"I can think of Mickey Mantle vs. Willie Mays in 1962"
Babe Ruth vs Rogers Hornsby, in 1926 World Series (Hornsby had just come off 1921-25 seasons where he hit .400 three times, and .397 once, as well as slugging 42 HR's in one of those seasons. Hornsby without question was THE premiere player in the NL during the 1920's; so the greatest 20th century MLBer vs one of the all time greatest MLBers would definitely qualify as a legit matchup of all time greats)
For some examples of "among the best ever" matchups facing off in a WS:
1936 AL MVP HOF NY Lou Gehrig vs either: HOF NYG P Carl Hubbell; or HOF NYG Mel Ott (who never won the MVP, despite being in the HOF)
Mickey vs Willie in 1951, who were both in their rookie years.
I suppose one could make a case that HOF LA P Sandy Koufax vs HOF MIN Harmon Killebrew, though few think of Harmon Killebrew (career 573 HRS) as a legit all time great.
1970 WS, HOF BAL 3B Brooks Robinson vs either HOF CIN C Johnny Bench, or CIN Pete Rose
1973 WS, HOF NY P Tom Seaver vs HOF OAK OF Reggie Jackson
"we are talking about only the most famous hitting seasons in baseball history exceeding Judge’s 2024 on this metric"
Full context: Judge also struck out 171 times in 2024. What exactly is he swinging at, or attempting to hit--the air? That's definitely a fair observation, Steve. Especially when Babe Ruth never struck out 100+ times in a single season.
"However, it’s unlikely that both will have good World Series simultaneously: baseball is just too random for that."
Did 2 of the NBA's most dominant stars have excellent NBA finals series while simultaneously facing off vs each other in the same finals? Since I don't follow the NBA I don't know.
But anything remains possible. In point of fact, for whatever the reason, the biggest superstars in MLB don't always have spectacular WS. "It's because they don't face that particular team very often" is one response, but the rejoinder is: "So then how come ordinary to middling players in MLB are often to the ones who have spectacular to great WS? Answer: You can't predict baseball. From the greats to the ordinary, players go thru slumps throughout their careers (even during the WS).
Example: perennial Gold Glove 2B for NY Bobby Richardson (whom Steve has castigated before for not walking enough times) was the only MVP WS winner for a losing team (1960, vs PIT). Richardson hit .367; 12 RBIs (including a grandslam, and had 6 RBI's in a single game). Richardson also had 7 H's off HOF STL P Bob Gibson in 64 WS.
Point being: you can't predict baseball. Perhaps unlike NFL and NBA, there really is more parity between teams than ever before.
Judge has hit a couple of home runs so far in NY's playoff run, but in general he's having another terrible postseason. He's hitting .161 so far.
He's been generally weak in the postseason throughout his career, slashing .203/.311/.450 so far.
But everyone would forget all about that if he has a big World Series. It's of course possible; as you say, you can't predict baseball in the short run much at all, and only in limited ways in the long run.
I think the biggest factor now -- maybe more than parity -- is injuries. The Dodgers this year might have been an historical juggernaut if most of their starting pitching staff going into the season hadn't been injured for all or most of the season.
My suspicion is that the Dodger pitching injuries aren't a coincidence, but the result of the Dodgers pushing their pitchers to throw harder and with more spin. But I don't have evidence for it.
Clayton Kershaw being out for the postseason is a big hole to fill.
Right, throwing harder with more spin may be a larger part, but if the pitcher's mechanics and delivery is off that also plays a factor as well. After all, there are several starting pitchers who threw primarily fastballs who didn't suffer many injuries during their careers.
But LA's pitching injuries certainly are not due to their starters being overworked, or throwing tons of innings. If anything, a starter throwing 200+ innings in MLB nowadays is considered to be unthinkable, if not a totally impossible feat to accomplish.
Because, not very many MLB pitchers prior to say, 2000, and certainly before 1990 could even dare to throw more than 200 IP per season as a starting pitcher. 200+ IP in a single season? Why,...it can't be done! Impossible! All that overwork could cause their arms to fall off.
Are you chewing tobacco or is that bulge in your cheek your tongue?
Obviously, pre-1990 pitchers commonly exceeded 200 innings. Back in the four-starting-pitchers rotation days most staffs would have multiple pitchers that exceeded 200 innings.
In 2021 Robbie Ray led the AL in innings pitched under 200 with 193.1, the only time that distinction went to a pitcher in either league in a non-strike shortened season.
Bob Feller led the AL in innings pitched in five consecutive seasons (not counting 1942-45 due to WWII), exceeding 300 innings in three of the seasons with a low of 296.2.
What’s the difference today? Multiple reasons but I think the biggest two are that every pitcher is thrown with maximum arm speed and the availability of effective relief staffs. You use to read pitcher comments to the effect that in crucial situations that would put a little extra on the ball. That little extra is now every pitch.
Yes it was my tongue. HOF CHI P Ed Walsh pitched 464 Innings in 1908, during the Dead Ball Era. Yes, most pitchers didn't throw anywhere near as fast or hard as they do now, but still, an inning is an inning. The idea that most pitchers of that time only tossed about 100 pitches per start is ludicrous. And...464 innings pitched in a single season is still the record. That is very quantifiable. For any pitcher today, it's getting to be considered an incredible, amazing feat if he threw even half that amount in a single season.
"What’s the difference today? Multiple reasons but I think the biggest two are that every pitcher is thrown with maximum arm speed and the availability of effective relief staffs. "
The fastball is not the only effective pitch to throw in MLB. There are pitchers who make a career at throwing off speed (e.g. about 84-90 mph) and do just fine and are affective. Let more of them make starts, and the innings are eaten up, which saves wear and tear on your bullpen.
I am still holding to the idea that part of this, from pitch counts to "encouraging" pitchers to throw as hard as they can on every single pitch, is due to a larger part--and that is that MLB clubs don't want to have to pay 20, 30, and 40 million per season for a starter, when they can just as easily have 5-7 middle relief/specialist pitchers give the same results. And...they don't have to pay a specialist much less middle relievers 20-40 million per season, in fact, they can be paid considerably less. If Ohtani were just a pitcher, he wouldn't be commanding the salary he's making. He'd make more than the going rate, obviously. But nearly three quarters of a billion? For a pitcher who will only make about 32 starts per season? Not on your life.
Some of this can also be attributed to pitcher's poor mechanics, not having the proper form. Remember, back pre 1990, pitchers also threw batting practice on their days off.
I think every team now has coaches who are pushing velocity and spin rate all the time. It seems to work, in that offense in MLB is at pretty low levels at the moment, even with so many injured pitchers. But even if a team can mitigate the risk of pitcher injury by stocking up on arms as much as possible, and just figuring in attrition, it's a high risk path for each individual pitcher. Yeah, Tommy John surgery gets pretty good results now, but you never really know if you'll come back from it 100%.
The current model of pitching management also seems to be reducing the number of star pitchers, even though true star pitchers are more valuable than ever. What I mean is that most teams now seem to treat their pitchers like a pool of role players to be exploited by management right up to the limit each year, e.g. lots of games now don't even have a genuine starting pitcher; they're just pre-planned parades of faceless relievers. Pitchers are becoming more like running backs in the NFL -- a few stars, and then a great mass of almost-interchangeable journeymen.
"I think every team now has coaches who are pushing velocity and spin rate all the time. "
Agreed, and it makes no sense from a having a lengthy career in MLB.
"It seems to work, in that offense in MLB is at pretty low levels at the moment, even with so many injured pitchers. "
Keep in mind that in MLB, a hitter is considered successful if he safely hits over one-third the time (.300), so all things considered, the sport favors the pitcher/defense, just as it always has. It's when a batter is successful (duing the later innings, during the postseason) that teams pay close attention.
"Pitchers are becoming more like running backs in the NFL -- a few stars, and then a great mass of almost-interchangeable journeymen."
And this makes my point precisely--RB's in the NFL aren't commanding the top salaries as they once did. Pitchers are soon not going to be able to command 20-40, or even 50 million plus per season, as their hitting/ position player counterparts. Because IF you can have a single nine inning game completed by a 4-6 man committee staff, those 4-6 men aren't going to be paid exorbitantly at all. It's going to be at the level of "Why pay 20 million per season when we can get journeymen innings eaters whom we can pay for around 7-12 million per season?
It's always about the money in MLB (and most sports, obviously) at least from the owners perspective. Perhaps over time word will get out for younger men who want a career in MLB not to pursue pitching and concentrate on other positions instead.
I think you're right on this. From the team ownership/management POV, why break the bank signing a rotation that includes at least 3-4 big-name pitchers who command vast salaries, when it's likely they're going to be injured for substantial stretches anyway, and then will have to have their usage carefully constrained every time they come off the DL?
Teams are succeeding in the post season now by pitching their better starters 4-5 innings in some games, and doing the 'pitching by committee' approach in others. It would be very interesting to see a breakdown of the winning percentages for the latter approach, actually.
In any case, as a former pitcher myself, it makes me a bit sad seeing this all come to pass. I can just envisage, 40 years from now, one of the Dodgers' NLCS game 6 pitchers telling his grandson about it, and explaining how, well, okay, he only pitched the fourth inning of that game, but it was a REALLY IMPORTANT inning, when you look at the metrics . . . .
Most big guys lose bat speed when they approach 30. Judge has so far defied that. Think of Ryan Howard and Chris Davis in recent times. One has to wonder when Judge becomes an easy out with occasional home run power. He's a great athlete with a compact swing. He may be as good as he was this year for another two or three years.
I'm not a baseball fan, but have baseball teams stopped caring about the Moneyball value of OBP? Or does Judge escape an inverse relationship between SO and OBP?
Judge had an enormous On Base Percentage of .458 this year (along with a .701 slugging average) because he batted .322 and got 133 walks. If Stanton had hit behind him all season the way he's hitting in the playoffs, Judge, who runs pretty well, might have scored 150 runs.
“Example: perennial Gold Glove 2B for NY Bobby Richardson (whom Steve has castigated before for not walking enough times) was the only MVP WS winner for a losing team (1960, vs PIT). Richardson hit .367; 12 RBIs (including a grandslam, and had 6 RBI's in a single game). Richardson also had 7 H's off HOF STL P Bob Gibson in 64 WS.”
I don’t remember Steve castigating Richardson for his lack of walks but I’ll take your word for it. In Bobby’s defense he was not a long ball threat (his career high for HRs was eight) and he often batted near the bottom of the order with no Moose, Mantle or Maris to protect him, so pitchers didn’t pitch around him. Secondly, he played decades before Moneyball and walks were not as valued as they are today.
I met Richardson in 1993 at a game in Anaheim. A guy who worked for me had roomed with one of Bobby’s sons at Clemson and arranged for my family and me to attend an Angels game that was preceding by an Old Timers game in which Bobby played. After the OT game we were invited to the VIP suite to meet Bobby. When he found out I was a seminary graduate we had a great discussion of his ministry and outreach activities. When he asked about my wife I told him that only four of us were allowed up to the suite and that she had remained in the stands. He insisted on going down to meet her and discussed his family at length, showing us a picture of his eight (if I remember correctly) granddaughters, all dressed in white dresses. He had not sat in stands since his retirement from the Yankees but graciously wanted to spend time with Mrs. FPD72.
Bobby preached at the funerals of Billy Martin and Mickey Mantle. He is a humble and gracious Christian gentleman.
Congratulations, Steve, on LA winning the 2024 NL Pennant. As you're a long time LA fan, perhaps this WS could be one for the ages (or not). Since moving to LA, the Dodgers have faced the Yankees 5 times in the WS--winning in 1963; losing in both 1977 & 1978 (I'm sure fans of LA in the 70's well remember those losses) and 1981, when they won. So 2024 is the tiebreaker.
Yep, could be the WS from coast to coast that MLB fans have wanted to see for a long time now.
> It’s not unknown for the two best players to meet in the World Series: e.g., third basemen Mike Schmidt vs. George Brett in 1980 when they both enjoyed career years
They shared the cover of the April 13, 1981, issue of Sports Illustrated, with the headline of Hot Shots at the Hot Corner. Then, in a nod to the recently-ended MLBPA strike, SI reran the picture on August 10 with the headline of Here We Go Again!
While there is a bias in MVP voting, and the "two best players" is subjective, the last time both MVP's met in the World Series was 2012, when Buster Posey's Giants defeated Miguel Cabrera's Tigers.
Going by pure statistics, I would say the last time was the 1989 Earthquake Series between Rickey Henderson's Athletics and Kevin Mitchell's Giants, with the latter having a career year without being the best player in the NL per se.
"Going by pure statistics, I would say the last time was the 1989 Earthquake Series between Rickey Henderson's Athletics and Kevin Mitchell's Giants, with the latter having a career year without being the best player in the NL per se."
That's not what Steve wrote or was referring to. The best players in MLB. Rickey Henderson is HOF, while SF for that season didn't have a HOFer.
Well, it was nice here before you discovered this Substack 🙄
> That's not what Steve wrote or was referring to. The best players in MLB.
In 1989 Kevin Mitchell was undeniably the best player in the National League. The fact that he couldn't sustain it has nothing to do with how people felt about him in 1989, although he did have another monster year with the Reds in 1994, the forgotten season.
> SF for that season didn't have a HOFer
Goose Gossage was elected by the BBWAA in 2008 on the 9th ballot.
Right. Rickey Henderson was long a contender for Best Player, but Kevin Mitchell was erratic. So Henderson vs. Mitchell in 1989 wasn't exactly like Willie Mays vs. Mickey Mantle in 1962.
1962 was a weird World Series because it was long delayed by torrential rains in San Francisco, rather like the 1989 WS was delayed by the Loma Prieto earthquake.
Yes, the series was delayed from the start because the NL used a three-game series to settle ties, then Game 6 was delayed because of the rain.
Back then MLB was less concerned about what days of the week they played, especially since the World Series was played during the day. Now, they intentionally start on Friday so that they intentionally miss going up against Thursday Night Football and Sunday Night Football. The irony of this is that when the NFL first started Sunday Night Football in 1987, it was intentionally delayed to the second half of the season in order to avoid the World Series. The NFL first dipped their toe in the water in 2010 and when they saw that their ratings held their own against the WS, they decided to going the process and now MLB is the one who schedules around the NFL.
Bill James, who I used to respect more, Tweeted late last night that he is skeptical that the upcoming World Series will get high ratings, as both teams are "hard to root for". I tend to think that this will be the highest-rated World Series in quite some time, as it involves the two largest markets and will also attract fans who like to root against them. In the last 20 years the two highest-rated World Series have involved teams breaking long droughts: 2004 (Red Sox/Cardinals 15.8) and 2016 (Cubs/Indians 12.9). The lowest-rated one was the most recent between the Rangers and Diamondbacks; even though the Rangers were going for their first win ever, it didn't captivate America as it rated 4.7.
"I can think of Mickey Mantle vs. Willie Mays in 1962"
Babe Ruth vs Rogers Hornsby, in 1926 World Series (Hornsby had just come off 1921-25 seasons where he hit .400 three times, and .397 once, as well as slugging 42 HR's in one of those seasons. Hornsby without question was THE premiere player in the NL during the 1920's; so the greatest 20th century MLBer vs one of the all time greatest MLBers would definitely qualify as a legit matchup of all time greats)
For some examples of "among the best ever" matchups facing off in a WS:
1936 AL MVP HOF NY Lou Gehrig vs either: HOF NYG P Carl Hubbell; or HOF NYG Mel Ott (who never won the MVP, despite being in the HOF)
Mickey vs Willie in 1951, who were both in their rookie years.
I suppose one could make a case that HOF LA P Sandy Koufax vs HOF MIN Harmon Killebrew, though few think of Harmon Killebrew (career 573 HRS) as a legit all time great.
1970 WS, HOF BAL 3B Brooks Robinson vs either HOF CIN C Johnny Bench, or CIN Pete Rose
1973 WS, HOF NY P Tom Seaver vs HOF OAK OF Reggie Jackson
"we are talking about only the most famous hitting seasons in baseball history exceeding Judge’s 2024 on this metric"
Full context: Judge also struck out 171 times in 2024. What exactly is he swinging at, or attempting to hit--the air? That's definitely a fair observation, Steve. Especially when Babe Ruth never struck out 100+ times in a single season.
"However, it’s unlikely that both will have good World Series simultaneously: baseball is just too random for that."
Did 2 of the NBA's most dominant stars have excellent NBA finals series while simultaneously facing off vs each other in the same finals? Since I don't follow the NBA I don't know.
But anything remains possible. In point of fact, for whatever the reason, the biggest superstars in MLB don't always have spectacular WS. "It's because they don't face that particular team very often" is one response, but the rejoinder is: "So then how come ordinary to middling players in MLB are often to the ones who have spectacular to great WS? Answer: You can't predict baseball. From the greats to the ordinary, players go thru slumps throughout their careers (even during the WS).
Example: perennial Gold Glove 2B for NY Bobby Richardson (whom Steve has castigated before for not walking enough times) was the only MVP WS winner for a losing team (1960, vs PIT). Richardson hit .367; 12 RBIs (including a grandslam, and had 6 RBI's in a single game). Richardson also had 7 H's off HOF STL P Bob Gibson in 64 WS.
Point being: you can't predict baseball. Perhaps unlike NFL and NBA, there really is more parity between teams than ever before.
Judge has hit a couple of home runs so far in NY's playoff run, but in general he's having another terrible postseason. He's hitting .161 so far.
He's been generally weak in the postseason throughout his career, slashing .203/.311/.450 so far.
But everyone would forget all about that if he has a big World Series. It's of course possible; as you say, you can't predict baseball in the short run much at all, and only in limited ways in the long run.
I think the biggest factor now -- maybe more than parity -- is injuries. The Dodgers this year might have been an historical juggernaut if most of their starting pitching staff going into the season hadn't been injured for all or most of the season.
My suspicion is that the Dodger pitching injuries aren't a coincidence, but the result of the Dodgers pushing their pitchers to throw harder and with more spin. But I don't have evidence for it.
Clayton Kershaw being out for the postseason is a big hole to fill.
Right, throwing harder with more spin may be a larger part, but if the pitcher's mechanics and delivery is off that also plays a factor as well. After all, there are several starting pitchers who threw primarily fastballs who didn't suffer many injuries during their careers.
But LA's pitching injuries certainly are not due to their starters being overworked, or throwing tons of innings. If anything, a starter throwing 200+ innings in MLB nowadays is considered to be unthinkable, if not a totally impossible feat to accomplish.
Because, not very many MLB pitchers prior to say, 2000, and certainly before 1990 could even dare to throw more than 200 IP per season as a starting pitcher. 200+ IP in a single season? Why,...it can't be done! Impossible! All that overwork could cause their arms to fall off.
Or am I wrong about that?
Are you chewing tobacco or is that bulge in your cheek your tongue?
Obviously, pre-1990 pitchers commonly exceeded 200 innings. Back in the four-starting-pitchers rotation days most staffs would have multiple pitchers that exceeded 200 innings.
In 2021 Robbie Ray led the AL in innings pitched under 200 with 193.1, the only time that distinction went to a pitcher in either league in a non-strike shortened season.
Bob Feller led the AL in innings pitched in five consecutive seasons (not counting 1942-45 due to WWII), exceeding 300 innings in three of the seasons with a low of 296.2.
What’s the difference today? Multiple reasons but I think the biggest two are that every pitcher is thrown with maximum arm speed and the availability of effective relief staffs. You use to read pitcher comments to the effect that in crucial situations that would put a little extra on the ball. That little extra is now every pitch.
Yes it was my tongue. HOF CHI P Ed Walsh pitched 464 Innings in 1908, during the Dead Ball Era. Yes, most pitchers didn't throw anywhere near as fast or hard as they do now, but still, an inning is an inning. The idea that most pitchers of that time only tossed about 100 pitches per start is ludicrous. And...464 innings pitched in a single season is still the record. That is very quantifiable. For any pitcher today, it's getting to be considered an incredible, amazing feat if he threw even half that amount in a single season.
"What’s the difference today? Multiple reasons but I think the biggest two are that every pitcher is thrown with maximum arm speed and the availability of effective relief staffs. "
The fastball is not the only effective pitch to throw in MLB. There are pitchers who make a career at throwing off speed (e.g. about 84-90 mph) and do just fine and are affective. Let more of them make starts, and the innings are eaten up, which saves wear and tear on your bullpen.
I am still holding to the idea that part of this, from pitch counts to "encouraging" pitchers to throw as hard as they can on every single pitch, is due to a larger part--and that is that MLB clubs don't want to have to pay 20, 30, and 40 million per season for a starter, when they can just as easily have 5-7 middle relief/specialist pitchers give the same results. And...they don't have to pay a specialist much less middle relievers 20-40 million per season, in fact, they can be paid considerably less. If Ohtani were just a pitcher, he wouldn't be commanding the salary he's making. He'd make more than the going rate, obviously. But nearly three quarters of a billion? For a pitcher who will only make about 32 starts per season? Not on your life.
Some of this can also be attributed to pitcher's poor mechanics, not having the proper form. Remember, back pre 1990, pitchers also threw batting practice on their days off.
I think every team now has coaches who are pushing velocity and spin rate all the time. It seems to work, in that offense in MLB is at pretty low levels at the moment, even with so many injured pitchers. But even if a team can mitigate the risk of pitcher injury by stocking up on arms as much as possible, and just figuring in attrition, it's a high risk path for each individual pitcher. Yeah, Tommy John surgery gets pretty good results now, but you never really know if you'll come back from it 100%.
The current model of pitching management also seems to be reducing the number of star pitchers, even though true star pitchers are more valuable than ever. What I mean is that most teams now seem to treat their pitchers like a pool of role players to be exploited by management right up to the limit each year, e.g. lots of games now don't even have a genuine starting pitcher; they're just pre-planned parades of faceless relievers. Pitchers are becoming more like running backs in the NFL -- a few stars, and then a great mass of almost-interchangeable journeymen.
"I think every team now has coaches who are pushing velocity and spin rate all the time. "
Agreed, and it makes no sense from a having a lengthy career in MLB.
"It seems to work, in that offense in MLB is at pretty low levels at the moment, even with so many injured pitchers. "
Keep in mind that in MLB, a hitter is considered successful if he safely hits over one-third the time (.300), so all things considered, the sport favors the pitcher/defense, just as it always has. It's when a batter is successful (duing the later innings, during the postseason) that teams pay close attention.
"Pitchers are becoming more like running backs in the NFL -- a few stars, and then a great mass of almost-interchangeable journeymen."
And this makes my point precisely--RB's in the NFL aren't commanding the top salaries as they once did. Pitchers are soon not going to be able to command 20-40, or even 50 million plus per season, as their hitting/ position player counterparts. Because IF you can have a single nine inning game completed by a 4-6 man committee staff, those 4-6 men aren't going to be paid exorbitantly at all. It's going to be at the level of "Why pay 20 million per season when we can get journeymen innings eaters whom we can pay for around 7-12 million per season?
It's always about the money in MLB (and most sports, obviously) at least from the owners perspective. Perhaps over time word will get out for younger men who want a career in MLB not to pursue pitching and concentrate on other positions instead.
I think you're right on this. From the team ownership/management POV, why break the bank signing a rotation that includes at least 3-4 big-name pitchers who command vast salaries, when it's likely they're going to be injured for substantial stretches anyway, and then will have to have their usage carefully constrained every time they come off the DL?
Teams are succeeding in the post season now by pitching their better starters 4-5 innings in some games, and doing the 'pitching by committee' approach in others. It would be very interesting to see a breakdown of the winning percentages for the latter approach, actually.
In any case, as a former pitcher myself, it makes me a bit sad seeing this all come to pass. I can just envisage, 40 years from now, one of the Dodgers' NLCS game 6 pitchers telling his grandson about it, and explaining how, well, okay, he only pitched the fourth inning of that game, but it was a REALLY IMPORTANT inning, when you look at the metrics . . . .
Ask the Nationals how they've enjoyed Stephen Strasburg $240 million for about forty innings of work over the last five years.
Maybe it’s the increase in surgical success that has encouraged pitchers to reach for that “extra” in speed/spin that makes batters miss?
I'm sure this has something to do with it. If Tommy John surgery had, say, a 50-60% success rate, things would look very different.
Most big guys lose bat speed when they approach 30. Judge has so far defied that. Think of Ryan Howard and Chris Davis in recent times. One has to wonder when Judge becomes an easy out with occasional home run power. He's a great athlete with a compact swing. He may be as good as he was this year for another two or three years.
> Full context: Judge also struck out 171 times in 2024. What exactly is he swinging at, or attempting to hit--the air?
Nobody cares about batter strikeouts in 2024
Uh, bullshit.
The do care, especially during key crucial moments (e.g. during the WS), or when the game is on the line in later innings.
🎻🎻🎻
Facts
🥱
I'm not a baseball fan, but have baseball teams stopped caring about the Moneyball value of OBP? Or does Judge escape an inverse relationship between SO and OBP?
Judge had an enormous On Base Percentage of .458 this year (along with a .701 slugging average) because he batted .322 and got 133 walks. If Stanton had hit behind him all season the way he's hitting in the playoffs, Judge, who runs pretty well, might have scored 150 runs.
Has the relationship between SO and OBP been studied?
edit: I found this note, though it's not, for me, terribly informative:
https://harvardsportsanalysis.org/2009/11/strikeouts-and-the-anna-karenina-principle-or-why-ks-dont-hurt-mlb-batters/
😴
“Example: perennial Gold Glove 2B for NY Bobby Richardson (whom Steve has castigated before for not walking enough times) was the only MVP WS winner for a losing team (1960, vs PIT). Richardson hit .367; 12 RBIs (including a grandslam, and had 6 RBI's in a single game). Richardson also had 7 H's off HOF STL P Bob Gibson in 64 WS.”
I don’t remember Steve castigating Richardson for his lack of walks but I’ll take your word for it. In Bobby’s defense he was not a long ball threat (his career high for HRs was eight) and he often batted near the bottom of the order with no Moose, Mantle or Maris to protect him, so pitchers didn’t pitch around him. Secondly, he played decades before Moneyball and walks were not as valued as they are today.
I met Richardson in 1993 at a game in Anaheim. A guy who worked for me had roomed with one of Bobby’s sons at Clemson and arranged for my family and me to attend an Angels game that was preceding by an Old Timers game in which Bobby played. After the OT game we were invited to the VIP suite to meet Bobby. When he found out I was a seminary graduate we had a great discussion of his ministry and outreach activities. When he asked about my wife I told him that only four of us were allowed up to the suite and that she had remained in the stands. He insisted on going down to meet her and discussed his family at length, showing us a picture of his eight (if I remember correctly) granddaughters, all dressed in white dresses. He had not sat in stands since his retirement from the Yankees but graciously wanted to spend time with Mrs. FPD72.
Bobby preached at the funerals of Billy Martin and Mickey Mantle. He is a humble and gracious Christian gentleman.
Little Al Weis was a great hero for the '69 Mets.
Congratulations, Steve, on LA winning the 2024 NL Pennant. As you're a long time LA fan, perhaps this WS could be one for the ages (or not). Since moving to LA, the Dodgers have faced the Yankees 5 times in the WS--winning in 1963; losing in both 1977 & 1978 (I'm sure fans of LA in the 70's well remember those losses) and 1981, when they won. So 2024 is the tiebreaker.
Yep, could be the WS from coast to coast that MLB fans have wanted to see for a long time now.
> It’s not unknown for the two best players to meet in the World Series: e.g., third basemen Mike Schmidt vs. George Brett in 1980 when they both enjoyed career years
They shared the cover of the April 13, 1981, issue of Sports Illustrated, with the headline of Hot Shots at the Hot Corner. Then, in a nod to the recently-ended MLBPA strike, SI reran the picture on August 10 with the headline of Here We Go Again!
While there is a bias in MVP voting, and the "two best players" is subjective, the last time both MVP's met in the World Series was 2012, when Buster Posey's Giants defeated Miguel Cabrera's Tigers.
Going by pure statistics, I would say the last time was the 1989 Earthquake Series between Rickey Henderson's Athletics and Kevin Mitchell's Giants, with the latter having a career year without being the best player in the NL per se.
"Going by pure statistics, I would say the last time was the 1989 Earthquake Series between Rickey Henderson's Athletics and Kevin Mitchell's Giants, with the latter having a career year without being the best player in the NL per se."
That's not what Steve wrote or was referring to. The best players in MLB. Rickey Henderson is HOF, while SF for that season didn't have a HOFer.
Well, it was nice here before you discovered this Substack 🙄
> That's not what Steve wrote or was referring to. The best players in MLB.
In 1989 Kevin Mitchell was undeniably the best player in the National League. The fact that he couldn't sustain it has nothing to do with how people felt about him in 1989, although he did have another monster year with the Reds in 1994, the forgotten season.
> SF for that season didn't have a HOFer
Goose Gossage was elected by the BBWAA in 2008 on the 9th ballot.
The bare-handed catch is a classic.
Right. Rickey Henderson was long a contender for Best Player, but Kevin Mitchell was erratic. So Henderson vs. Mitchell in 1989 wasn't exactly like Willie Mays vs. Mickey Mantle in 1962.
1962 was a weird World Series because it was long delayed by torrential rains in San Francisco, rather like the 1989 WS was delayed by the Loma Prieto earthquake.
Yes, the series was delayed from the start because the NL used a three-game series to settle ties, then Game 6 was delayed because of the rain.
Back then MLB was less concerned about what days of the week they played, especially since the World Series was played during the day. Now, they intentionally start on Friday so that they intentionally miss going up against Thursday Night Football and Sunday Night Football. The irony of this is that when the NFL first started Sunday Night Football in 1987, it was intentionally delayed to the second half of the season in order to avoid the World Series. The NFL first dipped their toe in the water in 2010 and when they saw that their ratings held their own against the WS, they decided to going the process and now MLB is the one who schedules around the NFL.
I look forward to an entertaining series; hopefully we won't be disappointed. Maybe it goes 7 games and turns into a barnburner.
New York vs LA in the world series:
Most of the country is rooting for an earthquake
NY/LA fans: isn't this great? The whole country is represented in this world series!
Nice to see Yankees-Dodgers again. Dodgers are a better team.
Bill James, who I used to respect more, Tweeted late last night that he is skeptical that the upcoming World Series will get high ratings, as both teams are "hard to root for". I tend to think that this will be the highest-rated World Series in quite some time, as it involves the two largest markets and will also attract fans who like to root against them. In the last 20 years the two highest-rated World Series have involved teams breaking long droughts: 2004 (Red Sox/Cardinals 15.8) and 2016 (Cubs/Indians 12.9). The lowest-rated one was the most recent between the Rangers and Diamondbacks; even though the Rangers were going for their first win ever, it didn't captivate America as it rated 4.7.
https://x.com/billjamesonline/status/1848246821308535192
A few hours ago he backpedaled a bit, saying that he has "no idea"; coward
https://x.com/billjamesonline/status/1848375006469800133