Cal Ripken's Legacy

[DrungoHazewood]

Define relatively recent past.

Retired in 1977.

At least in baseball the farther back you go the less plausible it is that a star would still be a star. I'm completely comfortable saying (at the very least) Honus Wagner, who debuted 116 years ago, would not be anything like as dominant today as he was in real life.

[mdbdotcom]

Isn't that like saying "Do you think Aubrey Huff is a better third baseman than Brooks Robinson?" I'm not sure anyone is arguing that the world of either music or baseball has advanced to the point where a run-of-the-mill (although popular and somewhat famous) persona from today is superior to an all-time great from the relatively recent past.

It's not an exact equivalency, for sure, but Katy Perry has sold nearly 50 million digital singles and 4.333 million albums. She is way more than "somewhat popular," and I think comparing her with Ella is closer than a Robinson/Huff comparison, especially since there are great female jazz singers out there today, but not in the pop market.

You can't make exact comparisons between talents of different generations. Yes, you can use data to measure performance, but the data that's important today wasn't even considered four decades ago. If it had been, maybe a different approach would have been used by players to achieve better results for those measurements.

Again, I go back to the fact that the most gifted players are outliers. While training regimes may have improved the quality of the entire pool, that doesn't necessarily mean that today's exceptional outlier is better than the exceptional outlier from four decades ago.

As for my comment that skill and talent are two different things, that's something I learned years ago attending a talk given by Lee Strasberg, a founder of the Group Theater and the Actor's Studio. Someone asked him who were the best actors he'd trained. He couldn't say who was best, because skill and talent are not the same thing. He said that the most talented actors he'd trained were Marilyn Monroe and Paul Newman, because they had something that connected with audiences, but they were not necessarily the most skilled, technically. I think that distinction is important when trying to compare baseball players as well.

[Stotle]

It's not an exact equivalency, for sure, but Katy Perry has sold nearly 50 million digital singles and 4.333 million albums. She is way more than "somewhat popular," and I think comparing her with Ella is closer than a Robinson/Huff comparison, especially since there are great female jazz singers out there today, but not in the pop market.

You can't make exact comparisons between talents of different generations. Yes, you can use data to measure performance, but the data that's important today wasn't even considered four decades ago. If it had been, maybe a different approach would have been used by players to achieve better results for those measurements.

Again, I go back to the fact that the most gifted players are outliers. While training regimes may have improved the quality of the entire pool, that doesn't necessarily mean that today's exceptional outlier is better than the exceptional outlier from four decades ago.

As for my comment that skill and talent are two different things, that's something I learned years ago attending a talk given by Lee Strasberg, a founder of the Group Theater and the Actor's Studio. Someone asked him who were the best actors he'd trained. He couldn't say who was best, because skill and talent are not the same thing. He said that the most talented actors he'd trained were Marilyn Monroe and Paul Newman, because they had something that connected with audiences, but they were not necessarily the most skilled, technically. I think that distinction is important when trying to compare baseball players as well.

Re: Skill vs Talent, I do not think that really comes into play for purposes of this discussion. The cross-era comparisons really come down to physicality. Baseball as a game does a terrific job today trimming the fat such that the players at the major league level are both skilled and talented.

There are some that lack the raw talent to be a star, but are skilled enough to execute and carve out a career in some capacity. There are players with great physical talent but without the means to most efficiently implement that talent.

I see dozens of kids each year at the high school and collegiate level that are both skilled and talented but lack the physical means to compete at the pro level. Mark Payton is an outfielder at the University of Texas that could have been a top three round pick out of high school (Illinois) and this year as a collegiate junior based on talent and skill. But he's short and not particularly strong (5-foot-8 and generously listed at 185 pounds) without possessing game changing speed. He does everything well, batted just under .400 this spring, but will almost certainly never be considered a prospect. If you dropped him into the 1920s, he'd be a major leaguer, and potentially a standout.

[DrungoHazewood]

Mark Payton is an outfielder at the University of Texas that could have been a top three round pick out of high school (Illinois) and this year as a collegiate junior based on talent and skill. But he's short and not particularly strong (5-foot-8 and generously listed at 185 pounds) without possessing game changing speed. He does everything well, batted just under .400 this spring, but will almost certainly never be considered a prospect. If you dropped him into the 1920s, he'd be a major leaguer, and potentially a standout.

The World Champion 1894 Orioles had three players listed at 6' or taller, Dan Brouthers and two middling pitchers.

Cap Anson was thought of as physically imposing, towering over others, and often bullying other players and teams into his way of thinking just by the sheer force of his presence. He is listed in modern sources at 6' 0", 227, which would make him roughly the 35th-tallest player on the 2013 Orioles and just a few pounds over the median weight.

The median height of the 1927 Yankees was 5' 11", and the median weight was 178. That's Brian Roberts and Alexi Casilla.

From 1890-1910 there were 189 players listed at 150 pounds or less. From 1993-2013, with more than twice as many teams, there were 22. In 2013 there were two players who'd admit to a weight of 150 or less on 30 teams. In 1927 there were 20, on 16 teams.

There is also the class of players probably exemplified by Eddie Yost. He was basically a zero-tool player. Listed as 5' 10", 170. He hit .254, until very late in his career high in homers was 12, he never stole 10 bases in a season, by modern metrics he was a -112 career fielder at third... but he survived by fouling off pitches with a big, heavy bat, and walking 100 times a year like clockwork. That class of player has been extinct for 30, 40 years, at least.

[TonySoprano]

The median height of the 1927 Yankees was 5' 11", and the median weight was 178. That's Brian Roberts and Alexi Casilla.

They're both listed at 5'9" and in Roberts' case that's a pretty generous height estimate. McLouth is 5'11" 180.

[DrungoHazewood]

They're both listed at 5'9" and in Roberts' case that's a pretty generous height estimate. McLouth is 5'11" 180.

Close enough for the point to stand. The average 1927 Yankee was Nate McLouth. The average 2013 Oriole is 3-4" taller and 40 pounds heavier. Danny Valencia is 2" taller and 20 pounds heavier than Lou Gehrig.

[Dipper9]

Palmer is 36th all-time in wins, 42nd in winning percentage, 52nd in strikeouts, and 122nd in career ERA, 66th in adjusted ERA. Therefore, is it the 3 Cy Youngs that have him supposedly "mentioned with the all time elite pitchers of the game?"

I do agree that Ripken isn't in the category of "elite bats."

I wonder what percentile Palmer fits in though? For instance, 36th in wins out of 100 pitchers isn't all that to write home about. 36th ALL TIME would probably have him in the top 1% of all time pitchers. Same for the other categories as well. Then you throw in the Cy Young awards, the complete games, the 3 World Series titles in 3 different decades...So yeah, I do think Jim is one of the elite pitchers of all time.

[DrungoHazewood]

I wonder what percentile Palmer fits in though? For instance, 36th in wins out of 100 pitchers isn't all that to write home about. 36th ALL TIME would probably have him in the top 1% of all time pitchers. Same for the other categories as well. Then you throw in the Cy Young awards, the complete games, the 3 World Series titles in 3 different decades...So yeah, I do think Jim is one of the elite pitchers of all time.

It's all in how you define elite. I would argue that anyone who's played major league baseball is elite, since they're in the top ~ 0.01% of all baseball players in the world.

There have probably been on the order of 10,000 MLB pitchers in history, so if Palmer or someone is 50th all time in some category that puts him in the top 0.5% of the top 0.01% of all pitchers.

[Dipper9]

It's all in how you define elite. I would argue that anyone who's played major league baseball is elite, since they're in the top ~ 0.01% of all baseball players in the world.

There have probably been on the order of 10,000 MLB pitchers in history, so if Palmer or someone is 50th all time in some category that puts him in the top 0.5% of the top 0.01% of all pitchers.

Yeah, that is my point. Palmer is a Hall of Fame pitcher, so to me he immediately becomes a no questions asked "elite" pitcher. Then when you factor in all his awards, stats, accolades, championships, etc, he is most certainly one of the elite pitchers of all time.

[mdbdotcom]

I wonder what percentile Palmer fits in though? For instance, 36th in wins out of 100 pitchers isn't all that to write home about. 36th ALL TIME would probably have him in the top 1% of all time pitchers. Same for the other categories as well. Then you throw in the Cy Young awards, the complete games, the 3 World Series titles in 3 different decades...So yeah, I do think Jim is one of the elite pitchers of all time.

Don't forget 53 complete game shutouts, which ties him for 16th place all-time. In 1975, he became the last pitcher to throw 10 shutouts in one season.

[Nigel Tufnel]

Close enough for the point to stand. The average 1927 Yankee was Nate McLouth. The average 2013 Oriole is 3-4" taller and 40 pounds heavier. Danny Valencia is 2" taller and 20 pounds heavier than Lou Gehrig.

Yeah, I remember in Ball Four, Bouton told a story about the players looking up old timers in the Baseball Encyclopedia and laughing about how small they were (Old Hoss Radbourne was like 5'9", 165, Hack Wilson was 5'6", etc.). And that was 44 years ago - today's players would now probably feel that way about guys from 1969, none of whom ever lifted a single weight in their career.

I saw Bouton speak maybe 10-12 years ago, and somebody asked him about the differences between today's game and when he played. He said that in the 1960's, baseball was a skill game, where in 2000 it was more about being athletic. He thought teams from the 60's would be crushed if they tried to play against modern teams.

[CA-ORIOLE]

Yeah, I remember in Ball Four, Bouton told a story about the players looking up old timers in the Baseball Encyclopedia and laughing about how small they were (Old Hoss Radbourne was like 5'9", 165, Hack Wilson was 5'6", etc.). And that was 44 years ago - today's players would now probably feel that way about guys from 1969, none of whom ever lifted a single weight in their career.

I saw Bouton speak maybe 10-12 years ago, and somebody asked him about the differences between today's game and when he played. He said that in the 1960's, baseball was a skill game, where in 2000 it was more about being athletic. He thought teams from the 60's would be crushed if they tried to play against modern teams.

I wonder how long of a ML career Dal Maxvill would have today.

[weams]

I wonder how long of a ML career Dal Maxvill would have today.

Maybe as long as Brendan Ryan?

[CA-ORIOLE]

Maybe as long as Brendan Ryan?

Not even close to the defender Brendan Ryan is. Be lucky to have a Brandon Fahey career. The again, Brandon Fahey was lucky to have a Bandon Fahey career.

[El Gordo]

Re: Skill vs Talent, I do not think that really comes into play for purposes of this discussion. The cross-era comparisons really come down to physicality. Baseball as a game does a terrific job today trimming the fat such that the players at the major league level are both skilled and talented.

There are some that lack the raw talent to be a star, but are skilled enough to execute and carve out a career in some capacity. There are players with great physical talent but without the means to most efficiently implement that talent.

I see dozens of kids each year at the high school and collegiate level that are both skilled and talented but lack the physical means to compete at the pro level. Mark Payton is an outfielder at the University of Texas that could have been a top three round pick out of high school (Illinois) and this year as a collegiate junior based on talent and skill. But he's short and not particularly strong (5-foot-8 and generously listed at 185 pounds) without possessing game changing speed. He does everything well, batted just under .400 this spring, but will almost certainly never be considered a prospect. If you dropped him into the 1920s, he'd be a major leaguer, and potentially a standout.

Sounds a lot like Dustin Pedroia. Yeah, never makes the ML. He does all things right, just doesn't look like a ML ballplayer. He's got titties?