Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever"
-
Here is where I differ in thinking, I look at over all stats and value stats different, I do not buy much into all the different formula's that someone came up with to calculate how good a career or season someone had such as WAR, WAR has some value but I believe it to be flawed and it is not be all end all and either are the other formulas people use. I do my own research, I read about players, I look at the stats that are valued at the time the the players played, Cobb and Ruth Careers crossed Paths. Cobb played most of his career in the dead ball era, Ruth is the big reason we have the modern day era. It makes since the metrics would favor Ruth with the power numbers. The top 3 Hitters in WAR are Ruth, Bonds, and Mays. Then it goes Cobb and Aaron. Based off WAR Cobb is better than Aaron a lot of people think Aaron is the best ever and certainly above Cobb.
-
@dbarmonstar_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
Here is where I differ in thinking, I look at over all stats and value stats different, I do not buy much into all the different formula's that someone came up with to calculate how good a career or season someone had such as WAR, WAR has some value but I believe it to be flawed and it is not be all end all and either are the other formulas people use. I do my own research, I read about players, I look at the stats that are valued at the time the the players played, Cobb and Ruth Careers crossed Paths. Cobb played most of his career in the dead ball era, Ruth is the big reason we have the modern day era. It makes since the metrics would favor Ruth with the power numbers.
Oh thanks for clarifying that you differ in thinking from the mathematicians who study and find the best formulas. If the goal of batting is to get on base, Ruth was more successful.
-
This thread needs to die already.
-
@kdclemson_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
@dbarmonstar_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
Here is where I differ in thinking, I look at over all stats and value stats different, I do not buy much into all the different formula's that someone came up with to calculate how good a career or season someone had such as WAR, WAR has some value but I believe it to be flawed and it is not be all end all and either are the other formulas people use. I do my own research, I read about players, I look at the stats that are valued at the time the the players played, Cobb and Ruth Careers crossed Paths. Cobb played most of his career in the dead ball era, Ruth is the big reason we have the modern day era. It makes since the metrics would favor Ruth with the power numbers.
Oh thanks for clarifying that you differ in thinking from the mathematicians who study and find the best formulas. If the goal of batting is to get on base, Ruth was more successful.
Again not just about batting, I do not care about mathematicians who know nothing about the game or the history of the game and how to value players in the time which they played.
-
@dbarmonstar_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
@kdclemson_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
@dbarmonstar_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
Here is where I differ in thinking, I look at over all stats and value stats different, I do not buy much into all the different formula's that someone came up with to calculate how good a career or season someone had such as WAR, WAR has some value but I believe it to be flawed and it is not be all end all and either are the other formulas people use. I do my own research, I read about players, I look at the stats that are valued at the time the the players played, Cobb and Ruth Careers crossed Paths. Cobb played most of his career in the dead ball era, Ruth is the big reason we have the modern day era. It makes since the metrics would favor Ruth with the power numbers.
Oh thanks for clarifying that you differ in thinking from the mathematicians who study and find the best formulas. If the goal of batting is to get on base, Ruth was more successful.
Again not just about batting, I do not care about mathematicians who know nothing about the game or the history of the game and how to value players in the time which they played.
Not only is it untrue that they know nothing about the game, they know significantly more about it than you do
-
@bob_loblaw1984 said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
This thread needs to die already.
You are right, I am out.
-
Out of rate stats, Cobb leads in batting average.
Ruth leads in OBP, OPS, SLG, OPS+, wRC+, (oWAR, dWAR)*
*WAR non rate
-
@dbarmonstar_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
@dewrock_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
@dbarmonstar_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
@jogger171717_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
@dbarmonstar_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
@jogger171717_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
@dbarmonstar_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
@jogger171717_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
@dbarmonstar_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
@jogger171717_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
@dbarmonstar_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
@dewrock_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
@kdclemson_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
If it was 180 WAR to 175 maybe you’d have some credibly but it’s literally a huge gap and then when anybody tries to explain to you how your argument has holes and can be proven to be a poor argument you just yell that it’s your opinion and can’t possibly be wrong
Yeah it is a decent sized gap and Cobb played a lot more games and had a lot more plate appearances.
WAR aside, it is a lot closer of a debate.
That is what makes his avg and hits and how many times he struck out more impressive with that many PA and GP he hit over .300 23 straight years, had over 200 hits 8 season over .400 avg 3 times.
Even with all of that, we have wRC+ to tell us that Ruth just mashing HR after HR was overall more productive.
I am not going to get into all of that, there is no point on which you do not understand what it means to be the best ALL AROUND player. Cobb was the best hitter ever, Ruth was one of the Best power Hitters of all time the best is debatable, COBB is the Best ALL AROUND player ever IMO.
wRC+ literally tells us that Ruth was the better offensive player, period. Sometimes contact and speed is better, sometimes power is better. In this case, we can clearly see that Ruth’s power made him the better offensive player as opposed to Cobb’s contact and speed.
wRC+ is why we’re able to compare David fletcher to Joey Gallo, and determine Gallo has been a much better offensive player this year, despite fletcher having a .291 average and Gallo having a .201 average.
The best player ever is not just hitting it overall , COBB was the BETTER player that is what I think you can think Ruth and that is ok.
Except the very best available metrics we have for both total overall value and offensive production say that Ruth was better.
We are not talking just offensively we are talking best ever player COBB was a better hitter than Ruth, was faster better baserunner there is more to baseball than hitting HR's. Cobb had the better arm. Cobb played the Outfield for 24 years. Was the leader in SB until 1985. I know SB does not mean anything now but it did back than. I do not need Metrics to tell me who the better hitter was or who was faster, better arm and in the field. COBB ALL AROUND was the better player.
I really can’t tell if you’re serious now or not.
wRC+ and fWAR take everything you’ve been saying into account, via one or the other.
wRC+ tells us Ruth was the better offensive player, fWAR tells us Ruth was also the better overall player. It’s really not that complicated.
You trying to tell me the metrics says Ruth was better Outfielder had a better arm and was better on the bases and had more speed. Realist you are using a formula to decide for you, I am using facts and what I have researched know about the two players. No way Ruth was a better hitter, Power yes hitter no. Speed not even close, arm no way, Fielding NO, Ruth played First as well as the outfield. COBB only played the OutField, I will take Cobb over Ruth. You can look at what ever formula and metrics you want. I will look at the stats. At the end day it all what you think based on the information and stats that we have.
That's a strawman. They don't have to say that and I don't think anyone is claiming that. They do take all those factors in determining the overall value. The best stats we have for determining that, say Ruth was better overall.
It is a man made formula that weight more in the favor of a power hitter and we know speed or SB is not valued like it was then, that has been said and proven that SB do not help teams win because the percentage of SB does not match what it should in RS or something along those lines that has to do with the HR in today's game where is in Cobb time SB and Speed was highly valued . Does that make since. I understand we have all these formulas not to calculate players from now to the pass but those formulas to not weight the type of players that were valued or looked at the way they are now. How much weight of value goes into each stat of the value of a player. Maybe I am wrong in some of this way of thinking but I do know 100 percent that the SB in today's game long with the SAC bunt hold very little value that is what the metric say but in those times that was not the case.
There's a reason it's not valued anymore. Just because they were highly valued in his time, doesn't mean they should have been. The cost to getting caught stealing far outweighs the benefit of not getting caught. That's why players don't do it as much anymore. That being said, Cobb was very successful at stealing bases. You seem to be putting to much emphasis on a stat that analytics say is not an overall worthwhile risk to take, when the main goal of baseball is to score more runs than the other team.
-
@dbarmonstar_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
Here is where I differ in thinking, I look at over all stats and value stats different, I do not buy much into all the different formula's that someone came up with to calculate how good a career or season someone had such as WAR, WAR has some value but I believe it to be flawed and it is not be all end all and either are the other formulas people use. I do my own research, I read about players, I look at the stats that are valued at the time the the players played, Cobb and Ruth Careers crossed Paths. Cobb played most of his career in the dead ball era, Ruth is the big reason we have the modern day era. It makes since the metrics would favor Ruth with the power numbers. The top 3 Hitters in WAR are Ruth, Bonds, and Mays. Then it goes Cobb and Aaron. Based off WAR Cobb is better than Aaron a lot of people think Aaron is the best ever and certainly above Cobb.
But the point of stats like WAR is to show how valuable the player was when taking into account his overall counting stats like batting average, hits, HRs, etc and then adding more context to them.
-
@dbarmonstar_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
@kdclemson_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
@dbarmonstar_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
Here is where I differ in thinking, I look at over all stats and value stats different, I do not buy much into all the different formula's that someone came up with to calculate how good a career or season someone had such as WAR, WAR has some value but I believe it to be flawed and it is not be all end all and either are the other formulas people use. I do my own research, I read about players, I look at the stats that are valued at the time the the players played, Cobb and Ruth Careers crossed Paths. Cobb played most of his career in the dead ball era, Ruth is the big reason we have the modern day era. It makes since the metrics would favor Ruth with the power numbers.
Oh thanks for clarifying that you differ in thinking from the mathematicians who study and find the best formulas. If the goal of batting is to get on base, Ruth was more successful.
Again not just about batting, I do not care about mathematicians who know nothing about the game or the history of the game and how to value players in the time which they played.
You don't honestly believe this do you?
-
@dewrock_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
@dbarmonstar_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
@dewrock_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
@dbarmonstar_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
@jogger171717_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
@dbarmonstar_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
@jogger171717_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
@dbarmonstar_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
@jogger171717_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
@dbarmonstar_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
@jogger171717_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
@dbarmonstar_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
@dewrock_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
@kdclemson_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
If it was 180 WAR to 175 maybe you’d have some credibly but it’s literally a huge gap and then when anybody tries to explain to you how your argument has holes and can be proven to be a poor argument you just yell that it’s your opinion and can’t possibly be wrong
Yeah it is a decent sized gap and Cobb played a lot more games and had a lot more plate appearances.
WAR aside, it is a lot closer of a debate.
That is what makes his avg and hits and how many times he struck out more impressive with that many PA and GP he hit over .300 23 straight years, had over 200 hits 8 season over .400 avg 3 times.
Even with all of that, we have wRC+ to tell us that Ruth just mashing HR after HR was overall more productive.
I am not going to get into all of that, there is no point on which you do not understand what it means to be the best ALL AROUND player. Cobb was the best hitter ever, Ruth was one of the Best power Hitters of all time the best is debatable, COBB is the Best ALL AROUND player ever IMO.
wRC+ literally tells us that Ruth was the better offensive player, period. Sometimes contact and speed is better, sometimes power is better. In this case, we can clearly see that Ruth’s power made him the better offensive player as opposed to Cobb’s contact and speed.
wRC+ is why we’re able to compare David fletcher to Joey Gallo, and determine Gallo has been a much better offensive player this year, despite fletcher having a .291 average and Gallo having a .201 average.
The best player ever is not just hitting it overall , COBB was the BETTER player that is what I think you can think Ruth and that is ok.
Except the very best available metrics we have for both total overall value and offensive production say that Ruth was better.
We are not talking just offensively we are talking best ever player COBB was a better hitter than Ruth, was faster better baserunner there is more to baseball than hitting HR's. Cobb had the better arm. Cobb played the Outfield for 24 years. Was the leader in SB until 1985. I know SB does not mean anything now but it did back than. I do not need Metrics to tell me who the better hitter was or who was faster, better arm and in the field. COBB ALL AROUND was the better player.
I really can’t tell if you’re serious now or not.
wRC+ and fWAR take everything you’ve been saying into account, via one or the other.
wRC+ tells us Ruth was the better offensive player, fWAR tells us Ruth was also the better overall player. It’s really not that complicated.
You trying to tell me the metrics says Ruth was better Outfielder had a better arm and was better on the bases and had more speed. Realist you are using a formula to decide for you, I am using facts and what I have researched know about the two players. No way Ruth was a better hitter, Power yes hitter no. Speed not even close, arm no way, Fielding NO, Ruth played First as well as the outfield. COBB only played the OutField, I will take Cobb over Ruth. You can look at what ever formula and metrics you want. I will look at the stats. At the end day it all what you think based on the information and stats that we have.
That's a strawman. They don't have to say that and I don't think anyone is claiming that. They do take all those factors in determining the overall value. The best stats we have for determining that, say Ruth was better overall.
It is a man made formula that weight more in the favor of a power hitter and we know speed or SB is not valued like it was then, that has been said and proven that SB do not help teams win because the percentage of SB does not match what it should in RS or something along those lines that has to do with the HR in today's game where is in Cobb time SB and Speed was highly valued . Does that make since. I understand we have all these formulas not to calculate players from now to the pass but those formulas to not weight the type of players that were valued or looked at the way they are now. How much weight of value goes into each stat of the value of a player. Maybe I am wrong in some of this way of thinking but I do know 100 percent that the SB in today's game long with the SAC bunt hold very little value that is what the metric say but in those times that was not the case.
There's a reason it's not valued anymore. Just because they were highly valued in his time, doesn't mean they should have been. The cost to getting caught stealing far outweighs the benefit of not getting caught. That's why players don't do it as much anymore. That being said, Cobb was very successful at stealing bases. You seem to be putting to much emphasis on a stat that analytics say is not an overall worthwhile risk to take, when the main goal of baseball is to score more runs than the other team.
That may be true as a whole but I am looking at the value of COBB the metrics do not show the value of his true ability as a base runner, the man stold home 54 times, in the dead ball era guys were not hitting the ball out of the park like they do now or since Ruth started to do so. To degrade the value overall I get it but in the dead ball ear that was a big part of the game to score runs. Cobb would go from first to third on a sac bun, That is the problem I have with the metrics as it does not value the dead ball era players correctly. For guys that were actually successful doing it it was a value, Take the 87 Cardinals the only power hitter they had was Jack clark, They got to got to and won the WS on hitting and speed not on power. Teams do not build teams like that anymore because of saber metrics. Lou Brock, Henderson holds the record for RS part of that is his value of SB.
Yes I put value in what Cobb did on the bases He, Cobb was one of if not the first Superstar of baseball. Metrics does not support the way Cobb played.
-
@dbarmonstar_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
@dewrock_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
@dbarmonstar_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
@dewrock_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
@dbarmonstar_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
@jogger171717_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
@dbarmonstar_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
@jogger171717_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
@dbarmonstar_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
@jogger171717_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
@dbarmonstar_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
@jogger171717_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
@dbarmonstar_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
@dewrock_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
@kdclemson_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
If it was 180 WAR to 175 maybe you’d have some credibly but it’s literally a huge gap and then when anybody tries to explain to you how your argument has holes and can be proven to be a poor argument you just yell that it’s your opinion and can’t possibly be wrong
Yeah it is a decent sized gap and Cobb played a lot more games and had a lot more plate appearances.
WAR aside, it is a lot closer of a debate.
That is what makes his avg and hits and how many times he struck out more impressive with that many PA and GP he hit over .300 23 straight years, had over 200 hits 8 season over .400 avg 3 times.
Even with all of that, we have wRC+ to tell us that Ruth just mashing HR after HR was overall more productive.
I am not going to get into all of that, there is no point on which you do not understand what it means to be the best ALL AROUND player. Cobb was the best hitter ever, Ruth was one of the Best power Hitters of all time the best is debatable, COBB is the Best ALL AROUND player ever IMO.
wRC+ literally tells us that Ruth was the better offensive player, period. Sometimes contact and speed is better, sometimes power is better. In this case, we can clearly see that Ruth’s power made him the better offensive player as opposed to Cobb’s contact and speed.
wRC+ is why we’re able to compare David fletcher to Joey Gallo, and determine Gallo has been a much better offensive player this year, despite fletcher having a .291 average and Gallo having a .201 average.
The best player ever is not just hitting it overall , COBB was the BETTER player that is what I think you can think Ruth and that is ok.
Except the very best available metrics we have for both total overall value and offensive production say that Ruth was better.
We are not talking just offensively we are talking best ever player COBB was a better hitter than Ruth, was faster better baserunner there is more to baseball than hitting HR's. Cobb had the better arm. Cobb played the Outfield for 24 years. Was the leader in SB until 1985. I know SB does not mean anything now but it did back than. I do not need Metrics to tell me who the better hitter was or who was faster, better arm and in the field. COBB ALL AROUND was the better player.
I really can’t tell if you’re serious now or not.
wRC+ and fWAR take everything you’ve been saying into account, via one or the other.
wRC+ tells us Ruth was the better offensive player, fWAR tells us Ruth was also the better overall player. It’s really not that complicated.
You trying to tell me the metrics says Ruth was better Outfielder had a better arm and was better on the bases and had more speed. Realist you are using a formula to decide for you, I am using facts and what I have researched know about the two players. No way Ruth was a better hitter, Power yes hitter no. Speed not even close, arm no way, Fielding NO, Ruth played First as well as the outfield. COBB only played the OutField, I will take Cobb over Ruth. You can look at what ever formula and metrics you want. I will look at the stats. At the end day it all what you think based on the information and stats that we have.
That's a strawman. They don't have to say that and I don't think anyone is claiming that. They do take all those factors in determining the overall value. The best stats we have for determining that, say Ruth was better overall.
It is a man made formula that weight more in the favor of a power hitter and we know speed or SB is not valued like it was then, that has been said and proven that SB do not help teams win because the percentage of SB does not match what it should in RS or something along those lines that has to do with the HR in today's game where is in Cobb time SB and Speed was highly valued . Does that make since. I understand we have all these formulas not to calculate players from now to the pass but those formulas to not weight the type of players that were valued or looked at the way they are now. How much weight of value goes into each stat of the value of a player. Maybe I am wrong in some of this way of thinking but I do know 100 percent that the SB in today's game long with the SAC bunt hold very little value that is what the metric say but in those times that was not the case.
There's a reason it's not valued anymore. Just because they were highly valued in his time, doesn't mean they should have been. The cost to getting caught stealing far outweighs the benefit of not getting caught. That's why players don't do it as much anymore. That being said, Cobb was very successful at stealing bases. You seem to be putting to much emphasis on a stat that analytics say is not an overall worthwhile risk to take, when the main goal of baseball is to score more runs than the other team.
That may be true as a whole but I am looking at the value of COBB the metrics do not show the value of his true ability as a base runner, the man stold home 54 times, in the dead ball era guys were not hitting the ball out of the park like they do now or since Ruth started to do so. To degrade the value overall I get it but in the dead ball ear that was a big part of the game to score runs. Cobb would go from first to third on a sac bun, That is the problem I have with the metrics as it does not value the dead ball era players correctly. For guys that were actually successful doing it it was a value, Take the 87 Cardinals the only power hitter they had was Jack clark, They got to got to and won the WS on hitting and speed not on power. Teams do not build teams like that anymore because of saber metrics. Lou Brock, Henderson holds the record for RS part of that is his value of SB.
Yes I put value in what Cobb did on the bases He, Cobb was one of if not the first Superstar of baseball. Metrics does not support the way Cobb played.
They also were able to play with speed more back in the 70s/80s because of the ballparks. The astroturf and carpets allowed faster players to steal successfully more often. Running on controlled surfaces, and without dirt, made speed even more effective. Theres a reason Henderson, Brock, McGee, Raines, and even players like Gwynn, etc stole more back then. It was because of the track conditions. I dont think they were necessarily valued higher, it was that the conditions allowed for more success because so many ballparks had turf.
-
@dewrock_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
@dbarmonstar_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
@kdclemson_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
@dbarmonstar_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
Here is where I differ in thinking, I look at over all stats and value stats different, I do not buy much into all the different formula's that someone came up with to calculate how good a career or season someone had such as WAR, WAR has some value but I believe it to be flawed and it is not be all end all and either are the other formulas people use. I do my own research, I read about players, I look at the stats that are valued at the time the the players played, Cobb and Ruth Careers crossed Paths. Cobb played most of his career in the dead ball era, Ruth is the big reason we have the modern day era. It makes since the metrics would favor Ruth with the power numbers.
Oh thanks for clarifying that you differ in thinking from the mathematicians who study and find the best formulas. If the goal of batting is to get on base, Ruth was more successful.
Again not just about batting, I do not care about mathematicians who know nothing about the game or the history of the game and how to value players in the time which they played.
You don't honestly believe this do you?
only the pare of they did not value the players in which the time they played. i just did not care for KDClemons.
-
@dbarmonstar_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
@dewrock_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
@dbarmonstar_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
@dewrock_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
@dbarmonstar_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
@jogger171717_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
@dbarmonstar_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
@jogger171717_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
@dbarmonstar_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
@jogger171717_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
@dbarmonstar_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
@jogger171717_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
@dbarmonstar_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
@dewrock_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
@kdclemson_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
If it was 180 WAR to 175 maybe you’d have some credibly but it’s literally a huge gap and then when anybody tries to explain to you how your argument has holes and can be proven to be a poor argument you just yell that it’s your opinion and can’t possibly be wrong
Yeah it is a decent sized gap and Cobb played a lot more games and had a lot more plate appearances.
WAR aside, it is a lot closer of a debate.
That is what makes his avg and hits and how many times he struck out more impressive with that many PA and GP he hit over .300 23 straight years, had over 200 hits 8 season over .400 avg 3 times.
Even with all of that, we have wRC+ to tell us that Ruth just mashing HR after HR was overall more productive.
I am not going to get into all of that, there is no point on which you do not understand what it means to be the best ALL AROUND player. Cobb was the best hitter ever, Ruth was one of the Best power Hitters of all time the best is debatable, COBB is the Best ALL AROUND player ever IMO.
wRC+ literally tells us that Ruth was the better offensive player, period. Sometimes contact and speed is better, sometimes power is better. In this case, we can clearly see that Ruth’s power made him the better offensive player as opposed to Cobb’s contact and speed.
wRC+ is why we’re able to compare David fletcher to Joey Gallo, and determine Gallo has been a much better offensive player this year, despite fletcher having a .291 average and Gallo having a .201 average.
The best player ever is not just hitting it overall , COBB was the BETTER player that is what I think you can think Ruth and that is ok.
Except the very best available metrics we have for both total overall value and offensive production say that Ruth was better.
We are not talking just offensively we are talking best ever player COBB was a better hitter than Ruth, was faster better baserunner there is more to baseball than hitting HR's. Cobb had the better arm. Cobb played the Outfield for 24 years. Was the leader in SB until 1985. I know SB does not mean anything now but it did back than. I do not need Metrics to tell me who the better hitter was or who was faster, better arm and in the field. COBB ALL AROUND was the better player.
I really can’t tell if you’re serious now or not.
wRC+ and fWAR take everything you’ve been saying into account, via one or the other.
wRC+ tells us Ruth was the better offensive player, fWAR tells us Ruth was also the better overall player. It’s really not that complicated.
You trying to tell me the metrics says Ruth was better Outfielder had a better arm and was better on the bases and had more speed. Realist you are using a formula to decide for you, I am using facts and what I have researched know about the two players. No way Ruth was a better hitter, Power yes hitter no. Speed not even close, arm no way, Fielding NO, Ruth played First as well as the outfield. COBB only played the OutField, I will take Cobb over Ruth. You can look at what ever formula and metrics you want. I will look at the stats. At the end day it all what you think based on the information and stats that we have.
That's a strawman. They don't have to say that and I don't think anyone is claiming that. They do take all those factors in determining the overall value. The best stats we have for determining that, say Ruth was better overall.
It is a man made formula that weight more in the favor of a power hitter and we know speed or SB is not valued like it was then, that has been said and proven that SB do not help teams win because the percentage of SB does not match what it should in RS or something along those lines that has to do with the HR in today's game where is in Cobb time SB and Speed was highly valued . Does that make since. I understand we have all these formulas not to calculate players from now to the pass but those formulas to not weight the type of players that were valued or looked at the way they are now. How much weight of value goes into each stat of the value of a player. Maybe I am wrong in some of this way of thinking but I do know 100 percent that the SB in today's game long with the SAC bunt hold very little value that is what the metric say but in those times that was not the case.
There's a reason it's not valued anymore. Just because they were highly valued in his time, doesn't mean they should have been. The cost to getting caught stealing far outweighs the benefit of not getting caught. That's why players don't do it as much anymore. That being said, Cobb was very successful at stealing bases. You seem to be putting to much emphasis on a stat that analytics say is not an overall worthwhile risk to take, when the main goal of baseball is to score more runs than the other team.
That may be true as a whole but I am looking at the value of COBB the metrics do not show the value of his true ability as a base runner, the man stold home 54 times, in the dead ball era guys were not hitting the ball out of the park like they do now or since Ruth started to do so. To degrade the value overall I get it but in the dead ball ear that was a big part of the game to score runs. Cobb would go from first to third on a sac bun, That is the problem I have with the metrics as it does not value the dead ball era players correctly. For guys that were actually successful doing it it was a value, Take the 87 Cardinals the only power hitter they had was Jack clark, They got to got to and won the WS on hitting and speed not on power. Teams do not build teams like that anymore because of saber metrics. Lou Brock, Henderson holds the record for RS part of that is his value of SB.
Yes I put value in what Cobb did on the bases He, Cobb was one of if not the first Superstar of baseball. Metrics does not support the way Cobb played.
I thought you were done lol
Is it at all possible maybe YOU have overvaluing certain aspects of the game and not the mathematicians who calculate these stats?
-
@poksey_mlbts said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
@dbarmonstar_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
@dewrock_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
@dbarmonstar_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
@dewrock_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
@dbarmonstar_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
@jogger171717_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
@dbarmonstar_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
@jogger171717_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
@dbarmonstar_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
@jogger171717_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
@dbarmonstar_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
@jogger171717_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
@dbarmonstar_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
@dewrock_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
@kdclemson_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
If it was 180 WAR to 175 maybe you’d have some credibly but it’s literally a huge gap and then when anybody tries to explain to you how your argument has holes and can be proven to be a poor argument you just yell that it’s your opinion and can’t possibly be wrong
Yeah it is a decent sized gap and Cobb played a lot more games and had a lot more plate appearances.
WAR aside, it is a lot closer of a debate.
That is what makes his avg and hits and how many times he struck out more impressive with that many PA and GP he hit over .300 23 straight years, had over 200 hits 8 season over .400 avg 3 times.
Even with all of that, we have wRC+ to tell us that Ruth just mashing HR after HR was overall more productive.
I am not going to get into all of that, there is no point on which you do not understand what it means to be the best ALL AROUND player. Cobb was the best hitter ever, Ruth was one of the Best power Hitters of all time the best is debatable, COBB is the Best ALL AROUND player ever IMO.
wRC+ literally tells us that Ruth was the better offensive player, period. Sometimes contact and speed is better, sometimes power is better. In this case, we can clearly see that Ruth’s power made him the better offensive player as opposed to Cobb’s contact and speed.
wRC+ is why we’re able to compare David fletcher to Joey Gallo, and determine Gallo has been a much better offensive player this year, despite fletcher having a .291 average and Gallo having a .201 average.
The best player ever is not just hitting it overall , COBB was the BETTER player that is what I think you can think Ruth and that is ok.
Except the very best available metrics we have for both total overall value and offensive production say that Ruth was better.
We are not talking just offensively we are talking best ever player COBB was a better hitter than Ruth, was faster better baserunner there is more to baseball than hitting HR's. Cobb had the better arm. Cobb played the Outfield for 24 years. Was the leader in SB until 1985. I know SB does not mean anything now but it did back than. I do not need Metrics to tell me who the better hitter was or who was faster, better arm and in the field. COBB ALL AROUND was the better player.
I really can’t tell if you’re serious now or not.
wRC+ and fWAR take everything you’ve been saying into account, via one or the other.
wRC+ tells us Ruth was the better offensive player, fWAR tells us Ruth was also the better overall player. It’s really not that complicated.
You trying to tell me the metrics says Ruth was better Outfielder had a better arm and was better on the bases and had more speed. Realist you are using a formula to decide for you, I am using facts and what I have researched know about the two players. No way Ruth was a better hitter, Power yes hitter no. Speed not even close, arm no way, Fielding NO, Ruth played First as well as the outfield. COBB only played the OutField, I will take Cobb over Ruth. You can look at what ever formula and metrics you want. I will look at the stats. At the end day it all what you think based on the information and stats that we have.
That's a strawman. They don't have to say that and I don't think anyone is claiming that. They do take all those factors in determining the overall value. The best stats we have for determining that, say Ruth was better overall.
It is a man made formula that weight more in the favor of a power hitter and we know speed or SB is not valued like it was then, that has been said and proven that SB do not help teams win because the percentage of SB does not match what it should in RS or something along those lines that has to do with the HR in today's game where is in Cobb time SB and Speed was highly valued . Does that make since. I understand we have all these formulas not to calculate players from now to the pass but those formulas to not weight the type of players that were valued or looked at the way they are now. How much weight of value goes into each stat of the value of a player. Maybe I am wrong in some of this way of thinking but I do know 100 percent that the SB in today's game long with the SAC bunt hold very little value that is what the metric say but in those times that was not the case.
There's a reason it's not valued anymore. Just because they were highly valued in his time, doesn't mean they should have been. The cost to getting caught stealing far outweighs the benefit of not getting caught. That's why players don't do it as much anymore. That being said, Cobb was very successful at stealing bases. You seem to be putting to much emphasis on a stat that analytics say is not an overall worthwhile risk to take, when the main goal of baseball is to score more runs than the other team.
That may be true as a whole but I am looking at the value of COBB the metrics do not show the value of his true ability as a base runner, the man stold home 54 times, in the dead ball era guys were not hitting the ball out of the park like they do now or since Ruth started to do so. To degrade the value overall I get it but in the dead ball ear that was a big part of the game to score runs. Cobb would go from first to third on a sac bun, That is the problem I have with the metrics as it does not value the dead ball era players correctly. For guys that were actually successful doing it it was a value, Take the 87 Cardinals the only power hitter they had was Jack clark, They got to got to and won the WS on hitting and speed not on power. Teams do not build teams like that anymore because of saber metrics. Lou Brock, Henderson holds the record for RS part of that is his value of SB.
Yes I put value in what Cobb did on the bases He, Cobb was one of if not the first Superstar of baseball. Metrics does not support the way Cobb played.
They also were able to play with speed more back in the 70s/80s because of the ballparks. The astroturf and carpets allowed faster players to steal successfully more often. Running on controlled surfaces, and without dirt, made speed even more effective. Theres a reason Henderson, Brock, McGee, Raines, and even players like Gwynn, etc stole more back then. It was because of the track conditions. I dont think they were necessarily valued higher, it was that the conditions allowed for more success because so many ballparks had turf.
With more success comes the value that it had, I get the overall players percentage of SB is not to be valued but the players that were able to were value that discredit them from the metrics because the get looped in with all the unsucess as a whole of what speed could do in those days.
-
@dbarmonstar_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
@poksey_mlbts said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
@dbarmonstar_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
@dewrock_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
@dbarmonstar_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
@dewrock_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
@dbarmonstar_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
@jogger171717_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
@dbarmonstar_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
@jogger171717_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
@dbarmonstar_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
@jogger171717_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
@dbarmonstar_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
@jogger171717_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
@dbarmonstar_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
@dewrock_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
@kdclemson_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
If it was 180 WAR to 175 maybe you’d have some credibly but it’s literally a huge gap and then when anybody tries to explain to you how your argument has holes and can be proven to be a poor argument you just yell that it’s your opinion and can’t possibly be wrong
Yeah it is a decent sized gap and Cobb played a lot more games and had a lot more plate appearances.
WAR aside, it is a lot closer of a debate.
That is what makes his avg and hits and how many times he struck out more impressive with that many PA and GP he hit over .300 23 straight years, had over 200 hits 8 season over .400 avg 3 times.
Even with all of that, we have wRC+ to tell us that Ruth just mashing HR after HR was overall more productive.
I am not going to get into all of that, there is no point on which you do not understand what it means to be the best ALL AROUND player. Cobb was the best hitter ever, Ruth was one of the Best power Hitters of all time the best is debatable, COBB is the Best ALL AROUND player ever IMO.
wRC+ literally tells us that Ruth was the better offensive player, period. Sometimes contact and speed is better, sometimes power is better. In this case, we can clearly see that Ruth’s power made him the better offensive player as opposed to Cobb’s contact and speed.
wRC+ is why we’re able to compare David fletcher to Joey Gallo, and determine Gallo has been a much better offensive player this year, despite fletcher having a .291 average and Gallo having a .201 average.
The best player ever is not just hitting it overall , COBB was the BETTER player that is what I think you can think Ruth and that is ok.
Except the very best available metrics we have for both total overall value and offensive production say that Ruth was better.
We are not talking just offensively we are talking best ever player COBB was a better hitter than Ruth, was faster better baserunner there is more to baseball than hitting HR's. Cobb had the better arm. Cobb played the Outfield for 24 years. Was the leader in SB until 1985. I know SB does not mean anything now but it did back than. I do not need Metrics to tell me who the better hitter was or who was faster, better arm and in the field. COBB ALL AROUND was the better player.
I really can’t tell if you’re serious now or not.
wRC+ and fWAR take everything you’ve been saying into account, via one or the other.
wRC+ tells us Ruth was the better offensive player, fWAR tells us Ruth was also the better overall player. It’s really not that complicated.
You trying to tell me the metrics says Ruth was better Outfielder had a better arm and was better on the bases and had more speed. Realist you are using a formula to decide for you, I am using facts and what I have researched know about the two players. No way Ruth was a better hitter, Power yes hitter no. Speed not even close, arm no way, Fielding NO, Ruth played First as well as the outfield. COBB only played the OutField, I will take Cobb over Ruth. You can look at what ever formula and metrics you want. I will look at the stats. At the end day it all what you think based on the information and stats that we have.
That's a strawman. They don't have to say that and I don't think anyone is claiming that. They do take all those factors in determining the overall value. The best stats we have for determining that, say Ruth was better overall.
It is a man made formula that weight more in the favor of a power hitter and we know speed or SB is not valued like it was then, that has been said and proven that SB do not help teams win because the percentage of SB does not match what it should in RS or something along those lines that has to do with the HR in today's game where is in Cobb time SB and Speed was highly valued . Does that make since. I understand we have all these formulas not to calculate players from now to the pass but those formulas to not weight the type of players that were valued or looked at the way they are now. How much weight of value goes into each stat of the value of a player. Maybe I am wrong in some of this way of thinking but I do know 100 percent that the SB in today's game long with the SAC bunt hold very little value that is what the metric say but in those times that was not the case.
There's a reason it's not valued anymore. Just because they were highly valued in his time, doesn't mean they should have been. The cost to getting caught stealing far outweighs the benefit of not getting caught. That's why players don't do it as much anymore. That being said, Cobb was very successful at stealing bases. You seem to be putting to much emphasis on a stat that analytics say is not an overall worthwhile risk to take, when the main goal of baseball is to score more runs than the other team.
That may be true as a whole but I am looking at the value of COBB the metrics do not show the value of his true ability as a base runner, the man stold home 54 times, in the dead ball era guys were not hitting the ball out of the park like they do now or since Ruth started to do so. To degrade the value overall I get it but in the dead ball ear that was a big part of the game to score runs. Cobb would go from first to third on a sac bun, That is the problem I have with the metrics as it does not value the dead ball era players correctly. For guys that were actually successful doing it it was a value, Take the 87 Cardinals the only power hitter they had was Jack clark, They got to got to and won the WS on hitting and speed not on power. Teams do not build teams like that anymore because of saber metrics. Lou Brock, Henderson holds the record for RS part of that is his value of SB.
Yes I put value in what Cobb did on the bases He, Cobb was one of if not the first Superstar of baseball. Metrics does not support the way Cobb played.
They also were able to play with speed more back in the 70s/80s because of the ballparks. The astroturf and carpets allowed faster players to steal successfully more often. Running on controlled surfaces, and without dirt, made speed even more effective. Theres a reason Henderson, Brock, McGee, Raines, and even players like Gwynn, etc stole more back then. It was because of the track conditions. I dont think they were necessarily valued higher, it was that the conditions allowed for more success because so many ballparks had turf.
With more success comes the value that it had, I get the overall players percentage of SB is not to be valued but the players that were able to were value that discredit them from the metrics because the get looped in with all the unsucess as a whole of what speed could do in those days.
I also understand the game has changed the rules have changed, the stadiums are built different the equipment is different, The game has change to favor the hitters over pitchers that is why overall I think pitching has been bad for many years now. We will always have the standout pitchers. Pitching was good this year could be from the foreign substance but overall still is not good. A lot of factors go into that as well.
-
The top 10 players not including Pitchers, not in any order
Cobb
Ruth
Bonds
Aaron
Mays
Williams, Ted
Gehrig
Musial
Mantle
Jimmy Foxx
Trout should be on this list when he retires -
@dbarmonstar_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
The top 10 players not including Pitchers, not in any order
Cobb
Ruth
Bonds
Aaron
Mays
Williams, Ted
Gehrig
Musial
Mantle
Jimmy Foxx
Trout should be on this list when he retiresFor someone who’s “done with this thread” you’ve now made three replies in a row.
You say it’s in “no order” but you clearly tried to order them lol.
-
He’s possibly going to be the only player ever to win the Mvp, Cy young award, Silver slugger, and depending on how Vladdy & Salvy’s seasons end, even possibly the Hank Aaron award. You say a triple crown is impressive, then how about a full award sweep? That’s not the most impressive single season ever to you? & not the best player on his team? Sure, let me see Trout try to hit 50 homers, with 25 swiped bags, and an 11-2 record with a sub 3 ERA against today’s American League. Ohtani would crush trout if he pitched to him, & I bet Trout prays that he never has to hit against Ohtani. Besides Ohtani is younger than trout so he even has more potential to achieve a better season compared to Trout. I love Mike Trout but he’s not the same as Ohtani, Trout is a talent of the decade and will forever be remembered for his quick ascension to greatness. As for Shohei, he’s a generational talent, like a Babe Ruth or Willie Mays. There’s only one that can do what he does, to the full extent of what he does, as great as he does it. & there won’t be another man to recreate his season until your great grandkids have grandkids.
-
@chandaman625_psn said in Ohtani's "Greatest Season Ever":
He’s possibly going to be the only player ever to win the Mvp, Cy young award, Silver slugger, and depending on how Vladdy & Salvy’s seasons end, even possibly the Hank Aaron award. You say a triple crown is impressive, then how about a full award sweep? That’s not the most impressive single season ever to you? & not the best player on his team? Sure, let me see Trout try to hit 50 homers, with 25 swiped bags, and an 11-2 record with a sub 3 ERA against today’s American League. Ohtani would crush trout if he pitched to him, & I bet Trout prays that he never has to hit against Ohtani. Besides Ohtani is younger than trout so he even has more potential to achieve a better season compared to Trout. I love Mike Trout but he’s not the same as Ohtani, Trout is a talent of the decade and will forever be remembered for his quick ascension to greatness. As for Shohei, he’s a generational talent, like a Babe Ruth or Willie Mays. There’s only one that can do what he does, to the full extent of what he does, as great as he does it. & there won’t be another man to recreate his season until your great grandkids have grandkids.
Trout isn’t a generational talent? I’ll be shocked if ohtani ever has a 10 fWAR season, which trout has two of. I doubt ohtani ever even gets a 9 fWAR season, of which trout has 5.
Sure, ohtani is pitching and hitting. He’s putting up value like every other major leaguer, just in a unique way. At the end of the day though, value is value, and he will never be as statistically valuable as mike trout.
And it’s far from guaranteed that ohtani will be able to do what he’s been doing for years to come anyways. He’s already had some injury history, and it’s not like he’s 21 either. We’ll see how long his body will be able to keep up with both pitching and hitting.
Awards don’t determine whether one season is better than another, statistics do. And statistically, ohtani isn’t even close to trout’s top 7 seasons. Doing something differently doesn’t mean it’s better.
