The would be poise rating- deconstructing an example

[Carlton]

Originally posted by holyroller
Home runs by season

1920: 630
1921: 937
1922: 1055
1923: 980
1924: 896
1925: 1169
1926: 863
1927: 922
1928: 1093
1929: 1349

Not sure what your point is regarding the top ten or twelve guys not meaning the game had become a power league. First of all, the top ten to twelve home run hitters have always and will always represent one extreme end of the spectrum. The IF's you mention who weren't hitting home runs represent the other end. That was true in the twenties and it is true today. The 20s and 30s were one of the most offensive periods in baseball history and fueling that run production was home runs.

Breaking it down by league say for 1930 and 1996

AL 1930---673
AL 1996---2742

yes in 96 there were 14 teams and only 8 in 1930
so lets divide HR per AB

AL 1930---.016
AL 1996---.036

The 30's did have an average of 5.41 runs per game opposed to 5.39 in 96 but it was by no means the era of the HR, that is a big misconception...due to one Babe Ruth

You had Ruth, Gehrig, Foxx, Goslin and Simmons...but after that you had a majority of players hitting 0-5 HRs

Therefore in 1930, say using a graph...it would be a flat line then a huge peak at the end, while in 1996, it would be a gradual rise.

[dougaiton]

Remember the DH as well, Carlton. I'll use games so as to avoid the BB skewing.
1996 NL - 0.97 HR per game
1930 NL - 0.73 HR per game

Well, its closer, but obviously the 90s had more homers. Interestingly though, although the '30 top is higher (56) than the 96 top, far more players in 96 hit 30 or more, implying that there might be a more even spread out near the bottom (i.e. the 0-5 HR bracket) in 1930! I hand back over to your expertise on this though...

[Carlton]

No, you said was exactly what I stated doug...except overall I think Pitcher's hit more HRs back in the 30's then now (Inside the Park HRs more than true HRs) ...I will have to look that up to be 100% sure...but IIRC they were.

But yes my point was HR was incorrect in his HR statement (pun alert) and you summed it up perfectly...and I will not follow the same tactics that have been done to myself and others...everybody is not entirely correct all the time...

But my point was that the 20's-50's they were only a handful maybe two handfuls of HR hitters...then a big dropoff, and most of those guys were IF's. In historical leagues they should be more valuable then HR power...but how to do it...I do not know.

I was thinking, however, that when you select and era in league settings it has the stealing...often, seldom thing...maybe...it could always place the importance on ratings? So have every player rating and a scale of 1-10 on importance??

So say its deadball...important ratings would be eye(no k's), speed, stealing ability, gap power
20's (HR's, defense, eye, speed)

who knows..but it would be great for historic simmers and wouldn't hinder current day leagues.
Anyway thanks for replying doug.

[Steely Glint]

Poise is a bad idea.

[Crapshoot]

Originally posted by Steely Glint
Poise is a bad idea.

You think ?

[holyroller]

Originally posted by Carlton
But yes my point was HR was incorrect in his HR statement (pun alert) and you summed it up perfectly...and I will not follow the same tactics that have been done to myself and others...everybody is not entirely correct all the time...

You misunderstanding what I said doesn't mean what I said was incorrect. This probably is a waste of my time since you will come back and "prove" what I said was wrong, but let's look at what I said one more time:

Not sure what your point is regarding the top ten or twelve guys not meaning the game had become a power league. First of all, the top ten to twelve home run hitters have always and will always represent one extreme end of the spectrum.

It may have been more extreme in the 20s-50s, as you say, but that does not make my above statement false.

The IF's you mention who weren't hitting home runs represent the other end. That was true in the twenties and it is true today.

Most definitely true as well. Every major league team starts infielders who hit under ten home runs right now, today. As you say, it may have been more extreme then, but that doesn't mean there was some huge sea change between then and now. Sure, you have ARod playing now, but there was also Rogers Hornsby then. It's not nearly as black and white as you make it out to be.

The 20s and 30s were one of the most offensive periods in baseball history and fueling that run production was home runs.

Now here is the nub of our disagreement, I think. After the deadball era, runs totals increased exponentialy. As the year by year stats I posted show, home runs also increased to previously unknown levels. If you think the two were unrelated, then this is probably just me wasting my breath, but to my mind saying that the increase in home runs fueled the increase in runs is kind of like saying that if you eat you will have to number two later. It's just obvious.