Individual Poster Page

See copyright notice at the bottom of this page.

List of All Posters

MGL takes on the Neyer challenge (January 13, 2004)

Posted 11:35 a.m., January 22, 2004 (#55) - Sam M
  Well, I'm coming really late to this, but I do have a question, if MGL in particular is still looking around here. In # 45, you wrote:

So their 9-1 record is kind of misleading, huh?

Yes it is, it should be more like 7-3 or 6-4 or naybe even 5-5. I'm not really sure.

Hey, I've got an idea, let's "adjust" their 9-1 record to account for how bad their opponents were and then we can tell people "Here's what the Royal's record SHOULD be or here's what it WOULD be if they had played average quality teams!

Do you mean that literally, or just to illustrate the point? Isn't 10 games just too few to even do the adjustment with any confidence in it as an actual indication of what "it would be if they had played average quality teams"? In other words, it seems to me that 10 games against crappy opponents (or against ANY competition) tells us nothing about how good they are, or how they would do against average teams, simply because 10 games just isn't enough of a sample to tell us that. And adjusting the 10 games doesn't tell us much of anything, either.

It seems to me the truly correct answer, if we're talking about only 10 games, would be, "Well, they've played crappy opponents, so that 9-1 record may well be even more unreliable as an indication of quality than any 10 game sample inherently is, but either way, 10 games just isn't enough to tell us (a) if they're any good or (b) how good they truly are."

Or am I underestimating what we can learn from 10 games, even from 10 games against a particular level of competition?

MLB Timeline - Best players by position (January 14, 2004)

Posted 1:07 a.m., January 23, 2004 (#16) - Sam M
  What about starting pitchers? There are definitely more gaps, but here's a proposed order, beginning in 1901:

1901-03: Cy Young
1904: No one
1905-11: Christy Mathewson
1912-14: Walter Johnson
1915-17: Pete Alexander
1918-19: Johnson
1920: No one
1921-22: Red Faber (I'm serious)
1923-27: No one
1928-33: Lefty Grove
1933-36: Carl Hubbell/Dizzy Dean (kept trading off -- either them jointly, or no one)
1937-43: No one
1944-46: Hal Newhouser
1947-54: No one
1955-56: Don Newcombe
1957-62: No one
1963-66: Sandy Koufax
1967-68: No one, maybe Bob Gibson
1969-73: Tom Seaver
1974-77: No one
1978-79: Ron Guidry
1980-83: No one
1984-85: Dwight Gooden
1986-91: No one -- Clemens, if anyone, but he never really had two straight seasons where I'd say he was the best pitcher in baseball (until later)
1992-95: Greg Maddux
1996: No one
1997-98: Roger Clemens
1999-2002: Pedro Martinez
2003: No one

Thoughts???

MLB Timeline - Best players by position (January 14, 2004)

Posted 1:24 a.m., January 23, 2004 (#17) - Sam M
  Oh, and about Piazza v. Posada (# 12) -- come on. Bias in favor of your team's players all well and good, but let's not get silly about it. There is no way in the world that Posada was a greater player than Piazza in any season prior to 2003.

MLB Timeline - Best players by position (January 14, 2004)

Posted 2:42 p.m., January 23, 2004 (#19) - Sam M
  Colin,

I was trying to generally respect the paradigm of the original chart, which was that a player had to be the best for a number of years to be included. The chart itself had several such gaps at almost every position. I adjusted the criteria to two, rather than three, years of being The Best -- for Clemens, Gooden, and a couple of others. Certainly, you could begin to fill some of the gaps in the way you suggest; I like extending Maddux a year more than I do filling in with Stieb.

MLB Timeline - Best players by position (January 14, 2004)

Posted 7:46 p.m., January 23, 2004 (#27) - Sam M
  Yes, someone has to be the best pitcher of 1983. But I think the premise of the chart was that the guy who performed the best in a single season would not necessarily be considered the best player in baseball at that position. Seaver didn't pitch the best ball in 1972, not with that season Carlton had. But he still was considered the "best pitcher in the game" in the more general sense. Thus, just because Stieb had the best season in 1983, or because Mike Boddicker did, or whomever, doesn't mean that he was considered the best pitcher in the game. It just means he had the best season.

It follows, then, that there could be a moment in time -- a season or more -- when there just is no consensus pick, no one regarded as The Best.

I do think Stieb had the best AL season in 82, and may have had the best one in 1983. But I think Steve Rogers, not Stieb, had the best season in the majors in 1982. But if you want to say Stieb was best in 82-83, I'd say: maybe. I just don't feel any great need to slot him in there for the sake of filling the gap. If he really was The Best, OK. But if there's a gap, that's OK, too.

MLB Timeline - Best players by position (January 14, 2004)

Posted 11:44 p.m., January 23, 2004 (#30) - Sam M
  Got your point now. Two things. First, it'd be interesting to see how you'd fill the gaps in Moo's original chart, at positions other than starting pitcher.

Second, since I had gaps well before the 80s, here's how I'd fill them, if that's how we want to do it:

1904: Joe McGinnity -- for a moment before Mathewson and after Young.
1920: Alexander
1923-27: Probably Dazzy Vance
1937-38: Lefty Gomez
1939-41: Bob Feller (you could make an argument for Bucky Walters in 39-40)
1942-43: Mort Cooper
1947-49: Warren Spahn
1950-54: Robin Roberts
1957: Spahn
1958-61: Whitey Ford
1962: Bob Gibson (or maybe Ford another year)
1974: Tom Seaver
1975-77: Jim Palmer

MLB Timeline - Best players by position (January 14, 2004)

Posted 5:54 p.m., January 24, 2004 (#32) - Sam M
  As great as Blue was in 1971 -- and he was spectacular -- he wasn't the best pitcher in baseball that year; Seaver was (notwithstanding the NL Cy Young vote for Jenkins). Seaver's ERA+ was better, 193-183. Granted, Blue pitched about 30 more innings, so it's close. But even if you think Blue edged him out that one year, looked at more broadly, Seaver was certainly regarded as the top pitcher in the early 70s, having established consistent excellence prior to 1971 and maintaining it more consistently than Blue thereafter.

The better argument for Blue is probably around 75-76, when he had probably his best back-to-back seasons. But I don't think you'd rank him ahead of Palmer at that point.

Obscure Rule Flags Students Who Sharply Improve SAT Scores (January 21, 2004)

Posted 11:12 a.m., January 22, 2004 (#7) - Sam M (homepage)
  My alma mater, Bradley University, had a basketball recruit, Daniel Ruffin, declared ineligible to play as a freshman by the NCAA because it refused to accept numerous ACT scores he'd achieved. The reason? His first score was too low to qualify for NCAA eligibility, and then his score jumped seven points the next time. This from the Bradley Scout (homepage):

The Peoria Journal Star reported in October that the ACT did not certify any of the three qualifying scores that Ruffin posted on the exam.

In his first attempt at the exam, according to the Journal Star, the Peoria native received a non-qualifying score, only to jump seven points on his next attempt, which caused ACT officials to render it invalid. The testing company did the same for Ruffin’s next two scores.

Even if you can see the reason they'd be suspicious of a jump from one test to the next, it seems to me it starts to get ridiculous if the student validates it with two additional scores consistent with the increase.

Obscure Rule Flags Students Who Sharply Improve SAT Scores (January 21, 2004)

Posted 2:23 p.m., January 22, 2004 (#11) - Sam M
  My parents both went to Bradley. Sam, are you from Peoria?

Nope. Born in New York, raised in Miami. Before I went to Bradely, I'd never been to Peoria!

Obscure Rule Flags Students Who Sharply Improve SAT Scores (January 21, 2004)

Posted 3:54 p.m., January 22, 2004 (#15) - Sam M
  here I am, to save the day!

That ought to do it.

Obscure Rule Flags Students Who Sharply Improve SAT Scores (January 21, 2004)

Posted 4:56 p.m., January 22, 2004 (#19) - Sam M
  Must have been quite the culture shock.

Well, put it this way. Dorothy going from Kansas to Oz had nothin' on me. ;-)

Actually, I liked Peoria very much, and liked Bradley even more.

Obscure Rule Flags Students Who Sharply Improve SAT Scores (January 21, 2004)

Posted 7:12 p.m., January 22, 2004 (#21) - Sam M
  Hey, they had top quality teams after Chick Hearn left.

I will forever believe that the 1986 edition of the Braves basketball team was one of the best 10 teams in the country. They went (IIRC) 31-2 in the regular season, including going undefeated in the MVC and winning the conference tournament. They were ranked 11th in the final polls -- only to be seeded seventh by the frigging NCAA selection committee! Not only that, but they got put in the same regional with Louisville (where I now work, speaking of small worlds), the eventual national champion. Bradley smashed UTEP (by 18) in the first round, making a statement about the seeding. Then, in the second round against Louisville, they were tied with 10 minutes to go before fading down the stretch, eventually losing 82-68.

That team had a backcourt of Hersey Hawkins (two years later, the national Player of the Year) and Jim Les, won won the Naismith Award as the country's best player under 6'. Had they received the seeding they deserved (4-5), they'd have made the Sweet 16 at least, and maybe better.

I feel better now -- venting is healthy!