Interesting note from Jim Callis chat today.

[Satyr3206]

Mays and Mantle were probably better than DiMaggio.

Snider pretty clearly wasn't.

Saying Hack Wilson was better is akin to saying that Melvin Mora is better than Mike Schmidt.

But one thing you must do is account for the increased competition, the slope of history. Otherwise you end up with the conclusion that all the best players in history played 80 or 100 years ago, since they were able to dominate lesser leagues by so much more.

But it's clear DiMaggio wasn't the best as he insisted on being introduced as.

And I still disagree about the slope of history view. Just my opinion.

[Satyr3206]

Somebody crack me in the head. I didn't mean to hijack this thread.

Gonzalez would look good at first next year in the right deal.

[BaltimoreTerp]

That's one stat that wasn't even used in their era.

I think DiMaggio is overrated and that Pujols will be the better hitter when all is said and done, but this is still an epic fail.

[DrungoHazewood]

But it's clear DiMaggio wasn't the best as he insisted on being introduced as.

The very best of all time? No, he wasn't that. But he's in the top 20. If you're picking teams in heaven he's probably getting in the first game.

And I still disagree about the slope of history view. Just my opinion.

The only way to disagree with that is to conclude that leagues with tremendous handicaps compared to today somehow overcame all of them and were as great as the Majors today. You're saying that teams with essentially no scouting or minor league systems or draft and competition from other leagues still found all the best players and funneled them all to the majors. And somehow on top of that the great players of the early game still dominated like no one since. It's a paradox.

IMO, the only logical conclusion is that the quality of the game has steadily improved over time.

[DrungoHazewood]

I think DiMaggio is overrated and that Pujols will be the better hitter when all is said and done, but this is still an epic fail.

DiMaggio is like Jeter, in that he manages to be both over- and underrated at the same time. He was a Yankee and a star and idolized by untold millions. But he also was a right-handed hitter in a park that was 461 to LC, and he missed a good chunk of his prime to the war. Had he been born 15 years later and signed with the Red Sox who knows how crazy his numbers might have been.

[TyCobb]

DiMaggio is like Jeter, in that he manages to be both over- and underrated at the same time. He was a Yankee and a star and idolized by untold millions. But he also was a right-handed hitter in a park that was 461 to LC, and he missed a good chunk of his prime to the war. Had he been born 15 years later and signed with the Red Sox who knows how crazy his numbers might have been.

This is what a lot of people don't seem to understand. He played in the worst park for a RH. I remember a story when he went 0 for something and hit 3 balls to the warming track (450ish feet)

[Satyr3206]

The very best of all time? No, he wasn't that. But he's in the top 20. If you're picking teams in heaven he's probably getting in the first game.

The only way to disagree with that is to conclude that leagues with tremendous handicaps compared to today somehow overcame all of them and were as great as the Majors today. You're saying that teams with essentially no scouting or minor league systems or draft and competition from other leagues still found all the best players and funneled them all to the majors. And somehow on top of that the great players of the early game still dominated like no one since. It's a paradox.

IMO, the only logical conclusion is that the quality of the game has steadily improved over time.

In the golden age of baseball the majority of kids and prospects played baseball. The NFL, NBA, and many other various leagues didn't exist or were in their infancy. Therefore baseball was getting the best players. It truly was the national pastime then. Not to mention the economic aspect. To assume that todays players are better because they play in a more modern age is short sighted. Again, just my opinion.

[Stan P]

I'd rather give Adam Jones in a package than give up Nolan Reimold, Nolan is a better hitter IMO and he's been doing it with an achilles injury. Plus, maybe if you give up Adam Jones you don't have to give up Jake Arrieta you can give up a different pitcher not regarded as highly.

[TyCobb]

Here are some of quotes about Joe D....

"(Joe) DiMaggio was the greatest all-around player I ever saw. His career cannot be summed up in numbers and awards. It might sound corny, but he had a profound and lasting impact on the country." - Ted Williams

"Name a better right handed hitter, or a better thrower, or a better fielder, or a better base runner. That's right, a better base runner. Did you ever see him slide when he hooked the bag with his toe? Absolutely perfect." - Hank Greenberg

"Ted Williams was the greatest hitter I ever saw, but (Joe) DiMaggio was the greatest all around player." - Bob Feller

"There was never a day when I was as good as Joe DiMaggio at his best. Joe was the best, the very best I ever saw." - Stan Musial

[Satyr3206]

Here are some of quotes about Joe D....

"(Joe) DiMaggio was the greatest all-around player I ever saw. His career cannot be summed up in numbers and awards. It might sound corny, but he had a profound and lasting impact on the country." - Ted Williams

"Name a better right handed hitter, or a better thrower, or a better fielder, or a better base runner. That's right, a better base runner. Did you ever see him slide when he hooked the bag with his toe? Absolutely perfect." - Hank Greenberg

"Ted Williams was the greatest hitter I ever saw, but (Joe) DiMaggio was the greatest all around player." - Bob Feller

"There was never a day when I was as good as Joe DiMaggio at his best. Joe was the best, the very best I ever saw." - Stan Musial

Nice quotes. But the stats show a different picture.

[AgentOrange]

Nice quotes. But the stats show a different picture.

Remember, he only played 13 seasons and missed 3 seasons in his prime when he was 29-31 to serve in the war.

[TyCobb]

Nice quotes. But the stats show a different picture.

wOBA clearly showed Joe D was very good.

Maybe you should actually read up on wOBA. And not look at RBIs and HRs to pick who was the better player.

[crawdad]

But one thing you must do is account for the increased competition, the slope of history. Otherwise you end up with the conclusion that all the best players in history played 80 or 100 years ago, since they were able to dominate lesser leagues by so much more.

I understand what you are saying. Competition is more even these days, so the chances of having a runaway performance is unlikely. I still think you are weighting this more than you should be.

So, yes, you look at what Willie Mays or Barry Bonds did in comparison to their era vs what Babe did against his competition and you get the appearance of Babe being more skilled than he actually was because he was so dominant in comparison to the talent spectrum he faced.

Still, I think with talent's relationship to performance being somewhat asymptotic I think the only valuable way to weigh worth is merely by comparing it to a player's era unless you know of a better way.

[DrungoHazewood]

In the golden age of baseball the majority of kids and prospects played baseball. The NFL, NBA, and many other various leagues didn't exist or were in their infancy. Therefore baseball was getting the best players. It truly was the national pastime then. Not to mention the economic aspect. To assume that todays players are better because they play in a more modern age is short sighted. Again, just my opinion.

I understand the sentiment to assume the players from the so-called golden ages of the sport were better. With so much written about those eras they're kind of bathed in a rosy light and it's hard to be objective about them. When I first read The Hidden Game of Baseball I was incredulous over the idea that Willie Keeler and his peers weren't way better than the guys today.

But I've been forced to accept that the absolutely overwhelming conclusion of the objective evidence is that the game has gotten steadily harder over time, with brief pauses for wars and expansions.

Nice quotes. But the stats show a different picture.

Maybe the raw stats do*. But you have a lot of context to adjust for when analyzing DiMaggio. His park effects, his years lost to the war. You're acting like this is an open-and-shut case, but if you rate Ruth as a 100, Mantle as a 95, then DiMaggio is a 94.5. Snider is in the 70s or 80s, and Hack Wilson is, like, 48.

* Or maybe they don't. I mean, in 1937 he hit .346/.412/.673 with 46 homers, 151 runs, and 167 RBI in a pitcher's park as a plus-plus center fielder. Even Ruth isn't much better than that as an all-around player.

[DrungoHazewood]

I understand what you are saying. Competition is more even these days, so the chances of having a runaway performance is unlikely. I still think you are weighting this more than you should be.

So, yes, you look at what Willie Mays or Barry Bonds did in comparison to their era vs what Babe did against his competition and you get the appearance of Babe being more skilled than he actually was because he was so dominant in comparison to the talent spectrum he faced.

Still, I think with talent's relationship to performance being somewhat asymptotic I think the only valuable way to weigh worth is merely by comparing it to a player's era unless you know of a better way.

Metrics like BP's WARP3 take into account the quality of a player's competition, so it's already adjusted for the slope of history.