Comments on: Leading the league in triples and homers http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/14077 This and that about baseball stats. Tue, 16 Jul 2013 17:01:55 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.6 By: Fireworks http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/14077/comment-page-1#comment-138737 Fri, 19 Aug 2011 23:53:08 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=14077#comment-138737 No, it's a way of saying consider readability when posting. I write looong posts and I do my best to go back sometimes and introduce a few paragraph where there had been none just so people that actually choose to read the post don't have to deal with 20 line blocks of unbroken text.

]]>
By: MLS http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/14077/comment-page-1#comment-138640 Fri, 19 Aug 2011 16:30:08 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=14077#comment-138640 Fireworks is that a "polite" way of saying shut the hell up? LOL...No problem..will do. Thanks. (Unlike many ,I can actually comprehend what I read). Thanks once again for your input!

]]>
By: Fireworks http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/14077/comment-page-1#comment-138619 Fri, 19 Aug 2011 15:45:10 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=14077#comment-138619 MLS please stop making 15 of the 20 posts in a thread when you are saying absolutely nothing new, especially since you have little interest in doing line/paragraph breaks to increase readability. Also, two or three periods the way you are using them do nothing but create massive run-on sentences.

Thanks.

]]>
By: MLS http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/14077/comment-page-1#comment-138572 Fri, 19 Aug 2011 12:33:32 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=14077#comment-138572 @ 72....Since I lived thru that era...I know what you write about..and it is absolutely true and then some. What Bill James and others have neglected to realize or put into "context" is that the truly great players will shine in any environment in which they play. An example is right there in which you write..1910=.310 outfielders..Cobb and a "few" others broke through that "ave" with much larger BA...Hence they were viewed as "great" and rightfully so. In the 60's Aaron, Robinson,Mantle,Clemente, Mays ect...demonstrated they were able to break out to demonstrate they were the cream of the crop in their era as well. The "real" question is, was Killebrew that caliber of player in that "same" era? To Killebrew's credit, when he hit his HR's, the parks in which he hit them were larger. But many will tell you..and they would be correct...most his HRS were not cheapies..there was NO park ever built that would hold his shots! I contend, yes..it was harder to hit a HR in those larger parks...but..in the same token..wouldn't it be easier to hit a double or a triple? Think about that for a moment. Outside Killebrews HRS..did he amass "enough" other XBH to warrant "greatness" status? To be honest, Killebrew most of his career wasn't even considered the best player on his team, not alone in the league. I'm NOT trying to dismiss Killebrews HR's accomplishments...he was at great at that...but to me...a HOF type player needs "more". To me, a "slugger" needs a substantial TB 162 game average total..to be called a "slugger". What Killebrew was was a swing from the heels and hope for the best kinda guy..if that's "good" enough for you or anyone else..that's fine...but there are NO stats available to prove my statement wrong!

]]>
By: DavidS http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/14077/comment-page-1#comment-138227 Thu, 18 Aug 2011 17:17:37 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=14077#comment-138227 @71 - the 60s are referred to as a pitching dominant era because of the environment, not the individual players. Higher mounds, different parks, larger strike-zones,and whatever other effects were in place conspired to make run-scoring more difficult during that decade than in any other since the 1910s. As Bill James wrote, just because an average outfielder in 1930 hit .310 and an average outfielder in 1968 hit .240, it doesn't make the hitters in 1930 any better than those in 1968, it just means they played under circumstances more favorable to hitters. Sure there are periods where there are more great hitters or great pitchers but that doesn't do much to affect the league stats as a whole.

We aren't giving Killebrew "credit" any more than we are demoting Todd Helton for putting up monster numbers in Coors Field. We are simply putting those numbers in context. It took a lot fewer runs to win a baseball game in the 1960s so Killebrew's hits/walks/HRs have more value than they would have had they been produced more recently.

]]>
By: MLS http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/14077/comment-page-1#comment-138124 Thu, 18 Aug 2011 14:12:36 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=14077#comment-138124 One other thing I'd like to mention. I get sick and tired of hearing about the 60's being a pitching dominant era. Certainly, some of the best pitchers ever to suit up for baseball played in that era...BUT...it's funny that some of the best hitters ever to suit up for baseball played in that era as well! Thus, because Killebrew played during that era..we should somehow turn a blind eye for his shortcomings??? Perhaps give him "credit"?...Don't make sense to this guy who watched many of those players first hand.

]]>
By: MLS http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/14077/comment-page-1#comment-138121 Thu, 18 Aug 2011 13:41:28 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=14077#comment-138121 @69....just for the record...I'm not a Rice fan either, only because his time was limited..much like Indian Bob Johnson and Hal Trosky...when he played however, he was well rounded. But, I have NO problem with loading up a truck and starting anew!!! LOL

]]>
By: Mike L http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/14077/comment-page-1#comment-138119 Thu, 18 Aug 2011 13:35:18 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=14077#comment-138119 @69, MLS. You better get the moving truck, because there's a lot of plaques, dusty memorabilia, and other debris ready for the trash bin. Not to pick at a scab, though, but Jim Rice will be one of the first they are hauling out. He may have been more rounded than Killer, but, except for 77-79, he wasn't exceptional or memorable in the least.

]]>
By: MLS http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/14077/comment-page-1#comment-138116 Thu, 18 Aug 2011 13:17:48 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=14077#comment-138116 @ Mike L.....A true HOF'r , to me, and I think the original HOF board as well, is one that's so superior in his skills, that a reasonable man would ascertain that player would be at minimum be "good" from that time foreward. If you notice, I said skills, not skill.Why I "believe" the HOF meant this for the fact they did not pick Cy Young in their innaugrial voting. It would have been easy to pick the winningest pitcher of all-time on that 1st ballot...but they knew...as we all do...where as Young excelled in winning..he had his warts too. Regardless, I truly believe they wanted HOF type players to be somewhat well rounded in their body of work. Unfortunately, I believe the HOF has regressed from that logic, for whatever reasons. I'm not angry at those who believe Killebrew belongs..I got the same flack when I said Killebrew didn't belong when he was STILL playing! So this isn't anything new to me..LOL...I "understand" why people feel the way they do regarding the Killer...I truly do...but I don't care how much a cat tries to cover their crap...there's STILL a turd undernieth all that debris!

]]>
By: Mike L http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/14077/comment-page-1#comment-138102 Thu, 18 Aug 2011 11:03:47 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=14077#comment-138102 @66, MLS, I follow your argument on home runs, but only to a point. The game adapts, and has always adapted to excess performance in one area or the other. In 1961, the Yankees hit 240 home runs-a number that seemed ludicrous. In the same decade, with higher mounds and bigger strike zones, 100 home runs seemed to be a lot. If players get too big and strong, fences will get moved out and humidors will be installed in more places. And, as to the Hall, performances are always contextualized. All of us understand that records will be broken over time: we don't expect every player there to necessarily have achieved in their career what later players did. Doesn't make them less cool. In the 1924 Olympics Harold Abrahams ran 10.6 in the 100 meters and Eric Liddle 47.6 in the 400 meters (times that might not wi a high school meet right now), and they made a movie about them. Jessie Owens 1936 Olympics included two World Records and an Olympic record-needless to say, none of them are even close today. No-one expects performance to be frozen in time. Sure, there are a handful of all time greats who still stand apart. But the Hall doesn't evict when someone better comes along. That's as it should be.

]]>