Gehrig vs Pujols

[kenny1234]

Nobody said that, and I don't think I implied that.


Exactly, and as such, it decreases the odds of each team winning the World Series. Thus, it's harder to win the World Series in a 3-round playoff than in a 1-round playoff.

The same number of World Series rings are given out now as in Gehrig's time, but more teams + more playoff teams = harder to win the World Series.

You said that:

1) It was easier to win the World Series in Gehrig's time. There were less teams, and only one round in the playoffs.

More teams yes. More playoff teams not necessarily. More playoff teams means that it is harder for the best teams to win and easier for weaker teams to win. If only 1 team made the playoffs now then Pujols probably doesn't have a ring. Or if more than one team made the playoffs in the 40's then Ted Williams probably does. It is harder now to have a dynasty - for individual players the difference depends on those around you.

[TheNamelessPoet]

Well, there is still only one team that wins it all each year. So what is the problem?

Seems like some people just like to disagree with others.

ok that being said... philly would be out and not have a hot at the ring

it would have been angels and cubs

[TheNamelessPoet]

I would think it's easier to win 2 rounds of playoff games than 3 rounds of playoff games.

Assuming each team has a 50% chance of winning their playoff round series, then each team has a 25% chance of winning the Series in a 2 round playoff (1/2 * 1/2). If there are 8 teams, and 3 rounds, then each team has a 1/2*1/2*1/2 chance of winning, which equals a 1/8 chance of winning, cutting their chances to win in half by doubling the ammount of teams.

dont forget in their time there was NO 2 rounds... it was 50% chance not 12.5%

[TheNamelessPoet]

More teams yes. More playoff teams not necessarily. More playoff teams means that it is harder for the best teams to win and easier for weaker teams to win. If only 1 team made the playoffs now then Pujols probably doesn't have a ring. Or if more than one team made the playoffs in the 40's then Ted Williams probably does. It is harder now to have a dynasty - for individual players the difference depends on those around you.

you are priving our point tho... if you have MORE "compitition" (more rounds) thats more games to ge thru... is anyone really going to say that STL was the best team in the leage in 2006... Not a chance... but because they had a CHANCE to play for the series they got in... the mets were clearly a stronger team that year

[kenny1234]

you are priving our point tho... if you have MORE "compitition" (more rounds) thats more games to ge thru... is anyone really going to say that STL was the best team in the leage in 2004... Not a chance... but because they had a CHANCE to play for the series they got in... the mets were clearly a stronger team that year

Right, so it was easier for Pujols to earn a ring because of the enlarged playoffs. It can't be harder (meaning less likely) for all players to earn a ring. Enlarged playoffs made it harder for the Cubs and Angels to earn a ring but easier for the Phillies or Red Sox.

This is a totally irrelevant debate that comes down to what we mean by harder. I am arguing that from the point of view of a career, changing the number of rounds in the playoffs doesn't reduce the odds that a random player will have a ring. You are arguing that once a player makes the playoffs his odds have been reduced - which is true but I think totally irrelevant.

The original comment was about the fact that Pujols only has 1 ring while Gehrig has 6 (I think). I just responded that the change in the playoff structure does not make it less likely that any particular player will have a ring or two. It probably does reduce the odds of a player having 6 because it reduces the chance of a dynasty.

[Swampdog]

Kenny's right. With the current playoff format (8 teams, 3 rounds), as opposed to the original format (2 teams meet in the WS), it is much easier for any individual player to be on a championship team at some point in his career, and conversely, it is far, far tougher for any player to win multiple (esp 4, 5 or more) 'rings'.

[dps]

More rounds of playoffs make it more likely that the best team talentwise won't win it all in any given year. This means that teams that are truly great over a period of years are less likely to win multiple championships, and therefore individual players are also less likely to win multiple rings.

[boomboom]

You said that:

More teams yes. More playoff teams not necessarily. More playoff teams means that it is harder for the best teams to win and easier for weaker teams to win. If only 1 team made the playoffs now then Pujols probably doesn't have a ring. Or if more than one team made the playoffs in the 40's then Ted Williams probably does. It is harder now to have a dynasty - for individual players the difference depends on those around you.

You guys are looking at the same thing, and seeing it totally different, but in the end you both agree. You are both basically saying the same thing.

[Jeffy25]

Being a Cardinal fan, it is a blessing having an all around great ballplayer like Pujols, gives back to the community, gives back to the team, plays great defense, in fact how many GG's did Gehrig end with? I have no idea. What were his fielding numbers? St. Louis is very lucky to have this kind of player...I hope we don't waste it. Gehrig was without question, one of the best....If it was the 30's again, you are talking about just a phenomen in his day...look at 1936, what the hell!? that's a great year!

I don't think Howard even comes close in comparision to either ballplayers...no where even close, he is more like an Adam Dunn in my opinion...and I don't think that is really anything too special, I have no beef with Howard, I just think he is night and day different.

A-Rod is consistantly a threat, just like Albert is...I compare those two more then anyone else in today's hitter athlete.

[Jeffy25]

how many times have the cards had the best record in the NL central since 01?

[QUOTE=kenny1234;1193335]Right, so it was easier for Pujols to earn a ring because of the enlarged playoffs. It can't be harder (meaning less likely) for all players to earn a ring. Enlarged playoffs made it harder for the Cubs and Angels to earn a ring but easier for the Phillies or Red Sox.

[HoustonGM]

in fact how many GG's did Gehrig end with? I have no idea. What were his fielding numbers?

There weren't any Gold Gloves back then. Also, there aren't really any even semi-reliable fielding numbers that go back that far. BP's Fielding Runs Above Average is probably the best, and Gehrig was at -32 for his career.

[Jeffy25]

not to sound dumb....what would an average fielder be then? 0? so is negative good? haha I really don't know

[HoustonGM]

not to sound dumb....what would an average fielder be then? 0? so is negative good? haha I really don't know

Yes, 0 is average. -32 for his career means he was usually a couple runs below average each year - see his page. He ranged from -8 to +3. I think it can be safely said that Gehrig was about an average fielder.

For comparison, Pujols is at +46 for his career, and since his switch to first base full time in 2004, he's ranged from +2 to +15. The past three years, he's gone +11, +14, +15.

[Jeffy25]

so being in the plus is good? haha, sorry

[HoustonGM]

so being in the plus is good? haha, sorry

Yes. 0 is average, above 0 is above average, and below is below average.