Favorite Baseball Stat sites

Retrosheet.org
baseball-reference.com
thebaseballcube.com
baseballalmanac.com
mlb.com

baseballlibrary.com usually has a little bio to go with the career stats. Very useful for guys that had only a few really good years, or just one.

Case in point: "Hurricane" Bob Hazel of the Milwaukee Braves.
In 1957 he batted .403, hit 12 doubles and 7 homeruns and slugged .649 in 143 at bats.

For a few months in 1957, he was virtually unstoppable, but he never did anything else before or after that.

Or take pre-1900's flamethrower Amos Rusie. He was so fast and so wild, he was partially responsible for the lengthening the mound/plate distance from 55 feet to 60' 6".

In 1890, at 19 years old with the New York Giants, he won 29 games and struck out 341 batters. But, he also lost 39 games and walked a still standing major league record 289 batters.

Even Steve "White Lightning" Dalkowski, a short, pudgy flamethrowing lefty in the Orioles minor league system. He has probably the most legendary fastball ever. Some estimate that in his prime, his fastball topped out at 110 mph. The problem was, he couldn't control his heat enough to keep it inside a batting cage.

His rookie season in pro ball (1957) he pitched 62 innings, giving up only 22 hits and striking out 121 batters (about 18 per game). But because of his 128 walks, he was only 1-8 with an horrible 8.13 ERA.


I love baseball stats. Esspecially from the 50's and 60's.



Soli Deo Gloria,
Dustin

 

www.baseball-reference.com

This is a great site. Careful analysis herein will produce definitive conclusions that the Metrodome is a sham.

 

I had this old computer game back in the late 80's that had several World Series team rosters, and the '57 Braves were among them. I would always pute Hazle as their DH and he would produce these amazing stats based on his real life 143 at-bats. He must have gotten hurt or something. He actually finished his short career with the Tigers in 1958.

 

I like rotonews.com when following specific players.

 

Or careful analysis of all teams, over all years, might show that Andy T.'s hatred for the Metrodome is only a personal dislike of 'Sack Park'. :laugh; :laugh:

Again, I love the quirks of allparks and find this no different than the "Green Monster", Wrigley's Ivied walls, or any other quirk that supposedly gives a home team an advantage. BTW, IMO, a lot of home field advantage, went by the wayside with the introduction of the, thankfully and hopefully, now on the way out, "cookie cutter" parks of the last thirty years. Keep Yankee Stadium (which unfortunately ain't gonna' happen), Fenway, Wrigley, et al. Build a new stadium with a 340' right field fence, a la the old Tiger/Briggs Stadium, and yes, build a new park with a 'sack' in RF, a la the Metrodome, and one with a terrace in LF, and a 387' center field wall, a la the late great Crosley Field. That's one of the factors that makes the game interesting.

That, and the griping I hear from a certain disgruntled "Tiger fan", who BTW, has not said one word in favor of the old 'Tiger digs', but has certainly griped about the current 'Twins digs'. As 'SBC Pastor' said, "Get over it!"

Would anyone watch golf, if every 18 hole course was designed exactly the same? I would not, but I cannot speak for anyone else.

What would the "Grand Slam" of tennis be if it were not played on different surfaces? Roland Garros on 'clay'; Wimbledon on 'grass'; The U. S. Open on acryllic 'hard court'; and the Aussie Open on "Rebound Ace" synthetic hardcourt, each of which have their own specific characteristics of speed and bounce? Just four more "cookie cutter" tournaments with 'big bucks'!

Ed

 

"Fielding Runs" - isn't that a Bill James creation? If so, I would be surprised if he would allow his work product posted freely on the Internet. But if it is out there for free, along with all of his other ingenius stats, then I'd like to see them, too. I do know baseball-reference has a few of the James stats, but not nearly all of them.

 

Ed, I like all the quirks of the old (and some of the new) stadiums, too. But none of them are unnatural like what the Metrodome has. For instance, the slope in CF of the Astros stadium - that is unnatural and provides a unique advantage to the Astros centerfielder who gets to play there way more than the opposing teams. I would be in favor of having them get rid of that slope, for safety reasons alone.

 

Fielding Runs is a common term for any statistical treatment of fielding that converts a fielder's performance to runs. Total Baseball uses the most common approach and most easily understood version. Their approach involves weighting the number of putouts, assists, and double plays made by each fielder, and comparing those totals to positional norms of other fielders to arrive at a figure above or below average. Each extra out made, or hit allowed, is worth X runs which leads to the FR figure. Career figures are considered better indicators than individual seasons as normalization is required for better overall averaging of each fielder's statistical performance.

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/stats3.shtml

 

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/player.php?p=conceda01


For those like me who like to mix baseball & current events....


http://www.baseballcrank.com

 

Why is the right field "sack" in the Metrodome any more "unnatural" than the 'hollow tin' of the Green Monster in Fenway? Or the ivy in Wrigley? And, FTR, can you cite any examples of an injury incurred in "Astros stadium" that solely, or even primarily, were the result of the slope you mention? Or is it merely a sizeable disadvantage to fielders who are not so used to the park, as was the terrace in old Crosley? It seems to me that you want each and every 'outfield' to become basically the same, to eliminate any real home field advantage. Each team, to my knowledge, gets to practice at most every park before a game. If they have to get up at 6AM to do so, in order to familiarize themselves with each and every quirk, so be it! Teams can figure out stats down to the number of pitches a particular pitcher can throw before he begins to 'tail off', or how a particular player does facing any given pitcher. Surely the teams 'scouts', etc. can remember to tell the players about a hunk of tin or left field foul line projection in Fenway, or a 'sack' in the Metrodome!

It's a red herring for someone, in this case you, who does not like to see a great home-field advantage, for a team. And you just proved that with the comments about centerfield in Astros Park!

Ed

 

Ed, I guess my bias is against the plastic-ness of the Metrodome advantages. All the other quirks you mention are quaint, and therefore not as egregious. Even the Astro centerfield doesn't bother me that much - it just looks like it could cause injuries. If no one has been injured, then it is o.k. to leave it.

 

Does anyone really think that Babe Ruth would have had as many home runs across town in Queens in the Polo Grounds where the RCF 'power alley' was 440', and dead CF was almost 500', as opposed to Yankee Stadium with its RCF 'power alley' of 370' and dead CF of 408' ? Yet who is here questioning his stats? Just for one example.

Ya' wanna' question the stats of Barry Bonds? Ya' might have some particle of reason, in that case, but "the jury is still out on that one", both, perhaps, literally and figuratively, I would say.

Ed

 

Please do - I love Hall of Fame debates, and I would love to debunk your notion that Concepcion deserves to be in it! :laugh:

 

I'm with Andy on this one. I don't think Concepcion belongs in the HoF either.