or two who would be considered all time greats. That doesn’t meant the all time greats from those eras were any less great though. I’m sure it might have made some impact on their overall stats but I’d be willing to guess that impact would have been marginal at best.

Second, you have to judge players in each era based on the circumstances they played in. Yes, players today can concentrate full time on their craft and hone it year round so it seems that the talent level is much higher today. But if baseball had been more lucrative in the 20s and had allowed for players to play full time and hone their skills then both the elite players and the “butchers and carpenters” the elite players in that era were able to feast on would have been able to hone their skills just as players today. They didn’t have that option though, neither the elite or the bottom level players, so we judge them based on what they did against the base line of that era. If a player in the 20s had the time, technology, and tools available to them then that players have today then there’s no reason to believe their skills would not translate and allow them to be similar players today as they were in their era.

[jswest18]

Originally Posted by GOATcards

I've seen this kind of debate for decades. There are those who simply refuse to accept this simple point, there's really no point in trying to change their minds, and they want badly to believe in this thing called "clutch ability" or similar euphemisms. They're typically of the same mentality that ascribes a lot of meaning to numbers like RBI and batting average, and denigrate more comprehensive measures like WAR (which don't purport to be perfect, just more comprehensive).

While I do think this term or idea is overplayed and given too much credence, it cant be completely dismissed either. This is a real thing to some degree. Some people perform better under pressure than others. It’s a reality in all walks of life. The playoffs are a different level of pressure than most regular season games. Some professional athletes are better at taking in the added pressure and adrenaline and performing better under those circumstances. A great example to me are the postseason performances of Smotz and Maddux. There’s no question that Maddux was the better pitcher but Smoltz was no question the better postseason pitcher. It’s well noted that Smoltz thrived in that atmosphere. Now it’s not like Maddux was bad in the postseason but he wasn’t at Smoltz’s level and there was enough of a sample size to support this.

Obviously this doesn’t mean that everyone who has had a bad postseason performance is not “clutch” or that a guy who has a good postseason performance is. Just because Trout had a bad performance in his one short postseason stint doesn’t mean he can’t be a great lost season player. It also doesn’t mean that a guy who has had a good postseason performance won’t have a bad one in his next opportunity. There are many factors in baseball that have to be considered as well (a bloop can win a World Series, i.e., Luis Gonzalez, and a blast can be hit right someone for an out). There’s a lot of noise in small sample sizes, especially in baseball, but there is still some truth to performance under pressure and pro athletes have consistently acknowledged this.