1 posted on
07/06/2012 11:08:28 AM PDT by
jazusamo
To: jazusamo
Of course, we don’t know how Hank Greenburg would have done if he got to have Lou Gehrig in the on deck circle.
We also don’t know if Babe Ruth could have either pitched or hit a good slider.
2 posted on
07/06/2012 11:19:01 AM PDT by
Dr. Sivana
("Stronger. You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid! "--Eros, Plan 9 From Outer Space)
To: abigail2; Amalie; American Quilter; arthurus; awelliott; Bahbah; bamahead; Battle Axe; ...
3 posted on
07/06/2012 11:37:50 AM PDT by
jazusamo
("Intellect is not wisdom" -- Thomas Sowell)
Please bump the Freepathon or click above and donate or become a monthly donor!
5 posted on
07/06/2012 12:09:23 PM PDT by
jazusamo
("Intellect is not wisdom" -- Thomas Sowell)
To: jazusamo
It's an easy trap to fall into. Rating players solely on stats without reference to the era they played in. Dr. Sowell should know better.
Anyone who pitched largely in the dead ball era, as did Johnson, will obviously have his shutouts and ERA magnified. Pitchers who excelled in a more hitter friendly era (Grove and Spahn are the first two that come to my mind) are always going to be underrated based on those numbers.
A more fun question is "Who's the best player you ever saw?" As far as pitchers go, for me it's Bob Gibson, hands down.
6 posted on
07/06/2012 12:09:53 PM PDT by
Notary Sojac
(Ut veniant omnes)
To: jazusamo
Walter Johnson's lifetime earned run average was 2.17. Christy Mathewson had a lifetime ERA of 2.13, but Mathewson played for better teams. It is hard to think of any other pitcher whose lifetime records top theirs, except for records based on sheer longevity, like Cy Young's 511 victories. Cy Young had a lifetime ERA of 2.63 obviously great, but not the greatest. If Cy Young won 511 games, it is probable that he pitched well into older age. It is also probable that his efficiency was reduced as he got older. So his 2.63 includes many games when he wasn't at his best. We should therefore then take a comparable number of his early years and use that ERA if we are to compare him with some of the short timers.
9 posted on
07/06/2012 12:36:22 PM PDT by
oldbrowser
(Your character is your fate.....fortune cookie)
To: jazusamo
And let’s not forget Shoeless Joe Jackson, with a lifetime batting average of .356, third behind Cobb and Hornsby. Shoeless Joe hit .411 in his rookie season, something we’re not likely to see again.
16 posted on
07/06/2012 1:38:13 PM PDT by
JoeA
(JoeA / Lex clavatoris designati rescindenda est)
To: jazusamo
I’m not going to state who I think was the greatest bb player of all time, but all the young fans today should be aware that nobody has ever hit baseballs as far as Ruth hit them. A writer named Bill Jenkinson documented Ruth’s clouts for 1921 in a book called “The Year Ruth Hit 104 Homeruns.”
To: jazusamo
22 posted on
07/06/2012 6:28:19 PM PDT by
razorback-bert
(I'm in shape. Round is a shape isn't it?)
To: jazusamo
Back then it was real people with real jobs that played.
The hitters had it easier, with less capable pitchers.
Here in the 21st, it has become a steroid mechanized E German precision like machine.
They took the people out of it. I care not to watch even more felonious millionaires on TV. Aren't there enough already?
24 posted on
07/06/2012 6:53:43 PM PDT by
rawcatslyentist
("Behold, I am against you, O arrogant one," Jeremiah 50:31)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson