This entry was posted on Monday, October 3rd, 2011 at 12:21 pm and is filed under Media Mentions.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
35 Responses to “The Joy of Needless Baseball Details – NYTimes.com”
I think that's why the impressive/oppressive dichotomy is mentioned in that article. Taken out of context, Counsell's 44 lines of defensive stats could surely seem oppressive (at least to the right...er wrong person). In the context of the site/database as a whole, the completeness is certainly impressive.
Either way, it's pretty cool to see a B-R mention in the NYT.
So who has the most circles?! Why has nobody figured this out yet?! (Extra punctuation necessary!!) It can't just be guys who have played on a lot of teams, but guys who have played on a lot of teams, AND changed numbers, AND (possibly) been on a team for multiple seasons, during which time it changed jerseys!
The Bretts combined for 18 uni numbers
Bells with 25 (all 3 were named David Bell at birth)
Waner's with 14
Alou's with 31
Alomar's with 30
Dimaggio's with 13 (I think Dom was the only player from this entire group of families with just one number)
Boone's with 29
Griffey's with 13
Niekro's with 25 including Lance (Niekro son) (Phil's 11 numbers were all 35)
Perry's with 20
I'm sure i missed other baseball families but these i thought of off the top of my head..
@1 I read that whole article and Baseball Ref comes off looking very good as it should. Stats can be oppressive if allowed to substitute for independent thought. Athletic contests have probability, but are still slaves to chance, and can be greatly influenced through hard work and determination for which there will never be a statistical number attached. I agree with you that the more stats kept the better because at some time they may become valuble. If the Indians would have written some stuff down they might still own large swaths of America, that and being able to forge steel to make rifles and bullets.
I would love to see some sort of "tool" on B-R to be able to search for a specific jersey number.
Example: Who hit the most HR's while wearing number 1?
This is probably not possible, but it sure would be fun to see.
This as a very enjoyable article. I'm such a baseball nerd that I do in fact look at the circles and try to guess what team they are from, some not being quite so obvious. And being a Detroit fan it was awesome to see the Tigers referenced in an article in a NY newspaper.
AustynKC @3: Maybe it is just me, but this article is the exact reason I can spend hours on baseball-reference if I don't pay enough attention to the time.
Dude. It is so not just you.
From the article: Dan Johnson "has also picked up three circles for three uniform numbers in Tampa . . . [—] almost as many circles as doubles (four)."
This fact is not useless. I may not remember Dan Johnson at all if I don’t have this to hang my figurative hat on. As John notes in his post #1, "It's good to have a record of everything that happened, as near as possible. You never know what might be important later on, in some small way." By all means, compile the numbers, and let us stat freaks search them for patterns after the fact.
"If you have ever visited Baseball-Reference.com, you know that it is one of the greatest inventions of human history."
There you have it. Great lead, and the unvarnished truth.
In addition to Musial there are several players who wore one number for 20 or more years with the same team but have more than one circle due to uniform changes. These players include Tony Gwynn, Willie Stargell, Cal Ripken and Robin Yount.
The two players I've been able to find whose longest-worn uniform number equaled their career OPS+ are Fritz Peterson (19 OPS+), who wore 19 with the Yankees from 1967 to 1974 and with the Rangers in 1976, and Billy Pierce (also 19 OPS+), who wore 19 with the White Sox from 1951 to 1961.
Others who wore a uniform number equal to career OPS+ for more than a few games include Herm Wehmeier (#22 with the 1954-56 Phillies), Harry Gumbert (#19 with the 1942-44 Cardinals), Pat Malone (#18 with the 1933-34 Cubs), and Rube Walberg (#15 with the 1934-37 Red Sox).
Also, grab a look at Liván Hernández and Chan Ho Park's player pages. Don't you think all those colored-circle "61s" would make a great wallpaper pattern for a boy's room?
Richard, I just thought it was pretty interesting that Hernández and Park both have worn the same unusual number, uninterruptedly, for so many teams. Why do both players like "61" so much? Why the strong attachment to what we think of as a spring-training number?
"I think I have a list of current active players who have only 1 circle for over a decade.
17 years: Jeter, Rivera
15 years: Todd Helton
11 years: Ichiro, Pujols, Brian Roberts, Michael Cuddyer, Carlos Zambrano"
In these current times where teams change uniform styles more frequently to generate the all important merchandise sale, this also speaks well for these player's organizations.