Jump to content


Welcome to DBSTalk


Sign In 

Create Account
Welcome to DBSTalk. Our community covers all aspects of video delivery solutions including: Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), Cable Television, and Internet Protocol Television (IPTV). We also have forums to discuss popular television programs, home theater equipment, and internet streaming service providers. Members of our community include experts who can help you solve technical problems, industry professionals, company representatives, and novices who are here to learn.

Like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community. Sign-up is a free and simple process that requires minimal information. Be a part of our community by signing in or creating an account. The Digital Bit Stream starts here!
  • Reply to existing topics or start a discussion of your own
  • Subscribe to topics and forums and get email updates
  • Send private personal messages (PM) to other forum members
  • Customize your profile page and make new friends
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

Photo

Most career 5-hit games?


  • Please log in to reply
34 replies to this topic

#21 OFFLINE   Rich

Rich

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 20,387 posts
  • LocationPiscataway, NJ
Joined: Feb 22, 2007

Posted 22 August 2010 - 03:04 PM

Nor do they count as "at bats".


I think you have to look at it as how many times a player comes to the plate in the context of getting five or six attempts in a game. Just getting up six times in a game is an awful lot on a Major League level.

Rich

...Ads Help To Support This SIte...

#22 OFFLINE   Herdfan

Herdfan

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 5,971 posts
Joined: Mar 18, 2006

Posted 22 August 2010 - 06:09 PM

Cobb's always the first person I think of when it comes to hits. Just as the Babe is the first one that comes to mind when speaking of HRs.

Think of what it was like when Cobb was playing: Not really a hardball by today's standards.


If Babe Ruth at his prime was inserted in a major league lineup today, he might be able to put the bat on the ball.

As for Cobb, and Ruth, the eras in which they played were totally different in terms of the approach to the game. Cobb and Ruth got to face tired starting pitchers in the 7-9 innings. The never had to face a setup man with a wicked slittie then the next inning a power pitcher with upper 90's heat. Getting hits/HR's in those later innings was much easier then that it is today.

My Setup

 

Why can I get to the "Adult's Only" area faster than I can get to the "ToDo" List?  DirecTV, that is messed up!!!


#23 OFFLINE   Steve

Steve

    Hall Of Fame

  • Topic Starter
  • DBSTalk Club
  • 22,525 posts
Joined: Aug 22, 2006

Posted 22 August 2010 - 07:04 PM

[...] Getting hits/HR's in those later innings was much easier then that it is today.

If so, then why wasn't everyone hitting them? :) Ruth was definitely an anomaly vs. his peers. Check out these stats.

As the author of that blog points out, in 1920, Ruth hit more home runs than any team in baseball except the Phillies. That would be the equivalent of Barry Bonds hitting 234 homers in 2001.

Ya, there were no relief specialists, but they also allowed to throw a spitball and umps rarely threw out nicked baseballs, so pitchers were able to make the ball do funny things.

And I don't know if balls travel further at night or indoors.
/steve

#24 OFFLINE   Rich

Rich

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 20,387 posts
  • LocationPiscataway, NJ
Joined: Feb 22, 2007

Posted 23 August 2010 - 07:54 AM

If so, then why wasn't everyone hitting them? :) Ruth was definitely an anomaly vs. his peers. Check out these stats.

As the author of that blog points out, in 1920, Ruth hit more home runs than any team in baseball except the Phillies. That would be the equivalent of Barry Bonds hitting 234 homers in 2001.

Ya, there were no relief specialists, but they also allowed to throw a spitball and umps rarely threw out nicked baseballs, so pitchers were able to make the ball do funny things.

And I don't know if balls travel further at night or indoors.


I've watched a lot of films that showed Ruth batting. Don't sell that ability short. The game today is so watered down it's getting hard to watch. Never mind the PEDs. But, if anyone wants to believe that Cobb and Ruth couldn't have competed today at a very high level, that's up to you. Their stats prove their abilities. Just the comparisons to their peers is telling. If Ruth (like the Mick) had taken better care of himself, his stats would still stand at the top of the lists.

Yes, the game's changed and the way players work out and keep themselves in great shape would apply to Ruth and Cobb if they were playing today. Nobody can make the argument that yesterday's great stars couldn't have performed at a very high level today. That's like saying Ali would have lost to Joe Louis at their respective peaks. How could you possibly tell without putting them in the ring against each other at their peaks? This kind of argument is without foundation.

Does Herdfan think that Nolan Ryan couldn't have pitched today, or that Ted Williams couldn't have hit today? Or that Bob Feller couldn't throw a baseball at a hundred miles an hour today?

Rich

#25 OFFLINE   Sharkie_Fan

Sharkie_Fan

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 2,535 posts
Joined: Sep 25, 2006

Posted 23 August 2010 - 10:15 AM

As for Cobb, and Ruth, the eras in which they played were totally different in terms of the approach to the game. Cobb and Ruth got to face tired starting pitchers in the 7-9 innings. The never had to face a setup man with a wicked slittie then the next inning a power pitcher with upper 90's heat. Getting hits/HR's in those later innings was much easier then that it is today.


Nice theory.

Too bad the stats don't agree with you.

http://www.baseball-...t=b&n1=ruthba01

There is no dramatic increase in the number of home runs Babe Ruth hit in innings 7-end (he had 16 extra inning HRs). In fact, he hit more in innings 1-3 than any other group of innings.

Also... just because specialists didn't exist doesn't mean that you were always facing a tired pitcher in innings 7-9. Relief pitchers still existed and were used (going through the list of players Ruth hit home runs off of, for example, Bill Dietrich appeared in 43 games in 1935, but only started 15 of those).

To assume that Ruth couldn't play in todays era is a silly notion, IMO. He was more talented than his peers by a measure so great that I think one has to assume that if he were playing in today's era, with access to all the same advantages that today's player has, he'd be a successful player. A great player. Maybe not head and shoulders above everyone else the way he was, but he'd be damn good.

I think the same can be said of any of the "great" players. How you define great depends on how true that statement is. Personally, I use the word great very sparingly. For instance, I had a friend tell me last year when Pablo Sandoval of the Giants was hitting .330 that he was a "great hitter". In my mind, that was a very good year... but a great hitter flirts with .400. He said "So you mean there have only been 3 or 4 great hitters in your lifetime". Yup. Exactly what I mean. Great, to me, means you're the best of the best. Take the top handful of players in the world, and you're at the top of the list....

Those players, IMO, regardless of what era they played in, have the kind of talent that would translate across eras.... assuming of course that they took advantage of the advantages of the era. Babe Ruth probably couldn't play in today's game if he was 300lbs and hungover every day.. but if he took care of himself the way todays players do, he'd still be a great player.
"There's a statistical theory that if you gave a million monkey's typewriters and set them to work, they'd eventually come up with the complete works of Shakespeare. Thanks to the Internet, we now know this isn't true" -Ian Hart

#26 OFFLINE   Steve

Steve

    Hall Of Fame

  • Topic Starter
  • DBSTalk Club
  • 22,525 posts
Joined: Aug 22, 2006

Posted 23 August 2010 - 12:17 PM

Why I love baseball stats. :) After the Mariners walked Tex yesterday, to load the bases, Cano hit a grand slam. MLB.com reported this:

"It was the fourth time this season that Teixeira has been intentionally walked; on three of those occasions, the following batter has hit a grand slam. In the four innings in which Teixeira has been intentionally walked, the Yankees have scored 18 runs. Since he joined the Yanks, Teixeira has been intentionally walked to load the bases 10 times, with the subsequent hitter going 7-for-8 with four home runs and 25 RBIs."

In this post-PED "year of the pitcher" (6-7 no-hitters so far, and 2-3 that went into the 9th?), that's the 10th grand slam for the Yankees, tying their 1987 club record. Don Mattingly hit 6 of those, a record he shares with Travis Hafner. The team grand slam record is 14, jointly held by the 2000 A's and the 2006 Indians.
/steve

#27 OFFLINE   Rich

Rich

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 20,387 posts
  • LocationPiscataway, NJ
Joined: Feb 22, 2007

Posted 23 August 2010 - 12:48 PM

Nice theory.

Too bad the stats don't agree with you.

http://www.baseball-...t=b&n1=ruthba01

There is no dramatic increase in the number of home runs Babe Ruth hit in innings 7-end (he had 16 extra inning HRs). In fact, he hit more in innings 1-3 than any other group of innings.

Also... just because specialists didn't exist doesn't mean that you were always facing a tired pitcher in innings 7-9. Relief pitchers still existed and were used (going through the list of players Ruth hit home runs off of, for example, Bill Dietrich appeared in 43 games in 1935, but only started 15 of those).

To assume that Ruth couldn't play in todays era is a silly notion, IMO. He was more talented than his peers by a measure so great that I think one has to assume that if he were playing in today's era, with access to all the same advantages that today's player has, he'd be a successful player. A great player. Maybe not head and shoulders above everyone else the way he was, but he'd be damn good.

I think the same can be said of any of the "great" players. How you define great depends on how true that statement is. Personally, I use the word great very sparingly. For instance, I had a friend tell me last year when Pablo Sandoval of the Giants was hitting .330 that he was a "great hitter". In my mind, that was a very good year... but a great hitter flirts with .400. He said "So you mean there have only been 3 or 4 great hitters in your lifetime". Yup. Exactly what I mean. Great, to me, means you're the best of the best. Take the top handful of players in the world, and you're at the top of the list....

Those players, IMO, regardless of what era they played in, have the kind of talent that would translate across eras.... assuming of course that they took advantage of the advantages of the era. Babe Ruth probably couldn't play in today's game if he was 300lbs and hungover every day.. but if he took care of himself the way todays players do, he'd still be a great player.


Great post. My thoughts exactly. And I'm glad you used "IMO" instead of "IMHO". You obviously weren't humble in your post at all and you are so correct.

I like your definition of "great" players too. I have only seen a few "great" players in my lifetime. Ted Williams, Willie and the Mick. The rest were on another level, just a tad below the "great" ones. Even Aaron wasn't considered to be on the level of Mays, and as it turned out, he stayed healthy and compiled a lot of 40+ HR seasons. Like Pete Rose a great compiler, but neither were thought of during their time playing as "great" players. The Reds had several players on their teams during their great run that were better than Rose. But you look at the stats and think, "Gee, Aaron must have been a far greater hitter than Ruth". Wrong. He wasn't considered as good as Willie and the Mick. Look at Rose's number of hits compared to Cobb's. Rose must have been the better hitter. Wrong. Look at the number of at bats each had. Cobb had far less than Rose did, and Rose damn near killed himself breaking that record.

Cobb and Ruth set standards that only Teddy Baseball came close to and if he hadn't fought in two wars he might have surpassed both of them.

Rich

#28 OFFLINE   Rich

Rich

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 20,387 posts
  • LocationPiscataway, NJ
Joined: Feb 22, 2007

Posted 23 August 2010 - 12:53 PM

Why I love baseball stats. :) After the Mariners walked Tex yesterday, to load the bases, Cano hit a grand slam. MLB.com reported this:

"It was the fourth time this season that Teixeira has been intentionally walked; on three of those occasions, the following batter has hit a grand slam. In the four innings in which Teixeira has been intentionally walked, the Yankees have scored 18 runs. Since he joined the Yanks, Teixeira has been intentionally walked to load the bases 10 times, with the subsequent hitter going 7-for-8 with four home runs and 25 RBIs."

In this post-PED "year of the pitcher" (6-7 no-hitters so far, and 2-3 that went into the 9th?), that's the 10th grand slam for the Yankees, tying their 1987 club record. Don Mattingly hit 6 of those, a record he shares with Travis Hafner. The team grand slam record is 14, jointly held by the 2000 A's and the 2006 Indians.


I could watch Robby play all day long. So smooth. And his swing is so close to perfect. Best second baseman I've ever seen on the Yankees. Best infield I've ever seen on the Yankees. But the pitching staff has me worried. They won with three dependable starters last year and one of them wasn't all that dependable. Pettite going down for so long is liable to hurt them horribly in the playoffs.

Rich

#29 OFFLINE   Steve

Steve

    Hall Of Fame

  • Topic Starter
  • DBSTalk Club
  • 22,525 posts
Joined: Aug 22, 2006

Posted 23 August 2010 - 01:09 PM

Cobb and Ruth set standards that only Teddy Baseball came close to and if he hadn't fought in two wars he might have surpassed both of them.

Yup. He arguably could have hit at least another 150 homers the four years he missed.

And had the 1947 Williams-DiMaggio trade gone through, I shudder to think how many more homers he would have hit to the short porch at Yankee Stadium!!!!

And what would DiMaggio's numbers have been at Fenway????

FWIW, I consider Gherig right up there with Cobb, Ruth and Williams, followed by Mickey, Willie and Joe D.
/steve

#30 OFFLINE   Rich

Rich

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 20,387 posts
  • LocationPiscataway, NJ
Joined: Feb 22, 2007

Posted 23 August 2010 - 03:28 PM

Yup. He arguably could have hit at least another 150 homers the four years he missed.


I just looked at his stats and the Korean War years are obvious, but the WW2 time frame has him only playing one year. On this link.

And had the 1947 Williams-DiMaggio trade gone through, I shudder to think how many more homers he would have hit to the short porch at Yankee Stadium!!!!


That's probably one of the best "almost" trades the Red Sox had. The war years had taken a toll on Joe D. He was playing over two hundred games a year. Well over. I don't think he was the same after the war. If I recall correctly, it goes over that in the biography that was published several years ago. Then DiMaggio hurt his heel and was gone while Teddy Baseball played until 1960. Hit over .300 and his very last hit was a home run. Getting Williams for Dimaggio would have been a real coup for the Yankees.

And what would DiMaggio's numbers have been at Fenway????


Probably good for a year or two and then downhill quickly. That heel problem. Imagine the health care then and compare it to now. He'd be cured and would have played for a longer time.

FWIW, I consider Gherig right up there with Cobb, Ruth and Williams, followed by Mickey, Willie and Joe D.


He was kind of unlucky when you think about it. Played all those years overshadowed by Ruth. People don't realize how good he was. But Ruth saved the game and you can't forget that. And Cobb was freaky good, from what I've read. Seen a few films of him. There were an awful lot of good players in those years from 1920 on to the early sixties.

Rich

#31 OFFLINE   redsoxfan26

redsoxfan26

    Godfather

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 385 posts
  • LocationWest Warwick, RI
Joined: Dec 06, 2007

Posted 23 August 2010 - 03:44 PM

I figured I would put my two cents in on this "who is the best of the best" baseball players of all time. My top three would probably be Ruth, Williams, and Honus Wagner.

#32 OFFLINE   Sharkie_Fan

Sharkie_Fan

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 2,535 posts
Joined: Sep 25, 2006

Posted 23 August 2010 - 10:36 PM

I like your definition of "great" players too. I have only seen a few "great" players in my lifetime. Ted Williams, Willie and the Mick.


Oh to have seen those 3 play in my lifetime!! Only being 33, I've only got to see them in the highlight reels... Granted, I get to see alot of highlight reels of Willie, being in the SF Bay Area.

It drives me nuts to hear fans (and even worse, announcers or coaches) calling a player "great". We've become a society that throws around superlatives every time you turn around... I prefer to save those superlatives for something (or someone) truly special.

I know I brought up Pablo Sandoval earlier.. but here's a kid who with ~120 games in the majors was voted the greatest 3rd baseman in Giants history (by Giants fans)... (To any giants fans reading this... I hate to say I told you so, but... well... I did.) To anyone who cared to look, he had major holes in his game... not the least of which was his approach at the plate... fans looked at his .300+ BA last year and said "Oh he's a great hitter". I looked at him close his eyes and swing as hard as he could and said "Pitchers are going to figure this kid out"...

For some reason, though, we just have this undeniable urge to label people as "great"... and I think it's a disservice to the players now, and more specifically to the players who have come before who truly were "great"...

Calling Pablo Sandoval "great", putting him along side guys like Ty Cobb and Ted Williams is like putting Roseanne Barr and Celine Dion in the same class of singers...

I'll now climb off my soap box and let you return to your regularly scheduled programming. :D
"There's a statistical theory that if you gave a million monkey's typewriters and set them to work, they'd eventually come up with the complete works of Shakespeare. Thanks to the Internet, we now know this isn't true" -Ian Hart

#33 OFFLINE   AntAltMike

AntAltMike

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 2,713 posts
  • LocationCollege Park MD (just outside Wash, DC)
Joined: Nov 20, 2004

Posted 24 August 2010 - 07:08 AM

The linked page from post #2 shows that someone named Ted Cox got four hits in his first game. I listened to it on the radio. He went four for four, and then got hits in the first two at bats of his second game, so he started his career six-for-six, but five of those six hits were banjo hits. He was never much of a hitter. Me, I'd rather start my career like Don Hasselbeck. His first four receptions were for touchdowns (thanks to the novel, three-tight-end, goal-line offense), albeit for only five yards gained.

As far as the productivity of Williams and Dimaggio in each other's parks is concerned, it would make less difference than you might think, as they would be pitched differently. The Red Sox have had a slew of batting champions, but only one batted right-handed. The Red Sox used to have a promising young, left handed hitter named Dalton Jones, who used to bat umpteen thousand in Tiger Stadium. He went five for five there once, and hit a game winning homer in extra innings during the 1967 pennant race stretch run. People used to say that if he ever got traded to Detroit, he might win a batting title because the ballpark was so well suited to his swing, so after the 1969 season, the Tigers traded for him. The record books show that Jones's batting average for his final year in Boston was .220, whereas his first year batting average in Detroit was... .220. He was out of baseball before he turned 30.

I remember when shortstop Rico Petrocelli hit 40 homers in one season. It was derided as a Fenway park aided stat, but if I recall correctly, he hit 22 at home and 18 on the road, which seems likely to be about the norm for a major league home/road advantage.

I don't buy the "baseballl is watered down" stuff. Until free agency, many young people would not consider committing to sports at an early age because they were unlikely to be able to make a good living at it even if they did, in fact, make the majors. In the 1960s, the "hard thrower" on your staff could throw a 90 mile an hour fastball. Now, there are lots of guys who throw 90 mile an hour change-ups. Any pitcher who can't throw over 90 miles per hour is considered a junkballer. Scouting today is a thousand times better and more thorough than it was in baseball's golden era. Look how "big" Jimmy Foxx was. 190 pounds? When Nomar Garciaparra played shortstop for the Red Sox, he was bigger than Jimmy Foxx.

Every kid in America who can throw 70 miles an hour has been clocked on a radar gun and entered into computerized files, so no pitching prospect ever gets overlooked.

And as far as Nolan Ryan is concerned, he was simply the greatest .500 pitcher in baseball history. Over his career, he averaged just one more win than loss per season. When he departed from one team, the manager (Whitely Herzog, maybe?) was asked how he'd replace such a pitcher, and he said he'd pay a couple of guys $100,000 each to go eight and eight.

Edited by AntAltMike, 24 August 2010 - 02:50 PM.


#34 OFFLINE   redsoxfan26

redsoxfan26

    Godfather

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 385 posts
  • LocationWest Warwick, RI
Joined: Dec 06, 2007

Posted 24 August 2010 - 03:21 PM

The Red Sox have had a slew of batting champions, but only one batted right-handed.


Actually there are four. Five if you count Bill Mueller in 2003 who was a switch hitter.
They are Dale Alexander 1932, Jimmie Foxx 1938, Nomar Garciaparra 1999 and 2000, and Manny Ramirez 2002.

#35 OFFLINE   Rich

Rich

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 20,387 posts
  • LocationPiscataway, NJ
Joined: Feb 22, 2007

Posted 24 August 2010 - 04:16 PM

Oh to have seen those 3 play in my lifetime!! Only being 33, I've only got to see them in the highlight reels... Granted, I get to see alot of highlight reels of Willie, being in the SF Bay Area.


I saw Mantle in '51 and that made up my mind to root for the Yankees. Never regretted that. Gotta wonder what would have happened if I had seen Mays first.

Living in the NYC area, we got the Yankees, Giants and Dodgers on TV for the first time in 1948. I spent '48, '49 and '50 trying to figure out who to root for. I saw DiMaggio and Rizzuto. Saw a lot of Williams too. Not the outfielder Mantle or Mays were. Not bad tho. Good arm. Smart. Better hitter than either Mantle or Mays. Better than DiMaggio after WW2 and played until '60. If I had to pick one in his prime, I'd take Mantle. And wish for Mays.

Rich




spam firewall