Official Member's Opinions Discussion [Archive]

View Full Version : Official Member's Opinions Discussion

Pages : [1] 2

Bill Burgess

01-08-2006, 07:17 PM

To all those who may like to discuss the opinions of the others, feel free to do so here as much as you like.

RuthMayBond

01-09-2006, 07:28 AM

<Blackout805
Players:

6-Dimaggio>

Not bad for 6800 AB

<9-Mays>

All that work down the tubes

<Rotation:
11-M Rivera
12-Grove
14-Spahn>

Well, I guess Rivera should be well-rested from all his starts :laugh

<18-Ryan>

Strikeouts are everything

<Team A Line-up

3B- Wade Boggs>

I'm not sure how he can rate higher than 4th

<RF- Babe Ruth
DH- Mickey Mantle>

I think Mantle was the better fielder

<Team B:
3B-Mike Schmidt (soon to be replaced by Arod)>

Look out for Rolen, Ensberg, MCabrera, Glaus,
Schmidt who?

<Closer-Eric Gagne>

He did have, uh, three really good years

<most commited opinions:

1-Dimaggio > Mays or Mantle>

Thank God he INSISTED on being introduced as the greatest living player

RuthMayBond

01-09-2006, 07:33 AM

RuthMayBond

01-09-2006, 07:47 AM

<ElHalo:
Top 20:

10. Jackson>

Let's hear it for 5690 plate apps

<15. Sisler
16. DiMaggio>

WOW!

<Team A:
OF: Ashburn>

Is he gonna have to hit?

<Team B:

3B: Traynor>

At least he's not on Team A <sigh>

<Defensive team A:

1B: Sisler
LF: J. Jackson

Team B:

LF: Delahanty>

A lotta hype

<C:

9. Bresnahan
10. Fisk>

Huh?

<3B:

3. Schmidt>

Not bad for a guy who had no business holding down a big league job

<7. Mathews>

At least he wasn't any lower

<10. P. Martin>

NOT personal favoritism at all :laugh

<LF:

1. Williams
2. Jackson
3. Musial
4. Delahanty
5. Henderson
6. Simmons
7. Kiner
8. Ramirez
9. Medwick
10. Goslin>

Just imagine if they HAD proven Bonds guilty

<CF:

6. Ashburn>

Defense is important, but . . .

<My beliefs:

6. If I've got nine innings that I absolute, positively have to win, give me seven innings of Petey Pablo and two innings of Mo.>

I might have to add this to mine :D

DoubleX

01-09-2006, 07:52 AM

6. If I've got nine innings that I absolute, positively have to win, give me seven innings of Petey Pablo and two innings of Mo.>

I might have to add this to mine :D

I don't know, that 7th inning with Pedro might get a little rough. :)

RuthMayBond

01-09-2006, 08:00 AM

538280:
<Top 100 Position Players of All Time

14.Joe Morgan
31.Jackie Robinson
42.Robin Yount
68.Jimmy Wynn
71.Dave Parker
76.Bobby Bonds
79.Sal Bando
97.Wally Berger
98.Cesar Cedeno>

High rankings, but what are ya gonna do?

Top 25 by Position

<First Base

16.Mark McGwire>

Steroids discount?

<Second Base

4.Jackie Robinson>

I'm outnumbered

<Third Base

8.Sal Bando>

He was good, but ???

<22.Lave Cross
23.John McGraw
24.Lave Cross>

You gotta decide :D

<Center Fielders

8.Jimmy Wynn
9.Duke Snider
10.Ken Griffey Jr.>

Different

RuthMayBond

01-09-2006, 08:16 AM

DoubleX:

<6) The Yankees, contrary to popular belief, are good for baseball. Where would baseball be historically and presently without the Yankees?>

Giving other teams a chance?

<They put fans in the seats>

With that population I should hope so

<and under the current economics of baseball, they raise significant money for other teams.>

They raise MORE significant money for themselves :D

<7) Some of those other teams need to do a better job of spending the millions that the Yankees earn for them by building better teams for their fans (ahem, Royals, ahem Pirates).>

If only they could afford to :(

<9) Charles Comiskey valued the fans and he valued winning, and he was willing to spend to appease the former and achieve the latter.>

Whatever.
But NICE LISTS!

RuthMayBond

01-09-2006, 08:29 AM

Wee Willie:

<Top 50 Position Players:

43. Gary Sheffield>

Anyone else got him that high?

<Most Committed Opinions:

-- George Sisler was NOT a top-10 first baseman.
-- Pie Traynor was NOT a top-10 third baseman.>

I'll duck with ya.
More pretty good lists

RuthMayBond

01-09-2006, 08:31 AM

leecemark:

<5) Schmidt
6) Mantle
7) Musial
8) Wagner
9) Cobb>

Brave man :laugh

RuthMayBond

01-09-2006, 08:35 AM

Sultan_1895-1948:

<Top 3-5 at each position and where I rank them overall (1-25) (still a work in progress)

First Base

Sisler - 18
Foxx - 19>

A losing battle

<Shortstop

Ozzie
Ripken Jr.>

sigh

<Opinions

Joe DiMaggio [is] still under-rated by far too many.>

By as many as who overrate him?

RuthMayBond

01-09-2006, 08:45 AM

baseballPAP:

<Top 20 Pitchers
Walter Johnson
Roger Clemens
Christy Mathewson>

Some REALLY love Matty

<Rube Foster>

I don't remember anyone bringing him up before (he may deserve this)

<All Time All Star Teams A/B
RF-Babe Ruth/Hank Aaron
DH-Mickey Mantle/Ted Williams>

After looking at this, Ruth wasn't so bad a fielder but seemed to be better in LF

<Reliever-Dennis Eckersley>

What a peak reputation will do

note: I used guys who actually qualified at the
positions…no "shoe-horning"

<All Time Defensive Teams A/B
LF-Rickey Henderson>

Rickey was good but . . .

RuthMayBond

01-09-2006, 08:49 AM

christian gentleman:
<players

11. joe jackson
13. sisler
15. brooks robinson
17. mize
19. jackie robinson>

Don't know what to make of this

<pitchers

2. christy mathewson
3. sandy koufax
9. nolan ryan
10. roger clemens
18. greg maddux
20. babe ruth>

Now I'm COMPLETELY bamboozled (which ain't hard :laugh

<all star teams
B

ss- jeter
sp ed ciccotte
rp- joe page>

:crazy

<opinions

joe jackson had the best swing>

How many of you guys actually SAW Jackson's swing?

RuthMayBond

01-09-2006, 08:55 AM

64Cards:

<One Mans Opinions:
1]Rating the greats is an exercise in irrelevancy. Unless players competed in the very same time frame, the same league, and playing half their games in the same ballpark, it is an exercise in pure speculation and opinion.
.
.
2]That being said, Babe Ruth is far and away the greatest and most imporatant player, especially considering he was a HOF-caliber pitcher. Unreal. Mays was the greatest all-round player. Koufax, although his peak was limited, the greatest pitcher I ever saw, although I don't know if he was better than Johnson, Grove, Feller. And Albert Pujols is the greatest pure hitter I've seen, going back to 1962.>

And yet you rated them anyway :D

<5]Casey Stebgel was the greatest and also entertaining manager.>

I might agree on the second part . . .

<A rather fun mental execise, Mr. Bill.>

. . . but there's no doubt this is true :clapping

RuthMayBond

01-09-2006, 09:05 AM

RuthMayBond

01-09-2006, 09:25 AM

julusnc:

<TOP 25 ALL-TIME STARTING PITCHERS

10.BOB FELLER>

War credit?

RuthMayBond

01-09-2006, 09:38 AM

dudecar00:

<Top 25 Position PLayers of All Time:
17.Wade Boggs>

Well, I never

<Top 25 Pitchers
6.Ed Walsh
9.Sandy Koufax
23.Dizzy Dean>

:eek:

Top 15 at Each Position:
<3rd Basemen
5.Eddie Mathews>

:ughh

<SS
12.Johnny Pesky>

I don't know what to say

<Points:
4.Randy Johnson is better than Roger Clemens.>

Johnson is behind or tied in ERA+, IP, K/BB (king AND top10), WHIP (king AND top10), adjusted pitchers runs above average, Win Shares, AND Cy Youngs (actual AND deserved).

Edgartohof

01-09-2006, 10:03 AM

<Edgartogof:
my top 20 position players:

9. Mike Schmidt
10. Johnny Bench
11. Stan Musial
12. Mickey Mantle
13. Tris Speaker>

I just can't see Schmidt & Bench over Musial, Mantle & Speaker

my top 20 pitchers:

<8. Randy Johnson
9. Greg Maddux>

Let's have Randy throw 800 more IP

<12. Nolan Ryan
13. Sandy Koufax>

At least he's consistent

<All-Time All-Star Team B:

SS - Alex Rodriguez (has a shot at number one at 3B/SS)>

Which one?

Let's see...

Schmidt and Bench are my #1 at their positions - so yes, they are aheah of Musial/Mantle/Speaker - otherwise, I wouldn't have a 3B or C in my top 10 - do you?

I flip-flop Johnson/Maddux a lot - I am a little biased because Johnson played in Seattle, but I think their peaks while different in nature, were of similar value.

Nolan Ryan over Koufax... that's probably a more controversial one, but I really don't care if you like it or not.

And as for A-Rod. If he has more Games played at SS (or close to it - within 100 or so), he could be #1 at SS, but if he plays significatly more time at 3B (which is unlikely), then he will replace Schmidt for #1 there - is that really that hard to understand?

RuthMayBond

01-09-2006, 10:10 AM

Let's see...

Schmidt and Bench are my #1 at their positions - so yes, they are aheah of Musial/Mantle/Speaker - otherwise, I wouldn't have a 3B or C in my top 10 - do you?No, but whatever

<I flip-flop Johnson/Maddux a lot - I am a little biased because Johnson played in Seattle, but I think their peaks while different in nature, were of similar value.>

There might be more to it than peaks

<Nolan Ryan over Koufax... that's probably a more controversial one, but I really don't care if you like it or not.>

That's not why I was questioning it

<And as for A-Rod. If he has more Games played at SS (or close to it - within 100 or so), he could be #1 at SS, but if he plays significatly more time at 3B (which is unlikely), then he will replace Schmidt for #1 there - is that really that hard to understand?>

Not when you explain it like that :D

Edgartohof

01-09-2006, 10:23 AM

RMB's lists

Top 20 Players--------------------Top 20 Pitchers
1. Babe Ruth---------------------1. Satchel Paige
2. Ty Cobb-----------------------2. Walter Johnson
3. Barry Bonds (until proven guilty) -3. Cy Young
4. Willie Mays-------------------4. Roger Clemens
5. Hank Aaron--------------------5. Lefty Grove
6. Honus Wagner------------------6. Pete Alexander
7. Tris Speaker------------------7. Greg Maddux
8. Stan Musial-------------------8. Christy Mathewson
9. Ted Williams------------------9. Pedro Martinez (subject to change)
10. Mickey Mantle----------------10. Kid Nichols
11. Eddie Collins----------------11. Randy Johnson
12. Mel Ott----------------------12. Tom Seaver
13. Frank Robinson---------------13. Carl Hubbell
14. Rogers Hornsby---------------14. Ed Walsh
15. Nap Lajoie-------------------15. Warren Spahn
16. Rickey Henderson-------------16. Bob Gibson
17. Lou Gehrig-------------------17. Tim Keefe
18. Jimmie Foxx------------------18. John Clarkson
19. Joe Morgan-------------------19. Gaylord Perry
20. Mike Schmidt-----------------20. Eddie Plank
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well well well - where to begin?

you only have one 3B in you top 20? No Catchers? You can't even make a complete team out of you're top 20!

Bonds - you've got to be kidding yourself....but whatever...

Henderson 16? Stuck around for long time, to add to counting stats. for such an on-base guy, he's only 55th all-time.

Cy Young over Clemens? what? He only had 2 ERA titles, Clemens has 7!!!
He has more wins, but he did it in a very weak league for the most part.

RuthMayBond

01-09-2006, 10:29 AM

RMB's lists

Top 20 Players--------------------Top 20 Pitchers
1. Babe Ruth---------------------1. Satchel Paige
2. Ty Cobb-----------------------2. Walter Johnson
3. Barry Bonds (until proven guilty) -3. Cy Young
4. Willie Mays-------------------4. Roger Clemens
5. Hank Aaron--------------------5. Lefty Grove
6. Honus Wagner------------------6. Pete Alexander
7. Tris Speaker------------------7. Greg Maddux
8. Stan Musial-------------------8. Christy Mathewson
9. Ted Williams------------------9. Pedro Martinez (subject to change)
10. Mickey Mantle----------------10. Kid Nichols
11. Eddie Collins----------------11. Randy Johnson
12. Mel Ott----------------------12. Tom Seaver
13. Frank Robinson---------------13. Carl Hubbell
14. Rogers Hornsby---------------14. Ed Walsh
15. Nap Lajoie-------------------15. Warren Spahn
16. Rickey Henderson-------------16. Bob Gibson
17. Lou Gehrig-------------------17. Tim Keefe
18. Jimmie Foxx------------------18. John Clarkson
19. Joe Morgan-------------------19. Gaylord Perry
20. Mike Schmidt-----------------20. Eddie Plank
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well well well - where to begin?

you only have one 3B in you top 20? No Catchers? You can't even make a complete team out of you're top 20!That's because it's BEST twenty players, not best 20 INCLUDING all positions

<Bonds - you've got to be kidding yourself>

I probably am :laugh

<Henderson 16? only had one good year from '94 on ('99), but he stayed on to garner stats. for such an on-base guy, he's only 55th all-time.>

As I am stating in my updated comments, I go by career more than peak. How many garnered stats like three major records (at the time)? 55th all-time exactly what?

<Cy Young over Clemens? what? He only had 2 ERA titles, Clemens has 7!!!
He has more wins, but he did it in a very weak league for the most part.>

We're talking by ONE slot, we're talking 2600+ more IP (more than Koufax's career :eek:

Edgartohof

01-09-2006, 10:36 AM

<Henderson 16? for such an on-base guy, he's only 55th all-time.>

he's only 55th all-time in OBP

<Cy Young over Clemens? what? He only had 2 ERA titles, Clemens has 7!!!
He has more wins, but he did it in a very weak league for the most part.>

We're talking by ONE slot, we're talking 2600+ more IP (more than Koufax's career :eek:

Of course he pitched more innings - he played in the easy to dominate 1890's, where he pitched 400+ innings a year. If Clemens played at that time, he would have done the same.

RuthMayBond

01-09-2006, 10:44 AM

he's only 55th all-time in OBPbut SIXTEENTH in relative OBP

<Of course he pitched more innings - he played in the easy to dominate 1890's, where he pitched 400+ innings a year.>

Um, Young ALSO dominated in 1901, 02, 03, 04, 05, 07 AND '08. And not everybody pitched more career innings back then either

SABR Matt

01-09-2006, 11:02 AM

SABR Matt:

<Top 25 Position Players of all time:

18) Al Kaline
20) Joe DiMaggio
21) Mel Ott>

Never seen that one before

<Top 25 Pitchers of all time:

18) Hal Newhouser
20) Don Sutton>

What does Bill call it, going against the grain?

Top Fifteen Players at Each Position

<Shortstops
2) Robin Yount>

Bold

<Left Fielders
4) Frank Robinson>

Why would you not have him as RF?

<Center Fielders
6) Richie Ashburn>

Hm, momentum building

Your comments aren't specific enough for me to answer all of them as fully as I'd like.

Al Kaline, Joe DiMaggio, and Mel Ott...Some people have said I have Kaline too high, but of those three he was IMHO the best all around hitter AND he was the best defensive right fielder of all time...I find it hard not to push him higher.

Hal Newhouser/Don Sutton, I considered moving Sutton higher, and probably still might, but as this was a list at least loosely based on PCA rankings and Sutton didn't finish that well there, I decided that at least for now, I'd hold Sutton down. I have no problem with my ranking of Newhouser though...Newhouser is the only pitcher in the history of the game other than Greg Maddux to win two PCA MVP awards as a pitcher...given my believe that pitching is only about 55% of the defensive picture, it takes a herculean effort for a pitcher to win an MVP.

Robin Yount - He is one of the most underappreciated men on this forum. He hit in a pitcher's era and was consistantly one of the best hitters in his leagues....he didn't have sparkly 40 HR or .320 BA type numbers but add it all up guys. He played more SS than CF so I have to place him amongst the SSs and felt he deserved to be ranked...and it's hard to make the case that Arky Vaughan is really much better than Yount.

Frank Robinson - played 1200 games in right, 800 games in left, and a smattering of games at first...I had a choice of either right or left field so he managed less than 60% at any one primary position...LF was weaker...I chose left...I can see where you might object to that, but those corner outfielders are pretty mcuh alike. :)

Richie Ashburn - Not a power hitter by any stretch, but hit enogh to compliment one of the best CFgloves in major league history...I don't think ranking him 6th is out of whack. :)

RuthMayBond

01-09-2006, 11:28 AM

Al Kaline, Joe DiMaggio, and Mel Ott...Some people have said I have Kaline too high, but of those three he was IMHO the best all around hitter AND he was the best defensive right fielder of all time...I find it hard not to push him higher.I don't think I've ever seen anyone rank Kaline over JDiMaggio AND Ott

<Hal Newhouser/Don Sutton, I considered moving Sutton higher, and probably still might, but as this was a list at least loosely based on PCA rankings and Sutton didn't finish that well there, I decided that at least for now, I'd hold Sutton down. I have no problem with my ranking of Newhouser though...Newhouser is the only pitcher in the history of the game other than Greg Maddux to win two PCA MVP awards as a pitcher...given my believe that pitching is only about 55% of the defensive picture, it takes a herculean effort for a pitcher to win an MVP.>

In a war-torn time. I've never seen anyone rank Newhouser that high. And if you're going by peak, surprised to see Sutton that high.

<Robin Yount - He is one of the most underappreciated men on this forum. He hit in a pitcher's era and was consistantly one of the best hitters in his leagues....he didn't have sparkly 40 HR or .320 BA type numbers but add it all up guys. He played more SS than CF so I have to place him amongst the SSs and felt he deserved to be ranked...and it's hard to make the case that Arky Vaughan is really much better than Yount.>

I can't see Yount over Ripken, especially since Ripken basically DID play his whole career @ SS

<Frank Robinson - played 1200 games in right, 800 games in left, and a smattering of games at first...I had a choice of either right or left field so he managed less than 60% at any one primary position...LF was weaker...I chose left...I can see where you might object to that, but those corner outfielders are pretty mcuh alike. :) >

I guess you can squeak, though I've never seen anyone classify him as a LF

<Richie Ashburn - Not a power hitter by any stretch, but hit enogh to compliment one of the best CFgloves in major league history...I don't think ranking him 6th is out of whack. :) >

Then what about Andruw Jones?

SABR Matt

01-09-2006, 11:42 AM

Jones' career is still too short to amount to cracking that high onto my lists. I have no doubt he'll get into the top 15 when I add 2005, and he'll probably get into the top 5 or 6 by the time his career is over.

Newhouser's boninated in years after the second world war too. And I'm not just going by peak...I'm going by a blend of peak, career, efficiency and variability.

I don't demote players in my rankings because they failed to play their whoel career at their primary position...Yount was a better overall player than Ripken...Ripken was a better shortstop, but I'll still take Yount.

RuthMayBond

01-09-2006, 11:51 AM

Newhouser's boninated in years after the second world war too.Easy for YOU to say :D But better than Walsh, Spahn, Keefe, Clarkson, Plank, Blyleven, PNiekro, Rusie, Waddell, Palmer, MBrown, Schilling AND KBrown? :noidea

leecemark

01-09-2006, 12:32 PM

--I've got him only a few spots behind where Matt has him and ahead of all you mention except Palmer.

RuthMayBond

01-09-2006, 12:43 PM

--I've got him only a few spots behind where Matt has him and ahead of all you mention except Palmer.Dang, maybe I'm off . . . but were the old-timers that bad?

oscargamblesfro

01-09-2006, 01:10 PM

I have only a few 'official' opinions.

1. Ruth is the greatest player ever. While others may have been even more talented, such as Willie Mays, no player in any league was so consistently that much greater than everyone else for such a long time.
2. Negro League players are to be given full credit.
3. It's better to consider players in the context of how great or bad they were in their own time, and not get into hypotheticals so much.

RuthMayBond

01-09-2006, 01:18 PM

2. Negro League players are to be given full credit.And exactly how do you propose to do that?

ElHalo

01-09-2006, 01:20 PM

Let's see...

Schmidt and Bench are my #1 at their positions - so yes, they are aheah of Musial/Mantle/Speaker - otherwise, I wouldn't have a 3B or C in my top 10 - do you?

I don't have a 3Bman in my top thirty. Don't see how you can just arbitrarily say "I need somebody from this position, so here you go." If Honus Wagner had never existed, would you shoot Arky Vaughan up to your top 10?

ElHalo

01-09-2006, 01:37 PM

Felt I'd comment on the comments...

Your comments aren't specific enough for me to answer all of them as fully as I'd like.

Al Kaline, Joe DiMaggio, and Mel Ott...Some people have said I have Kaline too high, but of those three he was IMHO the best all around hitter AND he was the best defensive right fielder of all time...I find it hard not to push him higher.

I'm as big of an Al Kaline fan as you'll find, but I still think this is at least 10-15 slots too high. Great defender, of course, decent if unspectacular baserunner... but as a hitter, he didn't particularly do anything well. Tolerable power (but never hit 30 HR), good contact hitting (but only once hit .330), ok plate discipline (but never drew even 85 BB's)... he was good at everything without being great at anything, and while that's of course admirable, I don't see how it's enough to get a corner outfielder into the top 25.

Hal Newhouser/Don Sutton, I considered moving Sutton higher, and probably still might, but as this was a list at least loosely based on PCA rankings and Sutton didn't finish that well there, I decided that at least for now, I'd hold Sutton down. I have no problem with my ranking of Newhouser though...Newhouser is the only pitcher in the history of the game other than Greg Maddux to win two PCA MVP awards as a pitcher...given my believe that pitching is only about 55% of the defensive picture, it takes a herculean effort for a pitcher to win an MVP.

Newhauser put up great numbers; my only bone of contention with him is that his really great stretch (44-46) came when either a) everyone was else was at war, or b)everyone had just gotten back from the war and wasn't really into the swing of things yet. Outside of that period, he just really doesn't have that much of a case to being an all time great (honestly, take away those three years, and what seperates him from, say, Russ Ford?).

As to Sutton... I think you misconstrued his previous comment on Sutton. I don't think he was saying "How could you have Newhauser ahead of Sutton" so much as "How could you have Sutton in your top 50?" Then again, I guess you're all about the guys who don't give up walks...

Richie Ashburn - Not a power hitter by any stretch, but hit enogh to compliment one of the best CFgloves in major league history...I don't think ranking him 6th is out of whack. :)

Gotta back you on this one. The more I look at Ashburn, the more he seems like almos the perfect ballplayer. Great contact hitting, great plate discipline, great speed, phenomenal glove work... with the exception of power hitting (which I tend not to care that much about anyway), he was the prototype of a perfect CF'er. Love the guy.

ElHalo

01-09-2006, 01:40 PM

--I've got him only a few spots behind where Matt has him and ahead of all you mention except Palmer.

You've got Warren Spahn lower than 18th?

RuthMayBond

01-09-2006, 01:43 PM

Gotta back you on this one. The more I look at Ashburn, the more he seems like almos the perfect ballplayer. Great contact hitting, great plate discipline, great speed, phenomenal glove work... with the exception of power hitting (which I tend not to care that much about anyway), he was the prototype of a perfect CF'er. Love the guy.Why don't CF have to slug a little? Where would Edmonds be? (arguably not much worse defensively than Ashburn, way better offensively)

SABR Matt

01-09-2006, 02:05 PM

Not that much worse defensively? Now that's just not true. Ashburn was an all time great with the glove...Edmonds was...very solid...hardly great.

More importantly, Edmonds has battled injuries for much of his career and missed so much playing time that it's hard to get him onto a top 15 list...and as a slugger, he really isn't all that awe inspiring...consider the era in which he plays. He didn't develop margquis power until after his trade to STL really.

ElHalo

01-09-2006, 02:06 PM

Why don't CF have to slug a little? Where would Edmonds be? (arguably not much worse defensively than Ashburn, way better offensively)

This is just a personality quirk of mine, but I have two requirements for offensive production from a player:

1) If you're a catcher, I'll take what I can get.
2) If you're anybody else, start with contact hitting and then see what else you can give me.

In Ashburn's case, the "else" is great speed and plate discipline (and not too too terrible with the 2B/3B). HR's aren't a prerequisite with me; the ability to consistently hit at least .285ish (and wind up your career at, bare minimum, .275) is.

And Edmonds... Edmonds? Are you serious? You really buy into the Edmonds hype? First off, he turned into a MUCH better offensive player after moving to St. Louis at age 30... and that's always smelled a little fishy to me. Second, he doesn't really have any speed to speak of. Third... "arguably not much worse defensively"? I rank Ashburn as the number 2 defensive CF'er of all time, behind Speaker. I can see ranking him lower, but I think it's kind of unreasonable to have him ranked lower than fifth.

I'm not entirely certain that Edmonds has been one of the top 5 defensive CF's of his own time. He's certainly not as good as Jones, Hunter, Cameron, Beltran, or Vernon Wells are now. Go back to the 90's, and he's not as good as guys like Bernie and Lofton. He's a good defender, but by no means an all time defender. Above average. Not great.

SABR Matt

01-09-2006, 02:08 PM

To EH...

The thing that helps Kaline...you say he never hit 30 HRs but he hits gobs and gobs of doubles, and played in an era and a park that didn't openly favor the slugger...you say he only hit .330 once...that's a little like saying Superman only saved the world from total destruction once. To be a great hitter you don't have to hit .330 a bunch of times...his creer average is plenty high enough to merit his rank.

He's ahead of DiMaggio...but just barely...we're talking a few wins here...

RuthMayBond

01-09-2006, 02:13 PM

HR's aren't a prerequisite with me; the ability to consistently hit at least .285ish (and wind up your career at, bare minimum, .275) is.Then why do you dock Kaline for it :D

<And Edmonds... Edmonds? Are you serious? You really buy into the Edmonds hype? First off, he turned into a MUCH better offensive player after moving to St. Louis at age 30... and that's always smelled a little fishy to me. Second, he doesn't really have any speed to speak of. Third... "arguably not much worse defensively"? I rank Ashburn as the number 2 defensive CF'er of all time, behind Speaker. I can see ranking him lower, but I think it's kind of unreasonable to have him ranked lower than fifth.>

I've got him about fifth, Edmonds only about 12 spots lower. I have him fourth best among active so I'm not buying the hype like some.

<I'm not entirely certain that Edmonds has been one of the top 5 defensive CF's of his own time. He's certainly not as good as Jones, Hunter, Cameron, Beltran, or Vernon Wells are now. Go back to the 90's, and he's not as good as guys like Bernie and Lofton.>

We don't know how Hunter will end up, but Edmonds is better than Cameron (for now), Beltran, Wells AND overrated Williams.

ElHalo

01-09-2006, 02:23 PM

Then why do you dock Kaline for it :D

I don't knock Kaline; I love Kaline. I just think that, for a corner outfielder to be in the top 25, he had to have been a bit more special on offense than that.

We don't know how Hunter will end up, but Edmonds is better than Cameron (for now), Beltran, Wells AND overrated Williams.

The problem with Williams is the study in contrasts... he's never had a great arm, even in his peak, but... he's been just so atrocious the last few years that people forget just how good he was at his best. It's not easy for a guy who throws like Pete Gray to put up 4 GG's, regardless of how terrible he was at the end.

Dontworry

01-09-2006, 03:50 PM

And exactly how do you propose to do that?

Satchel Paige won the ROY at 43 and had several productive season throughout his 40s, which to me, is proof that the Negro leagues were every bit as competitive as the Majors.

Gibson's stats are so incredible, I think it's fair to assume that he would have completely dominant in Major League baseball. His stats are just silly.

I believe the Negro leagues won EVERY SINGLE all star game between the 2 leagues except for one. (Not sure about this, but I am certain that the head to head games were dominated by the Negro leagues.)

One more note:

In recorded at-bats against big league pitching, Gibson batted .426. http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers_and_honorees/hofer_bios/gibson_josh.htm

Josh Gibson is the greatest offensive catcher of all time.

.

SABR Matt

01-09-2006, 04:09 PM

Then why do you dock Kaline for it :D

<And Edmonds... Edmonds? Are you serious? You really buy into the Edmonds hype? First off, he turned into a MUCH better offensive player after moving to St. Louis at age 30... and that's always smelled a little fishy to me. Second, he doesn't really have any speed to speak of. Third... "arguably not much worse defensively"? I rank Ashburn as the number 2 defensive CF'er of all time, behind Speaker. I can see ranking him lower, but I think it's kind of unreasonable to have him ranked lower than fifth.>

I've got him about fifth, Edmonds only about 12 spots lower. I have him fourth best among active so I'm not buying the hype like some.

<I'm not entirely certain that Edmonds has been one of the top 5 defensive CF's of his own time. He's certainly not as good as Jones, Hunter, Cameron, Beltran, or Vernon Wells are now. Go back to the 90's, and he's not as good as guys like Bernie and Lofton.>

We don't know how Hunter will end up, but Edmonds is better than Cameron (for now), Beltran, Wells AND overrated Williams.

Edmonds is *NOT* better than Cameron...anyone who claims that has (a) not looked at the statistics properly and (b) never seen Cameron and Edmonds play.

SABR Matt

01-09-2006, 04:13 PM

Not tht you will care EH...but here's what I have for Williams' defensive career...

Yr ADWC PRG
1991 0.56 94
1992 1.35 69
1993 1.39 146
1994 0.71 108
1995 4.08 145
1996 1.95 134
1997 1.27 118
1998 2.51 121
1999 2.29 152
2000 1.91 134
2001 2.06 144
2002 0.97 149
2003 1.16 113
2004 0.64 87

One good defensive season...1995. That's it. Hardly the career of a "very good" defensive center fielder.

RuthMayBond

01-09-2006, 04:50 PM

Edmonds is *NOT* better than Cameron...anyone who claims that has (a) not looked at the statistics properly and (b) never seen Cameron and Edmonds play.I was talking careerwise, and I believe Cameron will pass Edmonds

538280

01-09-2006, 05:19 PM

I agree Negro Leaguers should be given their full credit, but this really wasn't a good argument for it.

Satchel Paige won the ROY at 43 and had several productive season throughout his 40s, which to me, is proof that the Negro leagues were every bit as competitive as the Majors.

So, one player is going to prove the whole thing to you? Ichiro came right out of the Japanese Leagues and won the MVP. Does that make them just as good as the majors?

Satchel Paige was a tremendous player (I rate him 4th all time among pitchers), but he alone is not proof of the strength of the Negro Leagues. How do you really know he wasn't the only good player the leagues ever produced?

Obviously they produced heaps of other great players, but this argument by itself is not anywhere near proof that the NeL was just as good as the majors, as you so confidently assert it does.

Gibson's stats are so incredible, I think it's fair to assume that he would have completely dominant in Major League baseball. His stats are just silly.

I believe the Negro leagues won EVERY SINGLE all star game between the 2 leagues except for one. (Not sure about this, but I am certain that the head to head games were dominated by the Negro leagues.)

Those All Star Games, from what I have read, were largely a joke with the white players and most of them didn't even want to play in them anyway. Conversely, the Negro Leagues all played full throttle.

Gibson's stats are nice, but again, that's gives absoulutely no proof of the strength of the league. Actually, the fact Gibson was able to post such "silly" stats may suggest the leagues were extrememly weak.

One more note:

In recorded at-bats against big league pitching, Gibson batted .426. http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers_and_honorees/hofer_bios/gibson_josh.htm

Josh Gibson is the greatest offensive catcher of all time.

.

I agree with you that Gibson was the greatest offensive catcher ever, but the fact he batted .426 against "MLB pitching" hardly proves it. He probably did that in no more than 50 at-bats, in an unorganized barnstorming type atmosphere when the MLB pitchers weren't even really trying their hardest. The whole "documented ABs against MLB pitching" thing you often see with NeL players really means absolutely nothing.

64Cards

01-09-2006, 05:28 PM

baseballPAP

01-09-2006, 06:05 PM

I'm not entirely certain that Edmonds has been one of the top 5 defensive CF's of his own time. He's certainly not as good as Jones, Hunter, Cameron, Beltran, or Vernon Wells are now. Go back to the 90's, and he's not as good as guys like Bernie and Lofton. He's a good defender, but by no means an all time defender. Above average. Not great.
Man...you had me right up until you said Bernie....

Bill Burgess

01-09-2006, 06:42 PM

RuthMayBond

01-09-2006, 07:10 PM

Well, I can explain it only by saying it's a complete contradiction.
:laugh

Actually, I will argue merits of ballplayers, but only in a more dignified forum, like a tavern. If you're ever in St. Louis, let me know, can cuss or discuss till we run out of ballplayers or beers.:DI'll be flying over St. Louis this summer

leecemark

01-09-2006, 08:39 PM

--Pretorius, your firm conviction 6 is a pretty shakey one to dig in on. Yaz was not a power hitter? All three of his 40 HR seasons were "aberations"? His 3 slugging titles (one of which was not on of his 40 HR seasons) must have just been flukes? His 452 career HR (a mere 418 more than Sam Rice who you compare him to) must have wind aided? Most of your opinions are pretty reasonable, but this one is just off the wall.

pretorius

01-09-2006, 09:19 PM

He was a left handed hitter at Fenway. Has never had a 30 Home Run season.

Yes as against the grain as it seems in Yaz's case lightening struck 3 times.

He was not a power hitter. In 22 Full season's he broke 20 Home Run's 8 times. That is not a power hitter. That is a 15-23 Home Run power player.

He only went over 500 for slugging 5 times in his extremely lengthy career. Lifetime he is only at 462.

The only other fluke power hitter like him that I can think of Ted Kluszewski has a lifetime slugging average of 498.

Yaz trails Hank Sauer, Jay Buhner, Danny Tartabull, Dante Bichette, David Justice, etc etc.

What you conveniently glossed over is that yes Yaz has 3 slugging titles but in his game packed 23 year career what did he do in regards to slugging?

Surely a power hitter would have loads of top 5 and 10 finishes right?

Yaz finished 4rth in 1968 and 10th in 63 and 69......no other top 10 finishes at all.

2 of the slugging titles came in those fluje 40 Home Run seasons. The other his slugging average was 536 and he hit not suprisingly 20 Home Runs. What does that remind me of? Bobby Grich won a slugging title as well.

Yaz had 20 Home Run power. Look at his stat line sometime. You see 14, 13 ,17 ,19, 21....Type of numbers. That is not a power hitter.

Yaz was not a power hitter. He was a batting average hitter with 3 fluke power seasons.

He is often credited with the likes of sluggers of which he was not a part.

Here are Yaz's top Home Run Seasons. 44, 40, 40, 28, 23, 21, 21, 20.

That is it. That is how many times he hit over 20 dingers. 8 and those are the seasonal totals.

Yaz was in no way shape or form a power hitter. He played forever and hit 18 Home Runs for so many years that his career numbers overachieve his power.

leecemark

01-09-2006, 09:31 PM

--Fenway is a good hitters park for LH batters, It is not a good HR park for LH hitters. The 70s were, in fact, not a good decade for HR hitters in general. Yaz is 27th all time in HR. I'll agree he wasn't as great a slugger as some (even some below him on the list), but making "Yaz was not a power hitter" one of your core principals.....that is a wild exaggeration.

pretorius

01-09-2006, 10:12 PM

Even some? How about even most.

44,40,40, 28,23, 21, 21 and 20 do not signify a power hitter.....certainly not a slugger.

People often talk of players with high lifetime Home Run totals like Murray, Winfield, Dawson, Musial, Ott who were not really big boppers but managed to hang around and hit enough home runs.

Well just make an observational comparison of 20 Home Run seasons amongst these guys.

Yaz has 44, 40, 40, 28, 23, 21, 21 20.

Ott 42, 38, 36, 35, 33, 31, 31, 30, 29, 27, 27, 26, 25, 23, 21......15 seasons

Musial 39, 36, 35, 33, 32, 30, 29, 28, 27, 21....10 seasons

Murray 33, 32, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 27, 27, 26, 25, 22, 22, 21, 20... 16 seasons

Dawson 49, 32, 31, 27, 25, 25, 24, 24, 23, 23, 22, 21, 20...13 seasons

Winfield 37, 34, 32, 28, 27, 26, 26, 25, 25, 24, 24, 21, 21, 20, 20....15 seasons

That is the company you would expect Yaz to keep but he isn't in their league as a power hitter.

You want to see Hank Sauer's top 8 Home Run seasons?

41, 37, 35, 32, 31, 30, 27, 26. A slugger. That is a slugger.

So what is a power hitter then?

Travis Fryman has 7 20 Home Run seasons and his slugging average is closer to Yaz's then Yaz's is to Hank Sauer's.

Is Fryman a slugger?

A 462 slugging average...well and way out of the top 100 all-time. Heck Yaz had years in his prime where he was under 400 for SLG in a season.

His slugging is behind Paul O'Neil and John Olerud.

You must have a more liberal definition of what constitutes a power hitter then I do.

I cannot call a person who has a very difficult time belting over 20 Home Runs (with a short field in his favor) and whose slugging averge is 462 a power hitter.

Bill Burgess

01-09-2006, 10:31 PM

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but just like Tony Oliva/Billy Williams, wasn't Yaz injured around 1970, ruining his career curve? His great 1960's work, and his lesser post 1970's work seems to indicate a major career-changing injury.

Anyone hear of anything along those lines? Also, his home/away breakdowns might be revealing.

Bill Burgess

leecemark

01-10-2006, 05:29 AM

--I'm not sure what happened to Yaz. He was arguably the best player in the game from 67-70, then fell off a cliff in 1971. He was still playing, but not hitting in both 1971-72 (his age 31-32 seasons). Whether that was a nagging injury or some kind of personal issue I don't know. He sure didn't look like a guy who was going to play and play effectively into his 40s though. He bounced back and had lots more good seasons, but well below his peak.
--In that 4 year peak Yaz hit 40 HR 3 times, leading the league once. He also led the league in BA and slugging twice (winning the Triple Crown in 1967) and coming in 2nd in 1970. Before 67 he was a terrific all around young player, winning a batting title and a couple Gold Gloves, but not really a power hitter. After his peak/injury/? his average never bounced back and he was a good, but not great power hitter. Much of his offensive value as an older player came from his plate discipline, as it was OBP not SLG that kept him in the lineup.
--Pretorious, you keep talking about Yaz's short fence. I say again Fenway takes HR away from LH hitters. RF is very deep. Yaz gots lots of doubles off the monster and it helped his BA, but it suppressed his HR. He would have surpassed 500 in many other parks.

538280

01-10-2006, 05:35 AM

Yaz at home:
.306 .402 .503

Yaz on the road:
.264 .357 .422

He's not a great power hitter, not even a great hitter over his career. He was a great hitter for a few years and only average the rest. One of the more overrated players of all time.

baseballPAP

01-10-2006, 05:42 AM

How quickly we forget.....in the 70's, the AL league leader list looks like this:
44,33,37,32,32,36,32,39,46,45. More telling is that 24 players of the 60ish that were in the top five or tied for the top five finished in the 20's in HR. Yaz averaged 20 HR per season for the decade, a decade in which he started out at 30. He finished the decade 4th, and only 4 homers behind 3rd place George Scott (kudos to anyone who can guess #2 without looking it up...Reggie is #1).

Not a power hitter?

Yaz wasn't a power hitter by today's lofty standard, but in the 1970's AL? He sure was.

leecemark

01-10-2006, 05:48 AM

Graig Nettles?

baseballPAP

01-10-2006, 05:50 AM

----Pretorious, you keep talking about Yaz's short fence. I say again Fenway takes HR away from LH hitters. RF is very deep. Yaz gots lots of doubles off the monster and it helped his BA, but it suppressed his HR. He would have surpassed 500 in many other parks.
Fenway from 1970-1979 played as a 98.5% of average HR park for lefties...a little BELOW average. This from Kevin Johnson's awesome ballpark effect database. It was slightly worse than that during the 60's, at 97.4%. Unless you happen to be an EXTREME pull hitter, Fenway will hurt your HR production if you are a leftie.

baseballPAP

01-10-2006, 05:50 AM

Graig Nettles?
Very good Mark...surprised the bleep out of me when his name came up!

538280

01-10-2006, 06:44 AM

Fenway from 1970-1979 played as a 98.5% of average HR park for lefties...a little BELOW average. This from Kevin Johnson's awesome ballpark effect database. It was slightly worse than that during the 60's, at 97.4%. Unless you happen to be an EXTREME pull hitter, Fenway will hurt your HR production if you are a leftie.

I don't doubt that is true, but since when do we define the term "slugger" to mean only HR hitting? Although Yaz only hit slightly more HRs at home over his career, he hit about 120 more doubles in Fenway, and only had a 106 relative SLG% for his career on the road. For the 1970s it was probably just average, perhaps even below. He wasn't a great slugger.

baseballPAP

01-10-2006, 07:08 AM

I don't doubt that is true, but since when do we define the term "slugger" to mean only HR hitting? Although Yaz only hit slightly more HRs at home over his career, he hit about 120 more doubles in Fenway, and only had a 106 relative SLG% for his career on the road. For the 1970s it was probably just average, perhaps even below. He wasn't a great slugger.
Slugger means overall extra base power to me....power hitter means HR, and Yaz was top 4 for the 70's AL, 8th if you throw out '70 when he had one of his "fluke" years. I was pointing out that he should be considered a 70's power hitter, even though he didn't put out current power type numbers. I'd say Yaz was decent as a slugger, but not elite after 1970, just good.

And, absolutely yes, he SHOULD be credited with learning to hit in his home park(meaning the doubles off the wall)....if you play co-ed softball, and you purposely hit it at the girl who is checking her manicure in RF, should you be called out, or congratulated when you circle the bases? Taking advantage of situations is a huge part of the game, and it should be rewarded IMO.

RuthMayBond

01-10-2006, 07:50 AM

<Most committed opinions

4) Lou Boudreau would have been better at third despite being great at SS

5) On his A game Randy Johnson is way better then Roger Clemens.

11) Robby Thompson was the greatest defensive second baseman I ever saw.>

I don't understand these, but I appreciate your EXTENDED lists, I think I picked up some suggestions for pitchers :clapping

pretorius

01-10-2006, 08:03 AM

I just think Lou Boudreau's skill set was better suited for third.

Growing up and watching Johnson and Clemens pitch...Johnson always looked way better to me. Johnson had stretches where he was completely unhittable. Clemens never looked like that kind of pitcher to me. I rank Clemen's higher though all-time for overall value and longevity.

The Robby Thompson thing is entirely subjective. Looking at defensive win shares I am aware that other's in his era look more impressive. I remember him looking so crisp and fluid in his days though.

RuthMayBond

01-10-2006, 11:56 AM

if you play co-ed softball, and you purposely hit it at the girl who is checking her manicure in RF, should you be called out, or congratulated when you circle the bases? Taking advantage of situations is a huge part of the game, and it should be rewarded IMO.The only problem with this is, most of the rest of the league wasn't batting against such a girl in half their games

SABR Matt

01-10-2006, 12:16 PM

This belief that any adjustment made by a player to benefit from his home park should not be credited to the player is preposterous. The avverage player would not be able to do what Yaz did with such consistancy, and what matters is determining how good/valuable Yaz was as a hitter is in comparing what he did in his parks to what the average (or replacement level...either way it's the same reasoning) player would have done in his place.

Yaz made adjustments that made him a more valuable hitter in Fenway...kudos to him...not every hitter can do that...that's a + in the Yaz' column.

RuthMayBond

01-10-2006, 12:23 PM

BoSox Rule

01-10-2006, 12:27 PM

Yaz was a very good power hitter. He played at a time when HR's weren't that common and he played in a tough park for LHB's. He has 571 translated HR's and an .870 translated OPS, which is very good for a right fielder. Here are his translated HR's/year.
AGE YEAR TEAM HR
21 1961 BOS-A 11
22 1962 BOS-A 20
23 1963 BOS-A 16
24 1964 BOS-A 16
25 1965 BOS-A 25
26 1966 BOS-A 19
27 1967 BOS-A 52
28 1968 BOS-A 32
29 1969 BOS-A 45
30 1970 BOS-A 44
31 1971 BOS-A 19
32 1972 BOS-A 19
33 1973 BOS-A 25
34 1974 BOS-A 21
35 1975 BOS-A 21
36 1976 BOS-A 33
37 1977 BOS-A 32
38 1978 BOS-A 24
39 1979 BOS-A 26
40 1980 BOS-A 19
41 1981 BOS-A 17
42 1982 BOS-A 20
43 1983 BOS-A 15

pretorius

01-10-2006, 01:05 PM

In all of this era adjustment I think a very simple observation is overlooked and never given credit.

Maybe Home Runs were down in that era because as crazy as it might seem there wasn't many power hitters?

Instead of adjusting and saying Yaz's numbers are not as good because he played in a weak power era why is it that no one says he played in a weak power era because no one had any power? Maybe the 60's were weak because they didn't produce alot of power? Maybe because of Vietnam and the societal/cultural implications that that era just didn't produce players capable of hitting 40 Home Runs?

The fences didn't change all that much from previous years where people were hitting then in greater abundance.

Yaz only had 3 years in which he was top 5 in that power weak league in Home Runs. The 3 fluke years. He was 7th in 68, 8th in 76 and 10th in 77.

That is it that's the extent of his power. You take away the fluke years he is weaker then Ryan Sandberg.

Other left handed hitters were able to put up big years at Fenway. Ortiz, Vaughn.

Wade Boggs hit 24 Home Runs in a season once while playing at Boston...A number Yaz topped only 4 times.

Heilmann had 11 top 10 Home Run season's. Would transfer rates give him 600Career Home Runs?

I do not give much credit to hypothetical translation home runs.

I also think that if a player was so dextrous with the bat why couldn't he take advantage of the Pesky poll and manage to break 20 Home Runs more then 8 times? 4 of those times just barely.

Left Handed fenway hitters have good slugging percentages. Yaz doesnt.

The 60's through 80's was modern baseball. In fact I consider 1920- to now modern baseball.

If you cannot regularly crack 20 Home Runs with a livlier baseball in a full season then I refuse to suggest you were a power hitter no matter how weak your era was in regards to power hitter's.

Edgartohof

01-10-2006, 01:36 PM

Other left handed hitters were able to put up big years at Fenway. Ortiz, Vaughn.

Wade Boggs hit 24 Home Runs in a season once while playing at Boston...A number Yaz topped only 4 times.

You are comparing Yaz to Ortiz? Ortiz and Vaughn? Do you actually understand the difference between when these players played? Yaz - offensively deficient 60's and 70's. Ortiz and Vaughn - Juiced up 90's and '00's. Of course they are going to have more power! But for his time, Yaz did have power.

And talk about fluke power - Boggs hitting 24 HR's!!! That's about as flukey as it gets - he only hit over 10 HR's one other time in his career - bad comparison there.

SABR Matt

01-10-2006, 01:37 PM

I actually agree strongly with pretorius that ust because an era is overall weaker in HRs or slugging in general doesn't mean we shold say it was that way because of something endemic to the league...the players play a pretty large role in determining the strength of the league...MUCH larger than percenage type stats would suggest (which is zero role)...probabilistically, TKD and I estimate that about 2/5s of the variation in league offensive strength is the result of the players (the relative strength of batting, fielding and pitching).

That being said, I would suggest that the 1950s through 80s were getting progressively deper and more talented overall....it doens't make sense that the drop in offense was due to sucky hitting...it's more likely IMHO that the drop in offense was due to great pitching and fielding...and some of our early findings using probability theory and matrix algebra suggest that baseball may never have had a period with stronger pitching and field than the 60s and early seventies. People forget that these were times that produces so many of the truly prolifically great fielders on our defensive teams. The Brooksies and the Clete Boyers and the Bill Maeroskis and the Jim Sundbergs and the Richie Ashburns and the Willie Mayses and the I could go on and on and on...a disproportionately great crop of fielders and pitchers emerged in the 50s and 60s and dominated the game throughout the early and mid 70s...

That to me suggests that hitting 20 HRs was indeed the sign of a good power hitter in that era.

RuthMayBond

01-10-2006, 01:40 PM

That being said, I would suggest that the 1950s through 80s were getting progressively deper and more talented overall....it doens't make sense that the drop in offense was due to sucky hitting...it's more likely IMHO that the drop in offense was due to great pitching and fielding...and some of our early findings using probability theory and matrix algebra suggest that baseball may never have had a period with stronger pitching and field than the 60s and early seventies. People forget that these were times that produces so many of the truly prolifically great fielders on our defensive teams. The Brooksies and the Clete Boyers and the Bill Maeroskis and the Jim Sundbergs and the Richie Ashburns and the Willie Mayses and the I could go on and on and on...a disproportionately great crop of fielders and pitchers emerged in the 50s and 60s and dominated the game throughout the early and mid 70s...

That to me suggests that hitting 20 HRs was indeed the sign of a good power hitter in that era.Somewhere in NY, ElHalo is getting sick :D

SABR Matt

01-10-2006, 01:42 PM

Why do you think that RMB...I wasn't aware he had a thing against suggesting that pitching and fielding improved in the 60s and 70s.

RuthMayBond

01-10-2006, 01:56 PM

Why do you think that RMB...I wasn't aware he had a thing against suggesting that pitching and fielding improved in the 60s and 70s.He definitely has a thing against suggesting the league got better in the 70s and 80s :eek:

SABR Matt

01-10-2006, 02:24 PM

538280

01-10-2006, 02:34 PM

Well...all current research into league strength suggests he's dead wrong.

Baseball was never stronger than it was from 1978-1986.

In that period there more talent depth and better balance than any other time in the game's history.

Yes that's right after the '77 expansion...but it's also the start of the latin wave and the height of great play among afican americans.

Move that time frame about five years back (1973-1981), and I'm right with you. I think that the 1980s weren't quite as strong as the 1970s, mostly because the star players weren't quite as good and the 1980s was the start of too many non-MLB quality pitchers creeping into the league.

SABR Matt

01-10-2006, 02:50 PM

538280

01-10-2006, 03:00 PM

SABR Matt

01-10-2006, 03:36 PM

My point was that the 80s weren't a high scoring decade...if the pitching was bad, shouldn't scoring have gone up (it didn't) and competitiveness gone down (it went up...significantly). Bad leagues usually have a talent imbalance because it's a bigger step down from the good players (who are always there...in any league) to the lesser players and some teams end up with more good players than others...the 80s were the most balanceddecade in history.

I don't think there was any surge of poor pitching quality in the 80s...until at least 1987.

pretorius

01-10-2006, 03:47 PM

I am not comparing Yaz's power to Boggs (Although I think Yaz was closer to Boggs then he was say Mantle or even a Kingman).

I was simply stating that I think park effect is overrated and that left handed hitter's at Fenway are not doomed to lower Home Run totals. I used Vaughan and Papi because their power stats were greater as left handed hitters when playing In Boston then when they went elsewhere. I mean sometimes you flip a quarter and it does land on heads 9/10 times. I bet dozens of left handed hitters at Fenway have more Home Runs at Fenway then on the road.

Sometimes park effect is obvious...Adcock, Vinny Castilla, Ott, Foxx, Snider but even those numbers I think are more flukey then reality...except in regards to altitude and Coors which I something you can witness first hand and is blindingly evident.

However, Manny Ramirez, Jim Thome, Jeff Kent, Galaragga...have static numbers no matter their stadium.

The whole problem I have with large era adjustments and large park effect adjustments is what I would call a string of anomalies. Ted Williams was an All-Star caliber player in the 30's and 60's. Other players with long careers transcend these era adjustments as well without massive stat drop-offs. Musial, Anson, Cobb, Aaron, Henderson, Yaz, Murray, Winfield...etc, etc.

Those long career players are what I call era busters.

Ted Williams in 1939.... 31 Home Runs 327 AVG 436 OBP
Ted Williams in 1960... 29 Home Runs 329 AVG 451 OBP

Aaron in 1955....27 Home Runs 314 AVG 366 OBP
AAron in 1973....40 Home Runs 301 AVG 402 OBP

Winfield in 1974...20 Home Runs 265 AVG 318 OBP
Winfield in 1993...21 Home Runs 271 AVG 325 OBP

Murray in 77 and 96
Musial in 42 and 62
Yaz in 61 and 83

etc.

Individual players and individual talents without regard to neat classifications of when the league was truly good or when pitchers were really good or when the fences were moved 10 feet in or when the 5 man rotation was introduced or when global warming kicked in or a thousand other cited impact variables kicked in.......certain players remain static in skill/numbers. Manage to motor on through these era's without batting eyes.

These are human's you are applying these formulas to. Not lightening bolts or rain drops or matchbox car wheels.

I think a players skill is greater then the believed parameters of his era.

Meaning I am one of those people who think that no matter what era Yaz played in his actual power numbers would have been similiar to what they were within his era.

Not saying I do not make era adjustments. I am not saying that Ruth would have been hitting 54,59,60 Home Runs in Yaz's era but that he would have been hitting 49,53,55 Home Runs.

baseballPAP

01-10-2006, 03:51 PM

The only problem with this is, most of the rest of the league wasn't batting against such a girl in half their games
You've never played co-ed softball :laugh

I still hold to the fact that if some team builds a new stadium with a 320 foot fence in center, and a couple of their power hitters decide to stop pulling the ball and go for the new short field, they should in no way be penalized. They are showing a flexibility of their skills by changing to fit the place they play most of their games. You think Yaz wouldn't have pulled the ball more if he played in the Bronx?

baseballPAP

01-10-2006, 03:54 PM

You are comparing Yaz to Ortiz? Ortiz and Vaughn? Do you actually understand the difference between when these players played? Yaz - offensively deficient 60's and 70's. Ortiz and Vaughn - Juiced up 90's and '00's. Of course they are going to have more power! But for his time, Yaz did have power.

And talk about fluke power - Boggs hitting 24 HR's!!! That's about as flukey as it gets - he only hit over 10 HR's one other time in his career - bad comparison there.
Thanks Edgar...saved me typing vitually the same comments!

Edgartohof

01-10-2006, 04:17 PM

The whole problem I have with large era adjustments and large park effect adjustments is what I would call a string of anomalies. Ted Williams was an All-Star caliber player in the 30's and 60's. Other players with long careers transcend these era adjustments as well without massive stat drop-offs. Musial, Anson, Cobb, Aaron, Henderson, Yaz, Murray, Winfield...etc, etc.

So you don't really do era adjustments because the best of the best were the best? (I just liked the way that sounded ;) )

You did bring up a good point about skill sets. Ichiro isn't going to hit 50 HR's in the '20's, '30's, '60's, or today (although I think he could :dance ), but there is a difference in how things are played. True, Yaz may not have hit as many HR's as others, especially in the current time frame, but he wasn't brought up that way. Ortiz grew up playing the way he plays now, so did Manny, and all of the current sluggers.

I'm not saying that Yaz is a top 10 slugger, but he is a pretty good HR hitter, especially if you put everything in context. Even if you don't, he still hit 450+ HR's, with three seasons with 40+ HR's. With the HR explosion in the last 15 years (the last 10 especially), sluggers like Yaz get overshadowed. Today, he doesn't have a top 100 season in HR's, but when he played, his top years were around the top 40 or so, and he retired at 17th (?) on the HR list.

RuthMayBond

01-10-2006, 04:21 PM

You've never played co-ed softball :laugh I was referring to most of the rest of the league not getting to bat in Fenway. I have played co-ed softball, and you have just outlined my major strategy for fooling others into thinking I'm halfway decent

baseballPAP

01-10-2006, 04:26 PM

Sometimes park effect is obvious...Adcock, Vinny Castilla, Ott, Foxx, Snider but even those numbers I think are more flukey then reality...except in regards to altitude and Coors which I something you can witness first hand and is blindingly evident.

However, Manny Ramirez, Jim Thome, Jeff Kent, Galaragga...have static numbers no matter their stadium.

I scalped the post, but left some so you know what I'm referring to.

Park effect is flukey? So Polo Grounds having a 270 foot fence was a fluke? How about Hank Aaron, victim of some terrible park effects early in his career in Milwaukee, suddenly hitting an average of somewhere around 20-25% more of his HRs at home when the team went to ATL(anyone have the actual numbers?...that is from memory). Extreme park effects for single seasons are flukey, no doubt. But in the years from WWII onward, Fenway has had park effects for LH batters that range from 144% down to 58%. These can be narrowed considerably if you throw out the 3 highest and 3 lowest....a 146, 136 and 133, and 58,58,60 on the low side. That makes the range 65-118%, with most of the years ranging in the 90's. It all averages out to 94%, considerably lower since 1986 as compared to pre 86. Park effects are best looked at as a whole....thereby throwing the term fluke right out the window. I can say without doubt that Fenway suppresses HRs for LH batters by 6.2% since 1946. No fluke, no era adjustment, no nothing.

SABR Matt

01-10-2006, 04:32 PM

pretorius...I have a major problem with your argument that because Ted Williams and Rickey Henderson had careers that spanned different eras, it is proof that era adjusting shouldn't occur. First of all...Ted Williams in 1939 was just coming up to the big leagues and Ted Williams in 1960 was still hitting a lague much like the fifties (changes didn't begin until 1962) and he was old and declining...You pick the beginning and end of any player's long carreer and it's going to look kinda similar because of the overwhelming effect of the career curve...you start out weak...hit a peak in the middle and end up weak generally speaking...that's the way it works.

It is not a legitimate argument to claim that there should be little or no era adjusting because a few great players APPEAR to have defeated the changes in the eras...it is not proper logical reasoning to assme that player who were so great that they could last a very long time can show you anything about the general population of players...they're so unlike the other players in baseball history that they defy that kind of comparison. The fact that Yaz was still able to hit around 20 HRs after the age of 40 is a VERY rare skill.

SABR Matt

01-10-2006, 04:36 PM

BTW pretorius...I do fully agree with your disapproval of park effects as they exist today...they do have a high fluke-factor...most of which is IMHO due to the home-team's personnel bias (players on the home team sometimes learn how to better take advantae of their park and cause warping effects on the park adjustment).

TKD and I are nearly finished implementing a new kind of era, park, and strength of schedule assessment tool that has been briefly discussed over in the sabermetrics forum that we hope will largely address you concerns about the improper adjustment of park and era to league averages.

I think you'll find our adjustments much less prone to wild fluctuate and more indicative of the real influences of time and place...but I'll leave tht up to the readers once our answers are calculated and we've had a chance to post some of them.

Bench 5

01-10-2006, 08:27 PM

If that were the case...that non-MLB pitchers were creeping into the league...then why did the entire decade of the eighties feature the run-and-slap offenses...Rickeyball wasn't just henderson...whole teams (oyals, Cardinals, et) relied on running attacks, slap contact hitters, and good defense...(Ozzie Smith!)...to win games. I don't think the pitching quality dipped until about 1987 (the rabbitball year).

regardless...I do agree that baseball was at its'' peak in the late 70s and early 80s and that throughout the 60s and 70s, the lack of offense was more due to strong pitching and fielding than to weak hitting.

I think pitching was weak during the early 80s especially in the AL. Sure there were some good pitchers but the overall pitching talent was thin. You had guys like Pete Vukovich, Willie Hernandez, and Lamar Hoyt win Cy Youngs. They all had pretty good years when they won it but they won the awards by default.

When Roger Clemens came along he was so much better than anyone else in the AL that the difference was incredible. Thats a testament to his greatness but also a testament to the mediocrity of the pitching at the time.

There were several outstanding pitchers that started their careers in the mid-60s and by the early 80s many of them were still good/decent pitchers but past their prime. Guys like Seaver, Jenkins, Ryan, Koosman, Perry, Sutton etc. At the same time there weren't a lot of outstanding young pitchers to take their place. With the arrival of guys in the mid/late 80s e.g. Clemens, Gooden, Maddux and Stewart - they started to fill that gap.

I think that the perceived "quality" of the ML at the time due to the parity between teams was due to baseball's economic structure. The gap between the richest and poorest teams was not nearly as large as it is today. Small market teams like KC and Pittsburgh actually had a chance to win it. But the difference in talent between the best and worst players was just as great as it is today.

One of the reasons that the talent level in the 60s and 70s was so high was because of the Baby Boom. Once the Baby Boomers were past their prime, there weren't as many young American athletes to talke their place. That impacted the game in the 80s.

Having watched a lot of games at the time, I don't think that teams from that time period were any deaper on the bench or on the pitching staffs than they are now. I think the league had greater young talent in the late 80s/early 90s than 10 years prior to that. I would also rate the 60s and early 70s as superior in strength to the late 70s/early 80s.

SABR Matt

01-10-2006, 09:42 PM

Honus Wagner Rules

01-10-2006, 09:57 PM

SABR Matt

01-10-2006, 10:46 PM

Fair enough...but that's still just 15 years of FA inequity...the rest of baseball historh the financial imbalance was nearly non existant aside from attendence shortages caused by horrible teams...ielded by bad management.

RuthMayBond

01-11-2006, 06:37 AM

RuthMayBond

01-11-2006, 06:43 AM

four tool:
<POSITION.....BEST...........SECOND
1B...............Gehrig..........Sisler
SS...............Wagner........O. Smith
3B...............Schmidt........Brooks Robinson>

You must like defense

<PITCHERS--no order
W. Johnson
Grove
Clemens
Matthewson
Spahn
Rivera
Eckersley
Sutter
Gossage
Wilhelm
P. Martinez
Koufax>

Wow, Sutter, but no Pete Alexander or Maddux or RJohnson or ... :crazy

RuthMayBond

01-11-2006, 07:03 AM

Funny. I got twice as much info in mine, in half the space. Everyone ignored the space-saving model I pioneered. Um, I COPIED your entry and replaced your info with mine

SABR Matt

01-11-2006, 11:43 AM

Bill...I prefer a cleaner looking more space0hoggish approach. Your model...with all those freakin' dots and lists on the same lines and whatnot looks horrible to me. LOL

I like my lists to be simply states and not be competing with other information...easier on the eyes.

Anyway, as to the supposed inequities of baseball, of course there were variations in attendence...if you're gonna suck, people won't show up...but that's hardly the kind of inequity that can/should lead to a general league imbalance like the one people believe is occuring now due to free agency.

and those kind of attendence ineuities were going in full force in the 70s and 80s too when the free agency problem hadn't yet escallated.

But whatever.

RuthMayBond

01-11-2006, 11:47 AM

if you're gonna suck, people won't show upUnless you're the Cubs or Marlins :laugh And if they aren't gonna show up, you can't stop 'em

Bill Burgess

01-11-2006, 12:01 PM

I understand, Matt. I think mine appears to the eye cleaner than anyone else's, but that's a matter of opinion.

But I can't help but notice that most of the profiles omit a lot of data.

Some of the stuff that would be appropriate might include.

1. Top 100 Position Players
2. Top 50 Pitchers
3. All-Time All-Star Teams, A & B
4. All Time Defensive Teams, A & B
5. All Time Black Teams, A & B
6. Top 20 Players at each position
7. 20 Greatest Negro L. Position Players
8. 20 Greatest Pre-1900 Position Players
9. 15 Greatest Teams of History
10. Most Committed Opinions

If someone didn't want to do greatest Negro L. or Pre-1900 separately, using color in your top 100 Players can accomplish that purpose, sorta.

And Jeffrey. Yes, your profile looks clean and has a lot of data. You might want to add some of the data I included above.

No one has to follow my model. But when we have 200 profiles like we have now, it will be REAL long. But if that's how it must be, so be it. I'm just trying to be helpful.

Bill Burgess

RuthMayBond

01-11-2006, 12:08 PM

And Jeffrey. Yes, your profile looks clean and has a lot of data. You might want to add some of the data I included above.

Some of the stuff that would be appropriate might include.

1. Top 100 Position Players
I thought I had told you that my project on this hasn't worked out real well past about the 20th spot

<2. Top 50 Pitchers>

This shouldn't be a problem

<4. All Time Defensive Teams, A & B>

I could do this down to about the letter Z :D

<5. All Time Black Teams, A & B>

Interesting idea, are we counting guys like Pedro ...?

<7. 20 Greatest Negro L. Position Players>

Not til I research this

<8. 20 Greatest Pre-1900 Position Players>

Seems obscure

<9. 15 Greatest Teams of History>

This shouldn't be a problem. WAIT, you're talking mini-dynasties, not single year teams

Bill Burgess

01-11-2006, 12:38 PM

Interesting idea, are we counting guys like Pedro ...? Of course!

<8. 20 Greatest Pre-1900 Position Players> Seems obscure: Do thy besteth.

<9. 15 Greatest Teams of History> This shouldn't be a problem. WAIT, you're talking mini-dynasties, not single year teams I like to do it that way, but you don't have to, unless you want to.

RuthMayBond

01-11-2006, 12:56 PM

Bill,
I think you want pitcher WES Ferrell, and Hunter over GaPerry is :grouchy

SABR Matt

01-11-2006, 01:00 PM

Bill Burgess

01-11-2006, 01:15 PM

That's a lot of stuff Bill...

I don't know nearly enough about the Negro Leagues to offer any opinion. I know that's sad, but it's not something I've done any research on.

And I prefer not to highlight races as though they were different. This whole "top 20 black players" or "all time black team" thing just feels like segregation. There's only one kind of baseball player. The human kind. I will not be part of any needless race classification.

I will add to my profile with additional information when I get a chance.

Matt,

Miscommunication here. While I did ask for All-Time Black Teams, A & B, that was intended to be interesting, but I can see how it might appear otherwise.

But when I high-light my Top 100 for Negro League players, that is not "black" but "Negro League". That is to connotate that I insert them without benefit of stats. And I also high-light my pre-1900 players to connotate that they also had very different conditions.

I do not high-light black ML players! There would be no point to that, I agree. Sorry for the unclear confusion.

SABR Matt

01-11-2006, 01:33 PM

Alright Bill...I understand the logic of highlighting Negro Leaguers and pre-1900 players, I just don't really want to do the Negro League top 20 at this point because I can't speak with any authority on it...or the black teams (for the reasons stated above).

I will however do defensive teams, list some of my committed opinions and extended my lists out to 100 and 50 in the position player and pitcher lists as you requesed.

Bill Burgess

01-11-2006, 01:41 PM

I will however do defensive teams, list some of my committed opinions and extended my lists out to 100 and 50 in the position player and pitcher lists as you requested.

Thanks Matt. And I do acknowledge that I'm asking for a heck of a lot of data. I am.

Could you also list your top 15 teams of history, and your top 20 pre-1900 players? Since we're at it, why not give it all up? No reason not to. That is assuming you do teams. I do not know if you do teams.

Thanks for your trouble, Matt. I do appreciate your help. I really do. I appreciate all you guys.

Bill

Bench 5

01-11-2006, 01:47 PM

You know..I've heard the economic argument before...but if parity were determined by the gap between the revenue of the best and worst franchises, then why the hell was there so little parity in the 20s, 30s, 50s...etc...when the economic structure was EXACTLY THE SAME as it was in the 70s/80s? The FA explosion didn't start until the mid 90s (by explosion...I mean the really huge deals and the large payroll gaps)...so...you're telling me there was parity throughout ML history until 1995?

Um.

Uh uh.

Thanks

As for the perceived lack of pitching in the AL...I was say that the league may have been devoid of true studs...but the overall depth of average and above average pitchers was outstanding. If it were not...we'd have seen much more run scoring than we did.

No. I didn't say that there was parity in ML history up through 1995. I'm not sure where you came up with that. There was a high level of parity between teams in the 80s. The economic structure of the game was much different in the 70s and 80s than it was in the 1920s and 1930s. Free agency in the early 70s changed all of that. Talent shifted between teams a lot easier in the 80s than it did in the 20s.

But there wasn't as big a gap between rich and poor teams in the period 78-86 than there is now.

Scoring from 1978-86 in the AL went up from 4.09 per game/team to 4.44 over the prior 9 year period so scoring was up during that time period. In the NL it was almost the same period over period. I just don't think that this was the golden age of baseball as you seem to think.

SABR Matt

01-11-2006, 02:10 PM

Thanks Matt. And I do acknowledge that I'm asking for a heck of a lot of data. I am.

Could you also list your top 15 teams of history, and your top 20 pre-1900 players? Since we're at it, why not give it all up? No reason not to. That is assuming you do teams. I do not know if you do teams.

Thanks for your trouble, Matt. I do appreciate your help. I really do. I appreciate all you you guys.

Bill

I do teams...but I want to wait until my latest team analysis method is complete before I make a final list for the thread..I don't expect much will change, but I'll do single-seasons and dynasties shortly.

And I'll do 19th century players too...that's not a problem.

Myankee4life

01-11-2006, 03:01 PM

Pretorious you also forgot Joe D on your All-time list.

538280

01-12-2006, 06:16 PM

Then explain to me the immense popularity of Ichiro Suzuki and Derek Jeter, and tell me why that (and their revenue producing abilities) shouldn't be factored into analysis of their greatness.

As to the "no player is like that" angle... of course they are! History is littered with guy who hit lots of homers, draw lots of walks, and have the contact hitting ability of Aurelio Rodriguez. Last I checked, Adam Dunn hit 40 homers and drew 114 walks last season, and hit .187 on balls that stayed inside the park. That fits my criteria of "Players I'd rather gouge my eyes out of my head than have on my team" quite nicely.

General rule: How interesting I find a player as a hitter is going to largely follow this formula, with the higher number the better:

(PA-HR-K-BB)/PA

How did I miss this?

Anyway, here are all the players in basebal history with 3000+ PAs, rated in order of how interesting they are to ElHalo:

nameLast nameFirst ES
Schreckengost Ossee 0.965485075
Bowerman Frank 0.961074561
Ferris Hobe 0.960673058
Isbell Frank 0.956362855
Jones Tom 0.954068547
Carpenter Hick 0.953736655
Sullivan Billy 0.952022105
Heidrick Emmet 0.951027811
Callahan Nixey 0.950415512
Hickman Charlie 0.95014111
Stovall George 0.949785561
Gleason Bill 0.948951435
Bransfield Kitty 0.948941701
Comiskey Charlie 0.948632974
Coughlin Bill 0.948487713
Wolverton Harry 0.947512136
Bergen Bill 0.947026022
Orr Dave 0.945763706
Tannehill Lee 0.944550669
O'Leary Charley 0.943870427
Bradley Bill 0.943599074
DeMontreville Gene 0.942522889
Warner John 0.942468619
Casey Doc 0.941935484
Snyder Pop 0.941396842
Start Joe 0.941356139
Verban Emil 0.941157556
Browne George 0.941064236
Dooin Red 0.940997424
Wolf Jimmy 0.939301393
Anderson John 0.938829787
Corkhill Pop 0.938231469
Keeler Willie 0.938190536
Cross Lave 0.938105046
McCarthy Jack 0.937931034
Parent Freddy 0.936636151
Barry Shad 0.935274356
Lajoie Nap 0.934608031
Conroy Wid 0.934370529
Stahl Jake 0.93420026
Corcoran Tommy 0.933710504
Holmes Ducky 0.93348281
Murphy Danny 0.932586149
Hecker Guy 0.932503277
Sutton Ezra 0.932080925
Donahue Jiggs 0.931775701
McInnis Stuffy 0.931694306
Lord Bris 0.93166287
Padden Dick 0.931170663
Clarke Boileryard 0.930676856
Ely Bones 0.930073701
Collins Jimmy 0.929817499
Oldring Rube 0.929748823
Dolan Cozy 0.929739031
Seymour Cy 0.929400387
Killefer Bill 0.928529412
Bierbauer Lou 0.928416847
Lord Harry 0.928278194
Harley Dick 0.928175092
LaChance Candy 0.927856468
Hoffman Danny 0.927819549
Moriarty George 0.927334796
Donovan Patsy 0.926226485
Ferguson Bob 0.926028921
Waner Lloyd 0.92553447
Beaumont Ginger 0.923897469
Sommer Joe 0.923213832
Freeman Buck 0.92292704
Dougherty Patsy 0.922685457
Reilly John 0.922593718
Dexter Charlie 0.922110553
Olson Ivy 0.921568627
Gleason Kid 0.921200293
White Deacon 0.920969593
Steinfeldt Harry 0.920824619
Cooley Duff 0.920588739
McGann Dan 0.920456425
Young Cy 0.919703322
Chase Hal 0.919511273
Brown Eddie 0.919385797
Douglass Klondike 0.919385797
McCormick Barry 0.919334823
O'Connor Jack 0.9183391
Pickering Ollie 0.918181818
Summa Homer 0.918022905
Deal Charlie 0.917820868
Vaughn Farmer 0.917650288
Mueller Don 0.917340914
Quinn Joe 0.917234797
Stone George 0.916780355
Tinker Joe 0.916585024
LaPorte Frank 0.91657708
Seybold Socks 0.916383082
Elberfeld Kid 0.916350531
Sugden Joe 0.916232073
Irwin Charlie 0.915995116
Gilbert Billy 0.915927851
Gerhardt Joe 0.915855355
Weaver Farmer 0.915688046
McFarland Ed 0.914982164
Jennings Hughie 0.914523852
Scott Everett 0.914482975
Williams Jimmy 0.914430628
Whitehead Burgess 0.914373947
Schaefer Germany 0.914053426
Cooney Johnny 0.913741497
Green Danny 0.912646013
Davis Harry 0.912589782
Criger Lou 0.911577784
Hassett Buddy 0.911478855
Stahl Chick 0.911368015
Robinson Wilbert 0.9110537
Kling Johnny 0.910560345
Hemphill Charlie 0.910268997
Delahanty Jim 0.910196246
Turner Terry 0.910033043
Glasscock Jack 0.910019907
Doyle Jack 0.909381663
Crawford Sam 0.909288276
Critz Hughie 0.908963367
Cutshaw George 0.908739739
Brown Jimmy 0.908663883
Abbaticchio Ed 0.908644117
Ritchey Claude 0.908384638
Ganzel Charlie 0.908060453
Phillips Bill 0.908030507
Wallace Bobby 0.907719517
Millan Felix 0.907516288
Rowe Jack 0.907263294
Beckley Jake 0.907163324
Richardson Bobby 0.906309751
Donlin Mike 0.906118636
Brodie Steve 0.906081723
Fox Nellie 0.905834385
Mertes Sam 0.905581116
Beckert Glenn 0.905320108
Kuehne Bill 0.904761905
Ward John 0.904502721
Koenig Mark 0.904410167
Jordan Buck 0.904228856
Purcell Blondie 0.904205128
Weaver Buck 0.904195011
Shannon Spike 0.904145937
Alou Jesus 0.904103577
Burdock Jack 0.904047384
Cramer Doc 0.903956509
Force Davy 0.903789426
Foutz Dave 0.903651743
Fletcher Art 0.903460838
Thevenow Tommy 0.903211418
Traynor Pie 0.902568431
Lowe Bobby 0.902079835
McIntyre Matty 0.901817376
York Tom 0.901448587
Everitt Bill 0.901408451
Hines Paul 0.901204819
Dorgan Mike 0.901181878
Welch Curt 0.900789634
Rice Sam 0.900741753
Roush Edd 0.900441393
Dowd Tommy 0.900436535
Mulvey Joe 0.900308569
Sisler George 0.900033285
Gessler Doc 0.899594907
McGarr Chippy 0.89951051
Flick Elmer 0.899438728
Wagner Heinie 0.898435428
Power Vic 0.898331514
Tucker Tommy 0.897605285
O'Rourke Jim 0.897027953
Gibson George 0.896658711
Fermin Felix 0.896167704
Shindle Billy 0.895826747
Stricker Cub 0.895534133
Jones Charley 0.894487403
Hotaling Pete 0.894483128
Manning Jack 0.894423389
Nelson Candy 0.89436428
Foli Tim 0.894260282
Leach Freddy 0.893893894
Smith Germany 0.893781272
Tenney Fred 0.893380266
Hodapp Johnny 0.893032385
Helms Tommy 0.893025893
Holke Walter 0.892613284
McClellan Bill 0.89242685
Slagle Jimmy 0.89237435
Collins Shano 0.892268334
Swartwood Ed 0.892108508
Severeid Hank 0.891999164
Jones Fielder 0.891943248
Peitz Heinie 0.891909385
Meusel Irish 0.89188171
Milan Clyde 0.891843118
Buckner Bill 0.89160628
Finney Lou 0.891515994
Tebeau Patsy 0.891460495
Frisch Frankie 0.890594059
Gandil Chick 0.890535676
Clarke Fred 0.890416539
Newsome Skeeter 0.890139467
Gillespie Pete 0.89005925
Guillen Ozzie 0.890004241
Myers Hy 0.889954853
Jones Bob 0.889780154
Kolloway Don 0.889491046
Hallman Bill 0.889478472
Davis George 0.889370505
Miller Doggie 0.889319022
Murray Red 0.889260343
Adams Sparky 0.889050858
Oakes Rebel 0.888943731
Radcliff Rip 0.888863841
Cross Monte 0.88869021
Farrell Jack 0.888597641
Grant Eddie 0.888504524
Lobert Hans 0.888463746
McGuire Deacon 0.888343912
Fonseca Lew 0.888292159
Kittridge Malachi 0.888214125
McBride George 0.888211708
Barry Jack 0.888208894
Bigbee Carson 0.888126875
Hartzell Roy 0.8879525
Nicol Hugh 0.887581699
Schoendienst Red 0.887428013
McKean Ed 0.887253614
Baker Frank 0.887237237
Grady Mike 0.887134503
Bailor Bob 0.88700565
Long Herman 0.88649476
Hollocher Charlie 0.886430678
Latham Arlie 0.88616369
Manush Heinie 0.885812738
Hankinson Frank 0.885564914
Stripp Joe 0.885504429
Stock Milt 0.885196375
Harper Brian 0.885133114
Jones Davy 0.884791571
Magee Lee 0.884770729
Moore Jo-Jo 0.884746922
Doolan Mickey 0.884662019
McCormick Frank 0.884646367
Fothergill Bob 0.884045823
Siebert Dick 0.884027288
Sanguillen Manny 0.883995502
Alou Matty 0.883863673
Mitchell Dale 0.883838384
Taylor Zack 0.883263463
Bowa Larry 0.883222958
Lindstrom Freddie 0.88319135
Johnston Jimmy 0.882906894
Flynn Doug 0.882410824
Stenzel Jake 0.882180539
Schriver Pop 0.881944444
Pierre Juan 0.881809178
Chance Frank 0.881741518
Melillo Ski 0.881683526
Wagner Honus 0.881506091
Hale Sammy 0.881318681
Barrett Jimmy 0.881095176
Garcia Damaso 0.88097561
Burns George 0.87999447
Whitney Art 0.879780055
Pratt Del 0.879616244
High Andy 0.879452606
Sewell Joe 0.879337255
Dugan Joe 0.879061065
Reitz Heinie 0.878356519
DiSarcina Gary 0.87833458
McCreery Tom 0.878289474
Allen Ethan 0.878279119
Miller Bing 0.878140886
Griffith Tommy 0.878004036
Grimm Charlie 0.877987421
Tobin Jack 0.877910361
Anson Cap 0.877904409
Southworth Billy 0.877816115
Shaffer Orator 0.877642706
Milligan Jocko 0.877570093
Zimmerman Heinie 0.877351916
Cissell Bill 0.877188594
Duncan Pat 0.876621217
Thompson Sam 0.876499539
Lewis Duffy 0.876310971
Farrell Duke 0.876239207
Sullivan Billy 0.876038339
Holmes Tommy 0.876010782
Christman Mark 0.875633761
Herzog Buck 0.875310071
Stennett Rennie 0.875235503
McKechnie Bill 0.875157233
Foster Eddie 0.875098939
Duffy Hugh 0.874920148
Cash Dave 0.874875539
Byrne Bobby 0.874817518
Gardner Larry 0.874690956
Hatcher Mickey 0.874650252
Engle Clyde 0.874610106
Clingman Billy 0.874496436
Boyle Jack 0.873840845
Shugart Frank 0.873703478
Richardson Danny 0.87286887
Wilson Jimmie 0.872834571
Selbach Kip 0.872619551
Hayes Jackie 0.872511742
Browning Pete 0.872248354
Larkin Henry 0.872123727
Owen Mickey 0.871927237
Groat Dick 0.871908453
Leach Tommy 0.871726881
Waitkus Eddie 0.871712636
Comorosky Adam 0.871630295
Jackson Joe 0.871528998
Hoblitzel Dick 0.87150838
Stanage Oscar 0.871261378
Flack Max 0.870956816
Galloway Chick 0.870870871
Evers Johnny 0.87073509
Zeider Rollie 0.870661605
Delahanty Ed 0.870544761
McCarthy Tommy 0.87036069
Wrightstone Russ 0.869936034
Knabe Otto 0.869838249
Hofman Solly 0.869750586
Weatherly Roy 0.869348404
Todt Phil 0.869057105
Rawlings Johnny 0.869001919
O'Neill Tip 0.868855932
Ewing Buck 0.868804159
Ray Johnny 0.868773433
Andrews Ed 0.868742724
Wingo Ivey 0.868709973
Kell George 0.868673415
Vina Fernando 0.868588385
Pinkney George 0.868568125
Handley Lee 0.868542061
Vitt Ossie 0.868479715
Lange Bill 0.868384594
Doyle Larry 0.868192902
Cobb Ty 0.868191554
Devlin Art 0.868154932
Hornung Joe 0.868035787
Mitchell Mike 0.867490783
Veach Bobby 0.867407701
Reynolds Carl 0.867185899
Travis Cecil 0.867011452
Titus John 0.866964593
Rivers Mickey 0.86682243
Bridwell Al 0.866680195
Johnson Lance 0.866620475
Johnston Doc 0.866510539
Dauer Rich 0.866395793
Daubert Jake 0.86639213
Sutherland Gary 0.866349866
Ford Hod 0.866109564
Gwynn Tony 0.866068789
Wheat Zack 0.865846339
McPhee Bid 0.865766819
Miller Otto 0.865529682
Sewell Luke 0.865419633
Garms Debs 0.865356833
Kuiper Duane 0.865132459
Case George 0.865095195
Hogan Shanty 0.864997121
Mayo Eddie 0.864976415
Wright Taffy 0.864606883
Farrar Sid 0.864583333
Miller Dots 0.864576899
Whitted Possum 0.864390002
Moore Johnny 0.864178648
Knickerbocker Bill 0.864108713
Kopf Larry 0.863690124
Dahlen Bill 0.863618864
Egan Dick 0.862982802
Perkins Cy 0.862515567
Dunlap Fred 0.862335835
Shanks Howie 0.862332398
McNair Eric 0.862189361
Magee Sherry 0.862157735
Rojas Cookie 0.862155021
Lowrey Peanuts 0.862054681
Sweeney Bill 0.861979779
Dalrymple Abner 0.861770073
Burns Oyster 0.86175384
Wasdell Jimmy 0.86175261
Van Haltren George 0.861677247
Gantner Jim 0.86166419
Rosar Buddy 0.8616634
Strang Sammy 0.861617312
Lavan Doc 0.86119578
Burkett Jesse 0.861114003
Lombardi Ernie 0.861080485
Robertson Dave 0.86090969
Meyers Chief 0.860508369
Jacobson Baby Doll 0.860342556
Barrett Marty 0.860263158
Dark Alvin 0.860220569
Reynolds Craig 0.860132615
Vosmik Joe 0.860124918
Aparicio Luis 0.860050206
Frederick Johnny 0.859988109
Wambsganss Bill 0.859931114
Urbanski Billy 0.859790732
Wilson Chief 0.85975005
Herman Billy 0.859738456
Kelley Joe 0.859729064
Gonzalez Mike 0.85963798
Ryan Jimmy 0.859213705
Garr Ralph 0.859061638
Griffin Alfredo 0.859046572
Hinchman Bill 0.858823529
Tovar Cesar 0.858538174
Polanco Placido 0.858471761
Hamner Granny 0.858464975
Fennelly Frank 0.85801217
Hemsley Rollie 0.857868942
Courtney Clint 0.857736573
Harris Bucky 0.857631389
Baumholtz Frank 0.857519094
Gerber Wally 0.857462173
Cox Billy 0.85731797
Cruz Deivi 0.857177974
Bodie Ping 0.856971154
Johnston Dick 0.856778309
Speaker Tris 0.856690023
Kuenn Harvey 0.856595295
Smith Jack 0.856346996
Dent Bucky 0.85590836
Maranville Rabbit 0.855810235
Wilmot Walt 0.855733945
Dillinger Bob 0.855670103
Danning Harry 0.855666875
Falk Bibb 0.8556231
Clarke Horace 0.855500192
Sanchez Rey 0.855344694
Barnhart Clyde 0.855314961
Suder Pete 0.855080409
Werden Perry 0.854492188
Rice Harry 0.854485519
Zimmer Chief 0.854412924
Meyer Dan 0.854208417
Walker Gee 0.85383442
Mancuso Gus 0.853731343
Medwick Joe 0.853475804
Burke Eddie 0.85324145
Burns Tom 0.853212774
Waner Paul 0.85318714
Hummel John 0.852867261
Whitney Pinky 0.852619915
Heathcote Cliff 0.852194925
Lanier Hal 0.852078551
Richardson Hardy 0.852048433
Jamieson Charlie 0.851629274
Doyle Denny 0.850422535
Lind Jose 0.850340136
Hartsel Topsy 0.850163991
Hoy Dummy 0.85016131
Fuentes Tito 0.850082919
Russell Bill 0.849918434
Sizemore Ted 0.849910873
Smith Pop 0.84988103
Smith Elmer 0.84962963
Fox Pete 0.849546044
Bassett Charley 0.849428039
Boeckel Tony 0.849233657
Konetchy Ed 0.849030471
Perez Neifi 0.848938547
McAleer Jimmy 0.848889896
Durocher Leo 0.848807276
Harris Lenny 0.848542762
Demaree Frank 0.848353553
Groh Heinie 0.84832978
Wills Maury 0.848217523
O'Brien Darby 0.84814578
Clements Jack 0.848001701
Collins Eddie 0.847802609
Mota Manny 0.847291816
Cater Danny 0.847125711
Reitz Ken 0.846918489
Walker Curt 0.846913137
O'Rourke Frank 0.846721667
Austin Jimmy 0.846397969
Hanlon Ned 0.845766673
Owen Marv 0.845643939
Combs Earle 0.845397264
Brouthers Dan 0.845390441
Griffin Mike 0.845286885
Jackson Sonny 0.845241625
Alomar Sr. Sandy 0.845001945
Sheely Earl 0.844955349
O'Doul Lefty 0.84476633
Mowrey Mike 0.844747941
Carroll Fred 0.844680851
Mazeroski Bill 0.844626309
Schulte Frank 0.844597329
Malzone Frank 0.844486496
Remy Jerry 0.844453458
Carroll Cliff 0.844292237
Haas Mule 0.844252412
Fuller Shorty 0.844155844
Oliver Al 0.844056594
Bresnahan Roger 0.843877931
Sheckard Jimmy 0.8438254
Bates Johnny 0.843811181
Kerr Buddy 0.843441815
Stephenson Riggs 0.843396961
Davalillo Vic 0.843128073
Miller Eddie 0.843019257
Jefferies Gregg 0.842857143
Sax Steve 0.84279131
Holliday Bug 0.842666006
Pfeffer Fred 0.84257175
Smith Ozzie 0.842370509
Phillips Bubba 0.841881553
Goodman Billy 0.841859742
Veryzer Tom 0.841848357
Kreevich Mike 0.841844512
Pipp Wally 0.841815857
Strunk Amos 0.841633638
Hooper Harry 0.841565795
Wright Glenn 0.841517857
Felsch Happy 0.841482902
Hunt Ron 0.840938722
Lewis Buddy 0.840491831
Lockman Whitey 0.840456274
Mann Les 0.840030763
Kubek Tony 0.839973142
Ordonez Rey 0.839834515
Ruel Muddy 0.839758125
Ramirez Rafael 0.839712919
Terry Bill 0.839684995
Piniella Lou 0.839549278
Kelly King 0.83950426
Myers Al 0.83934611
Snyder Frank 0.838926174
Cabell Enos 0.83881264
Thomas Roy 0.83878327
Schalk Ray 0.838507319
Biittner Larry 0.838407494
Bressler Rube 0.83837261
Collins Hub 0.838019169
Rizzuto Phil 0.837978834
Davis Willie 0.83785729
Uhlaender Ted 0.837590665
Majeski Hank 0.837424122
Pesky Johnny 0.837352675
Walker Dixie 0.837333681
Jurges Billy 0.837302153
Furillo Carl 0.836810517
Bancroft Dave 0.836729743
Lumpe Jerry 0.836077706
Moore Terry 0.835895465
McCosky Barney 0.835714286
Martin Billy 0.83567948
Flood Curt 0.83566787
Mattingly Don 0.835540984
Hendrick Harvey 0.835403727
Lipon Johnny 0.835221755
Judge Joe 0.834914404
Stovey Harry 0.834894614
Irwin Arthur 0.834844869
Cooper Walker 0.834744928
Denny Jerry 0.834631866
Taveras Frank 0.834588182
Gustine Frankie 0.834425253
Dickey Bill 0.834419263
Moses Wally 0.834363262
Tebbetts Birdie 0.83417691
Douthit Taylor 0.834144278
Hershberger Mike 0.834134008
Kasko Eddie 0.834110938
Flagstead Ira 0.83406387
Orsulak Joe 0.833903378
Bartell Dick 0.833695528
Jackson Travis 0.83350801
Childs Cupid 0.833086712
Burleson Rick 0.833010051
Hoag Myril 0.832996244
Boudreau Lou 0.83297736
Becker Beals 0.832740214
Cabrera Orlando 0.832632685
Davis Spud 0.832590707
Carey Max 0.832404828
Davis Tommy 0.832094903
Temple Johnny 0.832027995
Hatcher Billy 0.830929147
Young Ralph 0.830719557
Vaughan Arky 0.830462375
Oberkfell Ken 0.830295297
Marion Marty 0.830157955
Luderus Fred 0.8300037
Alou Felipe 0.829979623
Cuccinello Tony 0.829867675
Gehringer Charlie 0.829832959
Marshall Willard 0.829495035
Boone Bob 0.829491945
Merkle Fred 0.82928727
Witt Whitey 0.828966674
Reynolds Harold 0.82889096
Young Eric 0.828885874
Miksis Eddie 0.82853717
Kessinger Don 0.828366121
Gelbert Charlie 0.828304821
Busby Jim 0.828232759
Rothrock Jack 0.828179618
Bluege Ossie 0.828099839
Kennedy Bob 0.828029255
Rolfe Red 0.827937095
Alomar Jr. Sandy 0.827888621
Gutteridge Don 0.826960891
Baerga Carlos 0.826878868
Bush Donie 0.826768949
Logan Johnny 0.826709875
Lopez Al 0.826698956
McCarver Tim 0.826278085
Metzger Roger 0.826171036
Simmons Al 0.82564372
Tiernan Mike 0.825640262
Bonura Zeke 0.825384998
Blasingame Don 0.825316456
Ferrell Rick 0.825226244
Myer Buddy 0.8252107
Madlock Bill 0.825003423
Berardino Johnny 0.82484361
Harper George 0.824802648
Ainsmith Eddie 0.824663939
Daly Tom 0.824618232
Peckinpaugh Roger 0.824525826
Burgess Smoky 0.824487334
Cora Joey 0.824375295
Philley Dave 0.823875036
Kendall Jason 0.823865803
Kluszewski Ted 0.823794013
Bottomley Jim 0.823578695
White Sammy 0.823373174
Bloodworth Jimmy 0.822861668
Evans Steve 0.822758798
Heilmann Harry 0.82265625
Berra Yogi 0.822596154
Wood George 0.822539083
O'Neill Steve 0.822302158
Stone John 0.821813823
Adair Jerry 0.821703617
Pafko Andy 0.82156611
Aspromonte Bob 0.82127124
Lyons Denny 0.821157685
McManus Marty 0.821102737
Burns George 0.820870198
Kress Red 0.820621469
Gore George 0.820609436
Fernandez Tony 0.8204306
Hale Odell 0.820232897
Connor Roger 0.820187847
Warstler Rabbit 0.819995663
Polonia Luis 0.819806121
Metkovich Catfish 0.81958502
Gross Greg 0.819277108
Burns Jack 0.81916499
Rariden Bill 0.819062027
Glanville Doug 0.819058824
Schulte Fred 0.819013938
Harris Joe 0.818690543
Kamm Willie 0.818601298
Goslin Goose 0.818570556
Robinson Brooks 0.818477888
Lansford Carney 0.818216658
Rose Pete 0.81821062
Maddox Garry 0.81816828
Landreaux Ken 0.818079856
Virdon Bill 0.817985501
Swift Bob 0.817920918
Bell Buddy 0.817403565
Benedict Bruce 0.817319461
Appling Luke 0.81694816
Bolling Frank 0.816940335
Bell Les 0.816928591
Gilliam Jim 0.816920106
Walker Tilly 0.81686662
Jackson Ron 0.816845329
Keltner Ken 0.816698352
Fletcher Scott 0.816666667
Tresh Mike 0.816607094
May Milt 0.816180109
Cromartie Warren 0.815955213
Youngs Ross 0.815863491
Gowdy Hank 0.815781101
Bell Beau 0.815745948
Fletcher Darrin 0.815596113
McBride Bake 0.815517656
Perez Marty 0.815223707
Hopp Johnny 0.815154038
Ashburn Richie 0.814982507
Piersall Jim 0.814916705
Solters Moose 0.814693878
Tabor Jim 0.814555126
Nash Billy 0.814406906
Brown Tom 0.814226351
Cerone Rick 0.814167227
Womack Tony 0.81408565
Greenwell Mike 0.813853659
Surhoff B.J. 0.813586644
Vizquel Omar 0.813576609
Eisenreich Jim 0.81352035
Grudzielanek Mark 0.813301576
Williams Ken 0.813212251
Bell Gus 0.813105413
Leibold Nemo 0.813078347
Rogell Billy 0.812975165
Kelly George 0.812947449
Garvey Steve 0.812926621
Reed Jody 0.812847555
Gardner Billy 0.812741811
McGraw John 0.812626878
Fournier Jack 0.812531079
Simmons Ted 0.812519562
Scioscia Mike 0.81231321
West Sam 0.811962134
Bannister Alan 0.811958146
Templeton Garry 0.811688312
Groth Johnny 0.811655012
Mostil Johnny 0.811035156
O'Connell Danny 0.810793096
Kuhel Joe 0.81055525
McMillan Roy 0.810349356
Johnson Roy 0.810274253
Hack Stan 0.810134023
Slaughter Enos 0.809896407
Hurst Don 0.809675704
Lavagetto Cookie 0.809606338
Hamilton Billy 0.8094673
Johnson Billy 0.809237497
Meusel Bob 0.809223623
Smith Red 0.809165375
Moore Charlie 0.809011432
Vizcaino Jose 0.808919507
Wohlford Jim 0.808752998
White Frank 0.808736015
Beniquez Juan 0.808714342
Martin Pepper 0.808449458
Shotton Burt 0.808080808
Munson Thurman 0.808041061
Cuyler Kiki 0.807853791
Cochrane Mickey 0.807766677
Campaneris Bert 0.807736539
Knight Ray 0.807648184
Trillo Manny 0.807633354
Chapman Ray 0.807625272
Pepitone Joe 0.807572137
Oliva Tony 0.807534447
Graney Jack 0.807209469
Chalk Dave 0.80714502
Johnson Alex 0.807121058
Tyson Mike 0.807111391
Goodman Ival 0.806981982
Cowens Al 0.806850459
Stanley Mickey 0.806724233
Carrasquel Chico 0.806679389
McTamany Jim 0.806626833
Fernandez Chico 0.806546645
Pearson Albie 0.80646945
Mele Sam 0.806443095
Dahlgren Babe 0.806258322
Snyder Russ 0.806063643
Mueller Ray 0.806053119
Spence Stan 0.805892937
Kranepool Ed 0.805859572
Wilson Willie 0.805602511
Masi Phil 0.805372529
Huggins Miller 0.805294118
Loretta Mark 0.805215786
Crandall Del 0.805018956
Stengel Casey 0.804888067
Avila Bobby 0.804841434
Werber Billy 0.804619333
Fosse Ray 0.804429195
Javier Julian 0.804132097
Azcue Joe 0.803787137
Pinson Vada 0.80377724
Maye Lee 0.803530491
Cavarretta Phil 0.803506494
Puhl Terry 0.802682344
Manning Rick 0.802556573
Rodriguez Aurelio 0.802526973
Guzman Cristian 0.802047782
Chapman Ben 0.801886792
Hafey Chick 0.801877567
DiMaggio Joe 0.801851128
Moore Gene 0.801686685
Adams Bobby 0.801678445
Klein Chuck 0.801618304
Lemke Mark 0.801596037
Watkins George 0.801191151
DeMaestri Joe 0.800875274
Green Lenny 0.80017762
Etten Nick 0.8
Tuttle Bill 0.799916892
Pena Tony 0.799857854
Garciaparra Nomar 0.799821468
Morrill John 0.799582859
Tolan Bobby 0.798702703
Bonnell Barry 0.798621516
Herman Babe 0.798586572
Robinson Jackie 0.798377352
Browne Jerry 0.798312466
Hamilton Darryl 0.798250729
Brett George 0.798244089
Pagan Jose 0.798197296
Robinson Floyd 0.798025614
Brown Larry 0.797817048
Radford Paul 0.797799175
Paskert Dode 0.797627555
Higgins Pinky 0.7974583
McRae Hal 0.797065095
Litwhiler Danny 0.797045101
Ennis Del 0.797013414
Owen Spike 0.796810607
Rodgers Buck 0.796743064
Vernon Mickey 0.796637799
Cardenal Jose 0.79659463
Diaz Bo 0.796523226
Cooper Cecil 0.796437659
Lewis Darren 0.796244334
Coscarart Pete 0.796125186
Carew Rod 0.796109098
Michaels Cass 0.795816733
Berry Ken 0.795715548
Doerr Bobby 0.795714998
Girardi Joe 0.795656028
Wyrostek Johnny 0.795606695
Brinkman Ed 0.795606061
Herr Tom 0.795477055
Kauff Benny 0.795454545
Dykes Jimmie 0.795014443
Ward Aaron 0.795008481
Trammell Alan 0.794709109
Collins Ripper 0.794530321
Randle Len 0.79449875
Grace Mark 0.794364052
Clemente Roberto 0.79390893
Smith Elmer 0.793882612
Rollins Rich 0.793868054
Robinson Yank 0.793856491
Bruton Bill 0.793794246
Suhr Gus 0.793788612
Walling Denny 0.793748085
Snodgrass Fred 0.793329688
Lollar Sherm 0.793175938
McCullough Clyde 0.793113426
Minoso Minnie 0.793022344
Coan Gil 0.792983565
Richards Gene 0.792648923
Moreland Keith 0.792505481
Causey Wayne 0.792411924
Bescher Bob 0.791927231
English Woody 0.791735235
Uribe Jose 0.791728652
Runnels Pete 0.791609542
Thomas Derrel 0.791563275
Morales Jerry 0.791396104
Puckett Kirby 0.791328959
Anderson Garret 0.79108815
Frey Lonny 0.791002812
Taylor Tony 0.790711416
Vidro Jose 0.790385112
Royster Jerry 0.790380932
Sand Heinie 0.790308869
Randolph Willie 0.790168121
Friberg Bernie 0.789989572
Gladden Dan 0.789815378
Galan Augie 0.78980437
Bell George 0.789789328
Wise Sam 0.789688716
Lansing Mike 0.789578273
Orta Jorge 0.789547802
Damon Johnny 0.789439585
Trosky Hal 0.788933357
Chambliss Chris 0.788701661
Stein Bill 0.788625904
Valo Elmer 0.788607178
Spencer Jim 0.788522452
Morgan Ed 0.788455634
Collins Dave 0.78834916
Yount Robin 0.788306119
Roberts Bip 0.78826087
Concepcion Dave 0.788256228
Flaherty John 0.788245462
Pendleton Terry 0.787978864
Averill Earl 0.787941788
Slaught Don 0.787858423
O'Farrell Bob 0.787853226
Elliott Bob 0.787423687
Williams Dick 0.787345679
Zarilla Al 0.787307883
Salazar Luis 0.787126437
Hornsby Rogers 0.78701847
Kotsay Mark 0.786973555
Molitor Paul 0.786573728
Fondy Dee 0.78640257
Montanez Willie 0.786345002
Boggs Wade 0.786264562
Fogarty Jim 0.786151961
James Dion 0.785223929
Noren Irv 0.785223368
Northey Ron 0.784952274
Heath Mike 0.784757303
Williams Cy 0.784715026
Robinson Eddie 0.784690954
Unser Del 0.78457539
Hassey Ron 0.784384695
Randa Joe 0.784344423
Hall Mel 0.784261715
Grote Jerry 0.78424444
Bordick Mike 0.783670295
Evers Hoot 0.783426184
McGee Willie 0.783222795
Jackson Randy 0.783187093
Williamson Ned 0.783156238
White Jo-Jo 0.782890473
Stearns John 0.7827654
Bass Kevin 0.782740924
Dunston Shawon 0.782720411
DiMaggio Dom 0.782648966
Larkin Barry 0.782647386
Stewart Shannon 0.782627769
McCraw Tommy 0.782379863
Michael Gene 0.782326186
Coomer Ron 0.782283219
Patek Freddie 0.78220216
Perry Gerald 0.781948424
Blue Lu 0.781878729
Picinich Val 0.781741233
Cronin Joe 0.78173795
Kurowski Whitey 0.781360065
Musial Stan 0.781183348
Mack Ray 0.781167109
Belanger Mark 0.781149916
Renteria Edgar 0.781123761
Pagnozzi Tom 0.78087905
Powell Ray 0.780847639
Staub Rusty 0.780828083
Butler Brett 0.779860965
Versalles Zoilo 0.779599928
Blair Paul 0.779522803
Scott Tony 0.779285242
Bumbry Al 0.779209161
Leiber Hank 0.778980892
Stillwell Kurt 0.778904665
Griffey Sr. Ken 0.778681346
Cimoli Gino 0.778211285
Gonzalez Tony 0.778202677
Gordon Sid 0.777720297
Wynegar Butch 0.77757901
Morris Hal 0.777475023
Jones Willie 0.77744496
DeJesus Ivan 0.777412493
Knoblauch Chuck 0.777322964
Sisti Sibby 0.777315914
Thon Dickie 0.777295285
Garner Phil 0.777238641
Repulski Rip 0.777180406
Rodriguez Ivan 0.777063836
Cedeno Cesar 0.776606301
Nixon Otis 0.776507277
Lary Lyn 0.776364307
Johnstone Jay 0.776087794
Casey Sean 0.775942179
Wilson Mookie 0.77587161
Hartnett Gabby 0.775798273
McQuinn George 0.775504017
Stephens Vern 0.775442478
Mumphrey Jerry 0.775436047
Ripken Jr. Cal 0.775399812
Washington U L 0.775378666
Borders Pat 0.775327771
Thomas Lee 0.774993263
O'Brien Pete 0.774918033
Lacy Lee 0.774693221
Walker Todd 0.774633904
Meares Pat 0.77424844
Seitzer Kevin 0.7741239
Carey Andy 0.773910317
Oquendo Jose 0.773819163
Wine Bobby 0.773464658
Alley Gene 0.773317865
Tabler Pat 0.773179191
Brookens Tom 0.773168997
Ordonez Magglio 0.772324635
Grissom Marquis 0.772254599
Allen Bernie 0.772201787
Valentine Ellis 0.772185825
Seery Emmett 0.771908171
Rice Del 0.771660859
Cirillo Jeff 0.771572656
Grantham George 0.771409191
Cruz Julio 0.771046063
Howard Elston 0.771024003
Davenport Jim 0.770989278
Erstad Darin 0.770406112
Roth Braggo 0.770401949
Bauer Hank 0.769953052
Freehan Bill 0.769522697
Wert Don 0.769462465
Schang Wally 0.769422388
Campbell Bruce 0.769417024
Sabo Chris 0.769335142
Wills Bump 0.769208211
Fullmer Brad 0.768902038
Alfonzo Edgardo 0.768884892
Herrmann Ed 0.768875701
Alomar Roberto 0.768805202
Wilson Glenn 0.768761302
May Dave 0.768625522
Morrison Jim 0.768599562
Morandini Mickey 0.768583725
Mantilla Felix 0.768207516
Manwaring Kirt 0.768164004
Boone Ray 0.768077434
Joyner Wally 0.767946162
Edwards Johnny 0.767930831
Crosetti Frankie 0.767771209
Spiers Bill 0.767721685
Hoak Don 0.767508143
Martinez Buck 0.767204478
Hemus Solly 0.767190873
Lindell Johnny 0.767136451
Dykstra Lenny 0.767078972
Backman Wally 0.766603416
Saier Vic 0.766248907
Paciorek Tom 0.766154541
Hunter Brian 0.766115702
Soderholm Eric 0.766089109
Kaline Al 0.765422431
Thomson Bobby 0.7653591
Hebner Richie 0.76528997
Woodling Gene 0.764965056
White Roy 0.764936081
Rudi Joe 0.764647303
Harrelson Bud 0.764609503
Sweeney Mike 0.764593301
Oester Ron 0.764553687
Reese Pee Wee 0.764469368
Lofton Kenny 0.764338666
Maxvill Dal 0.764129032
Mize Johnny 0.764075431
Brock Lou 0.764053982
Dropo Walt 0.763895064
Henrich Tommy 0.763727121
Lieberthal Mike 0.76357582
Money Don 0.763570914
James Chris 0.76353625
LeMaster Johnnie 0.763443936
Cruz Jose 0.763363092
Finley Steve 0.763287086
Maddox Elliott 0.763268999
Doran Bill 0.763256288
Bell David 0.763233879
Watson Bob 0.76323039
Ryan Connie 0.763220892
Stirnweiss Snuffy 0.76304753
Herndon Larry 0.762599469
Coles Darnell 0.762547051
Francona Tito 0.76233653
Freese Gene 0.762310354
Hatton Grady 0.762030995
Bochte Bruce 0.761904762
Dawson Andre 0.761900291
Baylor Don 0.761791945
Crooks Jack 0.761684939
Northrup Jim 0.761473197
Hendrick George 0.761338674
Valle Dave 0.760945989
Raines Tim 0.760186716
Speier Chris 0.759955616
Gruber Kelly 0.759906076
Moreno Omar 0.759728341
Brooks Hubie 0.759631883
Williams Gerald 0.759559498
Otis Amos 0.759548078
Russell Jim 0.75946924
Hargrove Mike 0.759281618
Martinez Dave 0.75927363
Carty Rico 0.759099617
Williams Billy 0.759046525
Judnich Wally 0.758964765
McDougald Gil 0.758941878
Dalrymple Clay 0.758915835
McReynolds Kevin 0.758915118
Miller Rick 0.758886122
Gutierrez Ricky 0.758730159
Cardenas Leo 0.758634757
Brandt Jackie 0.758218699
Duncan Mariano 0.758106747
Schofield Dick 0.758057936
Lynch Jerry 0.758012821
Berger Wally 0.757902172
Gedman Rich 0.757848837
Lum Mike 0.757438225
Covington Wes 0.757427259
Roseboro Johnny 0.757398612
Bateman John 0.757175014
Torre Joe 0.757170609
Thomas Frank 0.756938358
Carter Gary 0.756838565
Charles Ed 0.756833419
Baker Dusty 0.756804435
Hegan Jim 0.75678733
Hundley Randy 0.756498674
Lopez Hector 0.756477693
Rivera Jim 0.7562751
Banks Ernie 0.756189921
Priddy Jerry 0.756079587
Skowron Bill 0.75604066
Castillo Luis 0.755981941
Goodwin Tom 0.755876193
Mayne Brent 0.755808206
Spiezio Scott 0.755804644
Battey Earl 0.755768287
Fletcher Elbie 0.755406797
Jordan Brian 0.755246089
Aurilia Rich 0.755153459
Ausmus Brad 0.755102041
Weiss Walt 0.754978988
Tejada Miguel 0.75494411
Boyer Ken 0.754783668
Franco Julio 0.754447617
Hubbard Glenn 0.754278969
Thompson Milt 0.754046871
Jones Cleon 0.753678823
Coleman Vince 0.753615876
Wilson Dan 0.753572214
Simpson Harry 0.75271913
Sierra Ruben 0.752691989
Youngblood Joel 0.752533993
Boyer Clete 0.752376426
Kennedy Terry 0.752322557
Fain Ferris 0.752246732
Cepeda Orlando 0.75223292
Relaford Desi 0.752128356
McRae Brian 0.751971954
Jensen Jackie 0.75194956
Gallego Mike 0.751935676
Hatteberg Scott 0.751809409
Valentin John 0.751398523
Castilla Vinny 0.751272952
Mueller Bill 0.751271494
Lefebvre Jim 0.751180638
King Jeff 0.751107361
Moon Wally 0.751039595
May Carlos 0.750853971
Braun Steve 0.750819672
Guillen Jose 0.750524109
Andrews Mike 0.750409612
Lewis Mark 0.750248098
Segui David 0.750185048
Sandberg Ryne 0.749972859
Gomez Chris 0.74953271
Whitt Ernie 0.749409542
Roberts Leon 0.74917709
Wallach Tim 0.749065791
Kelly Roberto 0.748698168
Lee Carlos 0.748615725
Bichette Dante 0.748304335
West Max 0.748119071
Ford Dan 0.747799296
Reiser Pete 0.74778906
Buford Don 0.747788443
Schaal Paul 0.747754309
Ashby Alan 0.747741935
Oglivie Ben 0.747740849
Lopes Davey 0.747668678
Parker Wes 0.747445255
Johnson Davey 0.74732571
Bergman Dave 0.747003563
Parker Dave 0.746583482
Law Vance 0.74636321
Belliard Ron 0.746346216
Almon Bill 0.74600551
Winn Randy 0.745867769
Skinner Bob 0.745724294
Lemon Chet 0.745715017
Chapman Sam 0.745714286
Devereaux Mike 0.7453294
Webster Mitch 0.745221262
Harrah Toby 0.745111571
Carter Joe 0.744723174
Grubb Johnny 0.744569758
Cunningham Joe 0.744301288
Bream Sid 0.744272623
Hayes Frankie 0.744190588
O'Leary Troy 0.744127708
Murcer Bobby 0.744009428
Spencer Daryl 0.743957885
Fairly Ron 0.743908266
Sundberg Jim 0.743877551
Aaron Hank 0.743830957
Alicea Luis 0.743651489
Bennett Charlie 0.74361949
Westlake Wally 0.743200687
Cravath Gavvy 0.742949408
Whitaker Lou 0.742810855
Reese Pokey 0.742774566
Alou Moises 0.742722146
Lawton Matt 0.742596349
Stanky Eddie 0.742594296
Joyce Bill 0.742588576
Javier Stan 0.742172468
Santiago Benito 0.742118027
Clayton Royce 0.74201114
Howell Roy 0.741881164
Ramirez Aramis 0.741788618
Upshaw Willie 0.741503823
Ward Gary 0.741404159
Encarnacion Juan 0.741317033
Brown Ollie 0.741288543
Cordero Wil 0.740915932
Gagne Greg 0.740800778
Hayes Charlie 0.740682415
Washington Claudell 0.740568617
Steinbach Terry 0.740512821
Guerrero Vladimir 0.740238389
Biggio Craig 0.740067784
White Bill 0.740015072
Driessen Dan 0.73992674
Benzinger Todd 0.739908854
McMullen Ken 0.73981026
Alvis Max 0.738768299
Konerko Paul 0.738567275
Strickland George 0.738541987
Lazzeri Tony 0.738326715
Smith Al 0.737967042
Heath Jeff 0.73794964
Oliver Bob 0.737895416
Gordon Joe 0.737760098
Callison Johnny 0.737625101
Gamble Oscar 0.737565318
Baines Harold 0.737378332
Neal Charlie 0.73692679
Easley Damion 0.736883474
Bernazard Tony 0.736454373
White Rondell 0.736043689
Horner Bob 0.736007687
Hansen Ron 0.735772358
Mack Shane 0.735772358
Murray Eddie 0.735755379
Davis Mike 0.735698991
Hernandez Keith 0.735439755
Matheny Mike 0.735130628
Wagner Leon 0.735096643
Nettles Graig 0.734905288
Gonzalez Luis 0.734781017
Jacoby Brook 0.734603811
Dempsey Rick 0.734575955
Schofield Dick 0.734410431
Calderon Ivan 0.734396481
Yastrzemski Carl 0.734264727
King Jim 0.734238311
Batista Tony 0.73418822
Magadan Dave 0.734174639
Smith Lonnie 0.734168642
McLemore Mark 0.734103242
Campanella Roy 0.734055857
Offerman Jose 0.733426704
Kirkpatrick Ed 0.73324937
Bando Sal 0.733203742
Robinson Bill 0.733119658
Fregosi Jim 0.732888828
Fisk Carlton 0.732862697
Gaetti Gary 0.732729332
Durham Ray 0.73259318
Hart Jim Ray 0.73255537
Rosen Al 0.732290708
Lowell Mike 0.732278852
Mulliniks Rance 0.731821543
Haller Tom 0.731369924
Shannon Mike 0.730895916
Myers Greg 0.730676329
Oliver Joe 0.730622271
Thompson Hank 0.73008725
LeFlore Ron 0.730008244
Beltre Adrian 0.729936642
Jeter Derek 0.729481815
Demeter Don 0.729313142
DeCinces Doug 0.72812983
Nilsson Dave 0.727971804
Green Dick 0.727477477
Greer Rusty 0.7273766
Hrbek Kent 0.727195588
Martinez Tino 0.727165354
Conine Jeff 0.726893998
Nieman Bob 0.726670066
Young Dmitri 0.726515743
Adcock Joe 0.726372266
Geronimo Cesar 0.72621313
Leonard Jeffrey 0.725729051
Winfield Dave 0.725434233
Hinton Chuck 0.725277212
Ott Mel 0.725235953
Selkirk George 0.725165563
Palmeiro Rafael 0.725006514
Johnson Bob 0.72486641
Dwyer Jim 0.724773508
Bush Randy 0.724767981
Brosius Scott 0.724681344
Stocker Kevin 0.724300534
Rice Jim 0.723895582
Brock Greg 0.723677032
Hayes Von 0.723592136
Altman George 0.723072396
Cedeno Roger 0.722908882
Harper Tommy 0.722557129
Wertz Vic 0.722556606
Merced Orlando 0.722
Lopez Javy 0.721942374
Long Dale 0.720992028
Shelby John 0.720979444
Guerrero Pedro 0.720953327
Curtis Chad 0.7202782
Milner John 0.719989891
Morgan Joe 0.719754295
Lake Eddie 0.719599875
Smith Reggie 0.719487695
Macfarlane Mike 0.719280719
Kemp Steve 0.71903129
Veras Quilvio 0.718692731
Downing Brian 0.718692499
Menke Denis 0.718521043
Smalley Roy 0.718348624
Gilkey Bernard 0.71778069
Easler Mike 0.717731907
Horton Willie 0.717502815
Davis Glenn 0.717349398
Matthews Gary 0.717115787
Triandos Gus 0.717114247
Davis Alvin 0.716851665
White Devon 0.716793228
Zimmer Don 0.716401229
Mabry John 0.716389846
Teufel Tim 0.716223855
Mazzilli Lee 0.716131722
O'Neill Paul 0.716106324
Henderson Ken 0.716047004
Clift Harlond 0.715549753
Cullenbine Roy 0.715479423
Jones Jacque 0.715362865
North Billy 0.715215976
Bishop Max 0.715027701
Sievers Roy 0.714971209
Olerud John 0.71485532
Karros Eric 0.714834852
Boone Bret 0.714428571
Walker Greg 0.714421553
Maris Roger 0.713941065
Hunter Torii 0.713883677
DeShields Delino 0.713313162
Reichardt Rick 0.712919967
Reed Jeff 0.71251059
Kelly Pat 0.712507529
McAuliffe Dick 0.712142457
York Rudy 0.711904762
Tresh Tom 0.711846977
Bressoud Eddie 0.711835334
Gehrig Lou 0.711076605
Zeile Todd 0.710901027
Ward Pete 0.710594315
Sauer Hank 0.710555556
Sheffield Gary 0.710541575
Zisk Richie 0.710323034
Melton Bill 0.710234825
Landis Jim 0.710168135
Parrish Larry 0.710035164
Nicholson Bill 0.709722655
Bradley Phil 0.709555345
Henderson Steve 0.709553159
Lynn Fred 0.709199949
Kirkland Willie 0.709199584
Buechele Steve 0.709041326
McDowell Oddibe 0.709033281
Scott George 0.709028878
Higginson Bobby 0.708654363
Williams Bernie 0.708494933
Gaston Cito 0.708483755
Yost Eddie 0.70809217
Bell Derek 0.708084429
Blefary Curt 0.707936508
Rettenmund Merv 0.707596595
Lowenstein John 0.707427994
Taubensee Eddie 0.706797967
Williams Matt 0.706624187
Yeager Steve 0.706472654
Wilson Hack 0.706443485
Petrocelli Rico 0.706036316
Colavito Rocky 0.705960795
Moseby Lloyd 0.705927401
Bell Jay 0.705798984
Pagliarulo Mike 0.705758918
Kent Jeff 0.705737368
Mays Willie 0.70569263
Bonilla Bobby 0.70544251
Clark Will 0.70532877
Perez Tony 0.705160391
Van Slyke Andy 0.704846501
Sprague Ed 0.704835165
Velarde Randy 0.704630788
Mondesi Raul 0.704596957
Joost Eddie 0.704555506
May Lee 0.7043169
Garrett Wayne 0.704113111
Thompson Robby 0.703796012
Elster Kevin 0.703761755
Torgeson Earl 0.703592814
Williams Earl 0.702941176
Davis Jody 0.702915082
Hammonds Jeffrey 0.702548726
Hall Jimmie 0.702445221
Bench Johnny 0.70183005
Beltran Carlos 0.700775194
Jones Ruppert 0.700639488
Knoop Bobby 0.699773699
Santo Ron 0.699741991
Roenicke Gary 0.699496539
Martin Al 0.699420725
Gross Wayne 0.699398249
Rader Doug 0.699359972
Caminiti Ken 0.698356475
Piazza Mike 0.697767513
Zernial Gus 0.697203259
Crawford Willie 0.696946369
Jorgensen Mike 0.696682464
Robinson Frank 0.69607422
Conigliaro Tony 0.696067416
Hodges Gil 0.695803328
Siebern Norm 0.695727151
Mayberry John 0.695604567
Dye Jermaine 0.695403668
Gonzalez Juan 0.694177501
Bailey Ed 0.693838408
Burks Ellis 0.693739216
Lee Travis 0.69328601
Anderson Brady 0.692988162
Belle Albert 0.692949204
Helton Todd 0.692696274
Fryman Travis 0.692674044
Maldonado Candy 0.692020224
Samuel Juan 0.691482936
Brogna Rico 0.690960275
Gonzalez Alex 0.690232375
Bailey Bob 0.690030039
Post Wally 0.690018315
Cey Ron 0.689784556
Mitchell Kevin 0.689729265
Marshall Mike 0.68943299
Cordova Marty 0.689210526
Ventura Robin 0.689078707
Laabs Chet 0.688807236
Blauser Jeff 0.688718929
Maxwell Charlie 0.687549774
Martinez Carmelo 0.6875
Redus Gary 0.687204969
Lezcano Sixto 0.687080537
Henderson Dave 0.686479773
Everett Carl 0.686327078
Brunansky Tom 0.686064534
Durham Leon 0.685876824
Armas Tony 0.68587156
Foster George 0.685821281
Mincher Don 0.685580205
Henderson Rickey 0.685141953
Chavez Eric 0.685025818
Green Shawn 0.683691611
Young Kevin 0.683550186
Walker Larry 0.683289474
Grich Bobby 0.683108935
Varitek Jason 0.682472204
Presley Jim 0.68207024
Kruk John 0.682017544
Thornton Andre 0.681774349
Parrish Lance 0.681741827
Snider Duke 0.681291895
DiMaggio Vince 0.681206497
Romano Johnny 0.681042507
Cash Norm 0.680330999
Keller Charlie 0.680278019
Floyd Cliff 0.679772727
Giles Brian 0.679635258
Evans Darrell 0.677937447
Agee Tommie 0.677419355
Jones Chipper 0.676712329
Singleton Ken 0.675806072
Hidalgo Richard 0.675690919
Hill Glenallen 0.675318193
Johnson Cliff 0.675279177
Martinez Edgar 0.674927283
Hollins Dave 0.67456841
Porter Darrell 0.67450438
Harrelson Ken 0.673750374
Duncan Dave 0.672761665
Davis Chili 0.672591396
Johnson Deron 0.672511054
Snow J.T. 0.671864632
Hickman Jim 0.671105193
Phillips Tony 0.670830109
Briggs Johnny 0.669856459
Evans Dwight 0.668985894
Hisle Larry 0.668847615
Clendenon Donn 0.668706811
Powell Boog 0.668389765
Greenberg Hank 0.667486877
Griffey Jr. Ken 0.667377399
Williams Ted 0.667280729
Lopata Stan 0.666113508
Seminick Andy 0.666083151
Thompson Jason 0.665127841
Galarraga Andres 0.663016482
Justice David 0.662899038
Jones Andruw 0.662531017
Camilli Dolph 0.661996222
Rodriguez Alex 0.660818713
Klesko Ryan 0.660332971
Doby Larry 0.659869364
Tucker Michael 0.659574468
Kiner Ralph 0.659305489
Foxx Jimmie 0.659048604
Whiten Mark 0.658961187
Gibson Kirk 0.657878788
Mathews Eddie 0.657174151
Lemon Jim 0.657098121
Stuart Dick 0.656495608
Gant Ron 0.65551425
Burroughs Jeff 0.654556843
Jenkins Geoff 0.653634698
Daulton Darren 0.652619325
Johnson Howard 0.651290209
Murphy Dale 0.651224944
Rolen Scott 0.650887574
Stairs Matt 0.650707021
Snyder Cory 0.650025602
Koskie Corey 0.648682171
Valentin Jose 0.647681636
Held Woodie 0.646740308
Allison Bob 0.645939517
Pettis Gary 0.644886364
McCovey Willie 0.644758735
Luzinski Greg 0.64398117
Jones Mack 0.643297813
Nevin Phil 0.642276423
Stevens Lee 0.64219935
Stanley Mike 0.641887786
Howard Frank 0.641039672
Murphy Dwayne 0.6409467
Ferguson Joe 0.640289774
Thomas Frank 0.63927377
Giambi Jason 0.638587906
Epstein Mike 0.63762963
Hoiles Chris 0.636858006
McGriff Fred 0.635751757
Bagwell Jeff 0.634527687
Grieve Ben 0.633711507
Cruz Jr. Jose 0.632352941
Wynn Jimmy 0.629284274
Sanders Reggie 0.628488932
Sorrento Paul 0.628268185
Berkman Lance 0.627870888
Rodriguez Henry 0.626807229
Abreu Bobby 0.626777733
Clark Jack 0.626258904
Stargell Willie 0.625963579
Bonds Bobby 0.625841017
Lee Derrek 0.625754527
Vander Wal John 0.624920534
Monday Rick 0.624403927
Wilson Preston 0.623685838
Johnson Charles 0.623400791
Carbo Bernie 0.623069936
Esasky Nick 0.622492601
Barfield Jesse 0.622014925
Salmon Tim 0.621432818
Colbert Nate 0.620114643
Gentile Jim 0.617928634
Clark Tony 0.617210682
Ramirez Manny 0.617191097
Balboni Steve 0.616173454
Hundley Todd 0.615582592
Burnitz Jeromy 0.615189873
Jaha John 0.614535419
Bonds Barry 0.614421153
Allen Dick 0.614240463
Palmer Dean 0.6138777
Ruth Babe 0.61326175
Hernandez Jose 0.610848041
Cameron Mike 0.610667242
Vaughn Greg 0.610461802
Kingman Dave 0.61028012
Vaughn Mo 0.610054988
Sexson Richie 0.60877142
Killebrew Harmon 0.607238056
Edmonds Jim 0.606948229
Posada Jorge 0.60543533
Fielder Cecil 0.604955031
Lankford Ray 0.604893521
Sosa Sammy 0.604380867
Schmidt Mike 0.604380149
Davis Eric 0.603083484
Incaviglia Pete 0.602716103
Tenace Gene 0.602078017
Strawberry Darryl 0.600988363
Jackson Reggie 0.600370109
Mantle Mickey 0.596532144
Delgado Carlos 0.596273292
Canseco Jose 0.588717694
Lock Don 0.588673139
Tartabull Danny 0.587443946
Glaus Troy 0.584490741
Thomas Gorman 0.575924903
Buhner Jay 0.572961008
Tettleton Mickey 0.561074061
McGwire Mark 0.53890794
Thome Jim 0.522255618
Deer Rob 0.506904232

pretorius

01-26-2006, 12:34 AM

Nice catch Myankee4life.

I have corrected the mistake.

Bill Burgess

01-29-2006, 05:23 PM

Robin had a very good season in 1982, but we have very different ideas on what constitutes "a great peak". I support Robin Yount for the Hall of Fame, but once again basing all your perceptions on a single system, Win Shares. And you are over-doing it in referencing Robin having a "great peak". He was good, but you're going over-board.

Bill

You want a different system?

PCA wins created for Robin Yount:

Age Yr BaO PRG OWC ADWC OWY ADWY
18 1974 276 96 0.97 1.3 1.71 2.19
19 1975 436 139 4.01 0.68 4.47 0.79
20 1976 515 161 1.24 2.77 1.17 2.79
21 1977 464 151 5.36 1.51 5.61 1.62
22 1978 383 126 4.68 2.7 5.94 3.47
23 1979 459 149 2.62 2.2 2.77 2.39
24 1980 454 131 7.98 1.84 8.54 2.28
25 1981 289 92 4.53 2.92 7.62 5.14
26 1982 461 151 15.4 2.13 16.24 2.29
27 1983 425 141 11.65 1.48 13.32 1.7
28 1984 474 124 9.33 1.04 9.57 1.36
29 1985 359 107 6.37 1.58 8.62 2.39
30 1986 380 133 7.34 3.06 9.39 3.73
31 1987 466 143 8.69 1.95 9.06 2.21
32 1988 465 153 9.18 6.74 9.59 7.14
33 1989 438 137 13.26 4.04 14.71 4.78
34 1990 469 150 5.81 2.09 6.02 2.26
35 1991 399 117 3.33 2.56 4.06 3.54
36 1992 441 135 5.36 3.06 5.91 3.67
37 1993 362 111 3.63 1.7 4.87 2.48

That peak is similar in magnitude (in terms of offensive wins) to guys like A-Rod and Griffey. Perennially over 7 wins on offense and when he moved to CF...he proved to be an OUT-STANDING fielder for a few years as well...adding to his value.

7 seasons with over 10 wins by PCA
3 seasons with over 15 wins by PCA

That's a great peak if I ever saw one. Obviously there've been better, but his peak is HOF calibar.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill chimes in. But I do disagree that Robin was #2 SS ever. What happened to Lloyd, A-Rod, Vaughan, Cronin, Banks and all the rest of the hitters?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris just must have in:
Matt doesn't rate Negro Leaguers, so Lloyd is out the window. I'm sure A-Rod will pass Yount in time by his system. I think A-Rod has already passed Robin, but I could see how you could think Yount is still better. He was quite clearly better than Cronin and Banks, on offense and defense (I have repeatedly called Banks probably the most overrated player ever. He did almost nothing but hit HRs even in his peak. His OBPs were never very good, and was a below average player the second half of his career. Reminds me of Sisler. Very good, but overrated peak and then fell off the face of the earth).

I don't see Yount better than Arky, even with my LQ adjustments. Yount can be overrated by the standard approach of only looking at career value, career per game, and peak. Robin is a bit lacking on the great years. He had three great years (1982, 1983, 1989), and other than that was merely very good. He never made the All Star Game any other year. Vaughan was better in his peak years (sorry, I take Arky in '35 over Yount '82), and had more great years. Plus, Vaughan never moved positions except one year late in his career and thus ends up a better defensive player.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SABR Matt gives forth the wisdom in a discourse:
A-Rod is about the same value offensively and hasn't played for 20 years yet...given time, I expect him to pass Yount...if he continues to have more games at short than at other positions.

Lloyd I can't place specifically...we've been over that. I'll say it's likely that he was a great shortstop at least on par with Yount for the 2 spot...but I will not now nor will I ever officially rank him.

Up until very recently, I have Arky Vaughan ahead of Yount...my recent attempt to quantify overall greatness as a combination of longevity, peak value, career volatility, and career efficiency moved Yount past Vaughan (though it's VERY close and an argument could be made either way).

Cronin was a solid player...I don't see how an argument could be made on his behalf as being ahead of Yount.

I suspect...when all careers are final, it'll look something like:

Wagner
A-Rod
Yount
Vaughan
Appling
Banks
Smith
Davis
...

But for now...Yount still has the edge in my book.

In response to Chris...I can understand going with Vaughan ahead of Yount...the shortcoming there is Vaughan's much shorter career...my greatness index is attempting to balance the need to endure with the need to dominate...it's hairline close between the two.

And I agree...Banks is badly overrated simply because he hit 40+ HRs as a SS in an era when HR hitting was down and middle infielders especially didn't hit them. He was still a very good player, but not an all-time great SS...even though he's sixth on my list...I'm kinda hoping future approaches and modifications move Smith back ahead of Banks...LOL (I wouldn't go out of my way to make that happen, but if it does, I'll be pleased!)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris goes deeper:
Vaughan had a short career because he did something that absolutely had to be done. His actions in that regard were completely right, and I don't hold that against him.

Vaughan missed time during WWII (1943-1946). It wasn't because he was called to the service (he wasn't), he got angry with the Brooklyn manager at that time, Leo Durocher. Basically, he didn't want to play for the man and just retired. Jack Kavanaugh writes this:

"Durocher pushed the reserved Vaughan too far. An argument between the Dodger manager and Bobo Newsom raged through the Dodger club house. Finally, Vaughan presented his rolled-up uniform to his manager with a suggestion he dispose of it in an impossible manner."

Vaughan was insulted by Durocher and said he would never play for him again, and so just retired, right then and there, and refused to come back until Durocher was gone.

He didn't come back until 1947 when they got a new manager. Should we give Arky credit for this? I think we perhaps should. Arky was never a man to be an idiot or clubhouse lawyer. He was known to be a man of dignity and respect, and leader by example. Several teammates backed his decision. It appears to me Vaughan's actions were completely justified. With this he would have the longevity to be a top 25 player, and with this he would have a clear upper hand on Yount. I rate him #22, Yount #42.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SABR Matt

02-01-2006, 07:07 AM

SABR Matt
Greg Maddux gets no respect at all...it's starting to really chafe.

RuthMayBond
I can't see any rationalization for ranking Maddux lower than tenth, and that's considering that I include Paige in that list (which some don't)

SABR Matt
I can't see any justification for rating Maddux lower than 4th. Unless you include Paige in your top 4...then not lower than 5th.

RMB
Who could you have ahead of Maddux?

SABR Matt
I can see arguments for Walter Johnson (who I actually HAVE ahead of Maddux...though just barely), Roger Clemens, and Cy Young as well as Paige. Others that come kinda close are Seaver, Pedro Martinez eventually may pass Maddux, and RJ is kinda close.

RMB
Well, Grove is definitely higher in ERA+ AND K/BB leaders AND adjusted pitchers runs above average AND Win Shares (I know you have other problems with him)

Alexander is higher in IP and significantly higher in Win Shares

Mathewson is higher in IP and significantly higher in K/BB leaders and Win Shares.

Nichols is higher in ERA+ AND IP AND Win Shares.
I do NOT have these last two higher than Maddux but I could understand someone's misguided . . . I mean, their opinion

SABR Matt
The shortcomings of analysis with ERA+ or ERA statistical products of any kind (including PRAA/PRAR which are still based on runs allowed) have been discussed by me at length. I'm sure I'll never convince half as many people as I'd like about this, but even if we were to trust ERA+ within a season or era...an ERA+ (or an OPS+ for that matter) of 150 means a heck of a lot more now than it did in 1920 or 1940. ESPECIALLY the ERA+...because with a lower league ERA, smaller deviations from average appear to be larger percentages of change (this applies to Mathewson, Alexander and Nichols)...and even in high ERA leagues like those pitched in by Grove...the competition was much thinner than it is today and it meant a lot less to dominate over said competition. And that's all before you realize that ERA is not a good statistic for judging pitchers (because of the team defense factor, and because runs allowed, even over a career, are flukier (because the sample sizes are smaller) than things like walks, Ks, and Ball In Play impacts (by that I mean, how different the BIP hit rate was when pitcher X was pitching than when the rest of his team was pitching).

Don't get me wrong...Alexander and Mathewson are both in my top ten all time (7th and 8th), and Grove is just barely out of my top 10 (12th)...they're all great pitchers...but I continue to believe that Grove has been systematically overrated due to our reliance on ERA/ERA+.

RMB
Would you say that's true of Koufax?

SABR Matt
i do think Koufax is somewhat overrated...pitched in a favorable park for pitchers of his type...with a very good team defense behind him in his peak years...

He was in fact a great pitcher in his prime...but the prime was so short that it is hard to justify putting him in your top ten...he's a borderline top-20 IMHO (I have him 17th-19th)...due entirely to his peak dominance, but people don't realize how BAD he was before his peak, because you look at his ERA numbers and they don't seem that horrid...But he was EXTREMELY wild for his era in his youth...5+ BB/9 is WAAAYY too many for the late 1950s.

Sultan_1895-1948

02-13-2006, 10:33 AM

Sultan-
I only slotted them as I did because Cobb proved himself as an excellent young RFer (and he never really played LF), while Ruth played as much (and was as probably just as good) in left field as he was in right due to the "sun field" and also issues related to speed/amount of ground (esp. in his later years). Obviously, Yankee Stadium had a cavernous LF and a relatively small RF, and that played a part in things.

But you're certainly correct in the arm strength argument. I guess it would depend on the park, then- how much ground does the player have to cover, and how deep are the lines? Esp. in the old days (much less now) the park shaped the team.

Gotcha.

Most parks back then had a shorter right field. Babe switching with Meusel on the road was more of a sun issue than a speed issue.

It just seems to be that the main weapon you want in right field (especially back then without constant use of cutoff men) would be the stronger arm. Cobb would kill you right field in his later years, just as Babe slowed down in his later years. In his early years with the Yanks, he reportedly could beat any teammate in a footrace, and I found one instance in '27 where he stole home without anyone else on base, after legging out a triple. Still currently researching for more. Anyway, thanks for your response. U 2 torez.

RuthMayBond

02-13-2006, 10:38 AM

In his early years with the Yanks, he reportedly could beat any teammate in a footrace, with the caveat that the Yanks were generally at the bottom in SB

Sultan_1895-1948

02-13-2006, 11:04 AM

with the caveat that the Yanks were generally at the bottom in SB

Making the mistake of using SB's as a measure of speed again RMB. SB's are a choice in style of play, a philosophy, and most importantly they require full commitment both on and off the field. That wasn't the Yankees. They did have fast players though.

538280

02-18-2006, 07:03 AM

Per your request Bill.....

After Bill was trying to prove that Dwight Gooden's 1985 season really didn't match up to the great seasons by other pitchers, I made this reply:

Bill, don't you realize all your seasons are from extreme pitching eras and all are deadball seasons except Koufax and Gibson? The conditions of the game have changed. It is much harder to throw tons of innings. Nowadays with more stikeouts, walks, and more of a power threat pitchers make many more pitches per inning. It is possible to see how someone could think Gooden's 1985 was better than Johnson's 1913, making proper era adjustments, and I just might agree with them.

Bill Burgess

02-18-2006, 08:28 AM

Most Committed Opinions[/COLOR]
1. 1985- Gooden’s performance was the greatest ever by a right handed pitcher in the live ball era.

Just crazy. Gooden's great season was wonderful, but consider the other wonderful pitcher's season

My slate of candidates for Best Seasons Ever for a Pitcher:

----Name---------Year------W-L------ShO---ERA+--Inn.--WS---TPR
1. Johnson ----- 1913------36-7------11---258---346---54---8.0
2. Alexander --- 1915------31-10---- 12---225---376---43---7.0
3. Koufax ------ 1965------26-8-------8---160---336---33---4.8
4. Gibson -------1968------22-9------13---258---305---36---7.0
5. Brown ------- 1906------26-6------10---254---277---35---4.9
6. Matty ------- 1909------25-6-------8---223---275---34---5.8
7. Joss -------- 1908------24-11------9---206---325---35---5.0
8. Wood -------- 1912------34-5------10---178---344---44---6.9
9. Coombs ------ 1910------31-9------13---182---353---37---4.2
10. McGinnity -- 1904------35-8-------9---169---408---42---4.3

I give high precedence to ERA+, in conjuction with W-L, Shutouts, and a variety of other stats. Some of the flashier ERA+ seasons of modern vintage by Maddux/Martinez came with too few inninings pitched to make my cut. Sorry about that. I like to see at least 250 innings pitched or so. I have no hard rules.

My award winner, Walter Johnson's 1913 campaign led his league in:
Wins, W-L%, shutouts, CG, innings, SO, ERA, ERA+, Total Baseball's RATIO, Opponents BA, Opponents on-base ave., pitching runs+, wins shares, total pitching wins, fewest hits/g, fewest BB/g, SO/g, Total Baseball's starter runs, adjusted starter runs, total pitcher index.

In other words, Walter swept the boards that year. And he did it while pitching 346 innings. He also won the MVP award. A true evergreen, classic, vintage Year For the Ages.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Greatest Pitching Seasons:

I give highest original presumption to ERA+, but do not use only 1 stat. I also look at innings worked, W-L, awards, league leads, etc. This list is in order of sequence according to ERA+.

For convenience, I high-lighted in red the post 1920 seasons for us, for easy reference.

------Name----------yr.---ERA+--Inn.---W-L---ShO--CG-Ratio*-WS*-TPR--PCA

Pedro Martinez-----2000---285---217---18-6----7----4--.617--29--7.3
Greg Maddux--------1995---259---209---19-2---10----3--.673--30--6.2
Walter Johnson-----1913---258---346---36-7---11---29--.665--54--8.0
Bob Gibson---------1968---258---305---22-9---13---28--.771--36--7.0
Mordecai Brown-----1906---253---277---26-6---10---27--.812--35--4.9
Dwight Gooden------1985---226---276---24-4----8---16--.679--33--7.0
Grover Alexander---1915---224---376---31-10--12---36--.754--43--7.0
Christy Mathewson--1909---223---275---25-6----8---26--.834--34--5.8
Lefty Grove--------1931---218---289---31-4----4---27--.785--42--6.3
Cy Young-----------1901---217---371---33-10---5---38--.768--41--5.7
Ron Guidry---------1978---208---273---25-3----9---16--.759--31--5.7
Addie Joss---------1908---205---325---24-11---9---29--.738--35--5.0
Jack Taylor--------1902---203---324---22-11--10---33--.824--32--5.1
Dean Chance--------1964---199---278---20-9---11---15--.823--32--4.6
Spud Chandler------1943---197---253---20-4----5---20--.810--29--5.0
Hal Newhouser------1945---194---313---25-9----8---29--.861--36--6.6
Mort Cooper--------1942---193---279---22-7---10---22--.808--29--5.0
Carl Hubbell-------1933---193---309---23-12--10---22--.817--33--5.1
Tom Seaver---------1971---193---286---20-10---4---21--.793--32--5.7
Randy Johnson------2002---190---260---24-5----8----4--.827--29--6.3
Ed Walsh-----------1910---189---369---18-20---7---33--.733--36--5.8
Warren Spahn-------1953---187---266---23-7----5---24--.803--31--5.3
Lefty Gomez--------1934---185---281---26-5----6---25--.803--31--4.3
Luis Tiant---------1968---185---258---21-0----9---19--.776--28--3.6
Vida Blue----------1971---183---312---24-8----8---24--.787--30--4.8
Jack Coombs--------1910---182---353---31-9---13---35--.886--37--4.2
Steve Carlton------1972---182---346---27-10---8---30--.814--40--6.8
Rube Waddell-------1905---180---328---26-11---7---27--.880--35--5.7
Orvie Overall------1909---179---285---20-11---9---23--.845--30--4.5
Joe Wood-----------1912---178---344---34-5---10---35--.816--44--6.9
Joe McGinnity------1904---178---408---35-8----9---38--.833--42--4.3
Dazzy Vance--------1924---176---309---28-6----3---30--.798--36--6.0
Dizzy Dean---------1934---170---324---30-7----3---29--.867--37--5.3
Stan Coveleski-----1917---167---298---19-14---9---24--.820--29--2.4
Roger Clemens------1986---166---254---24-4----1---10--.759--29--4.9
Jack Chesbro-------1904---158---454---41-12---6---48--.851--53--4.6
Denny McLain-------1968---157---336---31-6----6---28--.810--33--4.4
Sandy Koufax-------1965---156---335---26-8----8---27--.728--33--4.8
Dave McNally-------1968---154---273---22-10---5---18--.780--26--3.2
Bob Feller---------1946---145---371---26-15--10---36--.887--32--4.7
Nolan Ryan---------1972---120---284---19-16---9---20--.948--24--2.0
Whitey Ford--------1961---117---283---25-4----3---11--.879--22--0.9

*ratio = Relative Onbase Ave.; Opponent's Onbase Ave / L. onbase ave.
WS = Bill James' Win Shares
TPR = Total Baseball's Total Player Rating

Bill Burgess

02-18-2006, 08:32 AM

SeaverGooden

02-18-2006, 08:36 AM

I said that Gooden's was the best for a right-hander in the modern era. Does anyone think a case cannot be made comparing Gooden's 1985 in comparison to Gibson 68', Martinez 00', and Maddux 95'?

Bill Burgess

02-18-2006, 08:49 AM

Within the narrow context of the exercise, yes, Dwight Gooden's 1985 season will be hard to top.

And you have rightfully identified his top challengers. By limiting the question to modern, right-handed, it is among the leaders.

Also, although ERA+ is the leading stat I go by, I can not rely on it solely, due to several worthy contending seasons do not do too well by it. And by that, I'm referring to Koufax's 1965, Joe Wood's 1912, and Steve Carlton's 1972 seasons.

Bill Burgess

Bill Burgess

02-18-2006, 09:04 AM

I said that Gooden's was the best for a right-hander in the modern era. Does anyone think a case cannot be made comparing Gooden's 1985 in comparison to Gibson 68', Martinez 00', and Maddux 95'?

If the choice is among these seasons, I must agree that Gooden's season is the better.

Bill Burgess

02-19-2006, 05:52 AM

Seaver Gooden:

I feel Griffey is the greatest modern centerfielder, but I have Cobb listed at #1 on my all-time list for position players, so i think I might have an idea about the offensive era. As for Mays I have him ranked 8, one spot behind Mays because I believe Griffey will surpass Mays before all is said and done. Speaker was a great player, but I don't feel he was better than Griffey or Mays.Speaker amassed a great amount of hits, and had a very high career batting average. I still think Mays and Griffey were better players, I know it is a high offensive era, but still I don't know whether Speaker would hit a 89 mph slider the way Mantle, Mays, and Griffey can.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you had remembered my top twenty position players you would have seen I had Cobb ranked as the greatest baseball player ever. I changed the wording on the Griffey, Mantle, Bonds post above. Ken Griffey Jr I feel is extremley underrated, especially by man self-proclaimed "experts", or people who feel they have a vast knowledge of the game. I'll start a Griffey vs. Speaker poll if someone would like me too, but I don't honestly care if someone feels Griffey was a lesser ball player than someone many of us have never seen play. I'm not saying Speaker wasn't great because he made my top 20 position players, and he was ahead of Mantle. I'm just saying if I was creating a team with players from scratch i'd take Griffey before Speaker.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd say the Modern Era starts in 1922, when Hornsby hit's 42 Homeruns, and Ken Williams hits 39. If you'd like to say that Cobb played after 1922 and put up good numbers that's fine. I'd say that he belongs to the Pre-Modern era because his best season were before he turned 35. The game was different before 22'.
__________________
I wouldn't mind starting the poll, and I am open to changing my mind and viewing things differently, I just find it funny how some people would be so stunned that Griffey was in someones top ten, because talent wise, and statistically there is not much room for debate that he will go down as one of the greatest players to ever play the game, and he did it without the help of preformance enhancers during an era that was plauged by it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I Chose 22' because of the power spike that took place then and the proving that the game had changed from a pitcher's edge to that of a hitters edge. I know many things have happened before and after that year, but again I personally feel that the game has been tremendously different since 1922.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gooden was 21! I would love to pitch in Shea compared to Fenway, if I was pitching. However, I just feel the innings, the complete games, the lower ERA, and the 6 more wins tip in in favor of Gooden. I would definitley rank Pedro's 2000 at my number 3 though behind Greg Maddux' 1995 season.
Gibson 68
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Would rank 4, Behind the other 3. Pedro, Gooden, and Maddux all faced better offense. Gibson lost 9 games, none of which was his fault though. He and Gooden tie for strikeouts. Gibson pitched more innings. Gooden had more wins, I feel Gooden's season was better, and as for Pedro and Maddux, both were pitching in the steroid, inflated offense 90's and early 00'. So I feel they were more impressive, especially considering not only was Gibson unbelievable in 68' the entire league era was. Hitting in 68' stunk. But let's bring on another year with another pitcher where I'll have to defend myself.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's fine, as for Griffey he produced in this dirty era while he was obviously clean. That's not a blemish on Griffey. It only takes away from the MVP's, and times he may have lead the league in homeruns.

The League ERA in 1968 for the record was 2.99, and the NL batted a cool .243 and had on ob-base percentage of .298. As for 1985, the league ERA was3.59 and the league batted .252 and had an on-base percentage of .318.
__________________
Chris, the younger chimes in here:
Now, first of all, I don't think Griffey was on steroids or anything but you have no evidence to say for sure that he never did.

Also, Griffey is not statistically one of the greatest players ever. Maybe on raw numbers he is but he is playing in a huge slugging era, where hitting 50 home runs doesn't mean even near what it used to. He also isn't near the fielder statistically as his reputation, and he never was very patient. Not even close to DiMaggio or Speaker.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
leecemark wants in here:
--Gooden did lead the league (and majors) in wins, WHIP, era, ERA+, IP, K and CG. It doesn't get much better than that. And he was the 2nd youngest player in the league. At the time I thought he might be the best pitcher ever. Sadly he never came close to that again.
--Johnson's numbers were larger, but in context I don't know that it was a better season. Lots of pitchers compiled huge numbers of innings in that period. 30 wins in the teens was more common than 25 in the 80s as well. Walter was by far the better pitcher for his career or over any period great than 1 season, but Doc was a match for anybody in 1985.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

538280

02-19-2006, 08:04 AM

Although Dwight Gooden's superb 1985 season is one of the best modern seasons, he must still compete with other wonderful seasons.

Some of my favorites are:

Sandy Koufax's 1965
Lefty Grove's 1931
Bob Gibson's 1968
Pedro Martinez's 2000
Greg Maddux's 1995

All of these are scintillating. I would go with Sandy's 1965 masterpiece, for all-around balance. ERA+, while incisive, still isn't everything.

Koufax's '65 is real good and hard to top. But, it is just not up to par with Gooden in '85. Let me start with the obvious things. Koufax's ERA+ of 160 is just not in the same league as Gooden's 227. 67 points of ERA+ is HUGE. Both their teams did just about the same (the Dodgers in '65 won 97 games and the divsion, the '85 Mets won 98 games but lost the divsion), and Gooden has an .857 winning percentage compared to Sandy's .765. 92 points of winning percentage is pretty big too.

So, what can put Sandy over the top? Innings pitched? Maybe. Koufax did pitch 335 innings. Gooden pitched 276. But this difference is really insignificant, a product of their eras. Gooden's era was more of a hitter's environment. A hitter's environment makes is harder for a pitcher to last long because he needs to face more batters and throw more pitches. Koufax was still a workhorse in that environment, though, leading the league by 27 innings over the next best man. But, there were tons of pitchers in that league pitching lots of innings. Nine pitchers topped Gooden's 276 which was good enough to lead the league in 1985. It was much easier to pitch lots of innings. However, Gooden's 276 innings is certainly not as good as Koufax's performance still. He was only one and 2/3 innings ahead of the next best man, and 4 pitchers were within 5 innings of his mark. Gooden probably would have been able to pitch 290 or so innings in 1965.

Another factor is their home park. Koufax had a 1.38 ERA at home, a 2.72 ERA on the road. Huge difference. That's a 130 ERA+ on the road. Koufax's innings advantage is also somewhat a factor of the park. He averaged 8.5 innings per start at home and 7.87 on the road. Using that number in conjunction with his starts, he would have pitched about 322 innings if all his starts were on the road.

Gooden was basically the same pitcher at home and on the road. At home, he was 13-2, 1.50 ERA. On the road, he was 11-2, 1.56 ERA.

ERA+ isn't everything, I know. Let's look at some DIPS elements.

Gooden, 1985
HR/9-0.43
XB/9-3.48
K/9-8.72
BB/9-2.24

Koufax, 1965
HR/9-0.69
XB/9-4.91
K/9-11.38
BB/9-1.90

Even with no adjustment for era, Gooden is significantly better in HR/9 and XB/9. Koufax is slightly better in K/9 and BB/9. Overall Gooden probably wins this comparsion, EVEN WITH NO ERA ADJUSTMENT.

When putting all this together and adjusting for era, Gooden comes out with a 2.35 DIPS ERA, Koufax is at 3.39.

Greatness? No doubt Koufax was great, but Gooden's season, even if it wasn't clearly better, still has to be more amazing. The guy was 21 for crying out loud. No one, ever, probably in any sport, has had that kind of dominance right away. That was a truly great performance. Definitely more amazing than Koufax, simply because of the age differences, not to mention that it was clearly better as well.

So, how can you favor Koufax?

RuthMayBond

02-21-2006, 11:16 AM

Seaver Gooden:

but still I don't know whether Speaker would hit a 89 mph slider the way Mantle, Mays, and Griffey can.I don't know whether Mantle/Mays/Griffey can hit an emery ball etc. the way Speaker can :D

Sultan_1895-1948

02-21-2006, 01:03 PM

I know it is a high offensive era, but still I don't know whether Speaker would hit a 89 mph slider the way Mantle, Mays, and Griffey can.

You don't know? We're talking about an elite baseball player with extreme hand-eye/muscle coordination, reflexes, ability to adjust, etc. You really shouldn't worry about Tris so much, he would have been fine. In fact, he'd probably prefer the slider to what he saw back then. It's not that difficult of a pitch, you make it sound like he would have been out of the league because of a slider. Just another pitch to adjust to, that's all.

Myankee4life

02-21-2006, 05:46 PM

538280,

I'd like to ask you why do you think Frank Thomas is the 3rd greatest hitter of all-time?

538280

02-21-2006, 05:53 PM

538280,

I'd like to ask you why do you think Frank Thomas is the 3rd greatest hitter of all-time?

I used to say that. I have since dropped him to about 5th because of his short career and the effect of the DH.

Why did I used to say that? Because I thought that era adjusted (with LQ), his rate stats were right up there with Ruth and Williams. They are really (he is 3rd all time in EqA, which is LQ adjusted). I had a system in which I adjusted his OPS+ and OWS for LQ, and also used EqA. He came out like 5th all time I think. I dropped him after that.

Bill Burgess

02-21-2006, 09:19 PM

I used to say that. I have since dropped him to about 5th because of his short career and the effect of the DH.

Why did I used to say that? Because I thought that era adjusted (with LQ), his rate stats were right up there with Ruth and Williams. They are really (he is 3rd all time in EqA, which is LQ adjusted). I had a system in which I adjusted his OPS+ and OWS for LQ, and also used EqA. He came out like 5th all time I think. I dropped him after that.
And that is a wonderful candidate for The best of Chris. Truly over the top.

Bill Burgess

Sultan_1895-1948

02-21-2006, 09:39 PM

And that is a wonderful candidate for The best of Chris. Truly over the top.

Bill Burgess

Agree. Any stat that shows Big Frankie anywhere near Williams as a hitter has major flaws, or is over compensating for something.

leecemark

02-21-2006, 09:45 PM

Bill Burgess

02-21-2006, 09:56 PM

--I don't have Thomas as high as Chris, but a very reasobable case can be made for him as one of the top 10 hitters ever. He sucked at every other phase of the game, but he could seriously rake. Still can when he is able to drag himself on the field.

Huge difference between Top 5 and Top 10. Of course you often say that the difference between 5th and 10th is small. I beg to differ.

And Top 10 is also very out of line. Frank Thomas is lucky if he sniffs Top 20 Hitter Ever.

Bill

leecemark

02-21-2006, 10:03 PM

--Well you have actually seen Thomas play so that does knock him down in your rankings anyway;) . Personally I don't like Thomas at all and his shortcomings everywhere but the batters box drop him way down in my rankings. I know a great hitter when I see one though.

Sultan_1895-1948

02-21-2006, 10:03 PM

--I don't have Thomas as high as Chris, but a very reasobable case can be made for him as one of the top 10 hitters ever.

Based on what; OBP?

How big of a bump does he get from EQA or whatever? And why would it bump him, when he's played in a huge offensive era? Shouldn't it knock some of the shine off instead?

leecemark

02-21-2006, 10:12 PM

--Sultan, Thomas was the best hitter of the early stages of that offensive explosion and was a dominating hitter before it really took off. He hit for great average with great power and had a eye to match Ted Williams. His first 7 seasons his worst OPS+ year was 3rd best in the league and his worst Runs Created finish was 4th. This in a very high quality league.
--I'm no expect (or anything close to it) on EQA, but it adjusts both for league context (leveling the laying field between high and low offensive eras) and quality (thus the old timers who beat up on weaker competion don't run away like they do in non-LQ adjusted relative stats). Again, EQA isn't a pet stat of mine and I don't think I've ever used it as part of an arguement. Just trying to answer your question.

torez77

02-21-2006, 10:15 PM

Thomas is tied with Gehrig in EqA at .344. Just checked it. I believe that's good for 4th all-time. He is well behind Ruth (.364), Williams (.363), and Bonds (.354), though.

Bill Burgess

02-21-2006, 10:22 PM

--I don't have Thomas as high as Chris, but a very reasobable case can be made for him as one of the top 10 hitters ever.

Relative Stats:

courtesy of David Kent:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rel Rel Through 2003, over 5,000 PA, indexed and park adjusted.

Pro+ OBA Slg Rel Rel
Rank Rank Rank Player PA Pro+ OBA Slg
----------------------------------------------------------------

1 2 1 Babe Ruth 10504 207.0 134.5 172.5
2 1 2 Ted Williams 9786 189.5 134.6 154.9
3 11 3 Lou Gehrig 9554 180.4 126.4 154.0
4 3 4 Barry Bonds 10963 180.0 131.6 148.4
5 8 5 Rogers Hornsby 9259 174.7 127.4 147.3
8 16 6 Joe Jackson 5559 168.7 123.9 144.8
16 102 7 Hank Greenberg 6061 157.3 113.5 143.9
6 5 8 Mickey Mantle 9895 172.1 128.3 143.8
11 40 9 Mark McGwire 7657 162.8 119.0 143.8
13 43 10 Jimmie Foxx 9599 161.6 117.9 143.7
21 122 11 Joe DiMaggio 7657 155.6 112.7 142.9
17 78 12 Johnny Mize 7351 157.0 114.9 142.1
7 4 13 Dan Brouthers 7656 170.9 129.4 141.4
9 10 14 Ty Cobb 12777 168.4 127.0 141.4
22 83 15 Hank Aaron 13919 155.2 114.6 140.6
18 54 16 Dick Allen 7295 156.7 116.8 140.0
20 53 17 Willie Mays 12480 156.0 116.8 139.2
25 52 18 Mike Piazza 6007 154.7 117.0 137.7
14 24 19 Stan Musial 12677 158.2 121.1 137.1
38 192 20 Willie Stargell 9017 147.1 110.0 137.1
19 36 21 Manny Ramirez 5910 156.5 119.8 136.7
26 41 22 Frank Robinson 11726 154.0 118.5 135.5
12 9 23 Frank Thomas 8167 162.6 127.3 135.3
15 18 25 Tris Speaker 11679 157.4 123.0 134.3
23 25 26 Mel Ott 11228 155.0 120.9 134.1
33 60 28 Nap Lajoie 10239 150.0 116.1 133.9
40 111 30 Mike Schmidt 10046 146.8 113.2 133.6
32 48 34 Honus Wagner 11518 150.4 117.6 132.9
36 77 35 Willie McCovey 9681 147.7 114.9 132.9
46 158 38 Sam Crawford 10353 143.5 110.9 132.5
__________________
Dave Kent

Looks like a lot of the guys behind Big Frank had a huge amount of more At Bats than he did.

Sultan_1895-1948

02-21-2006, 10:42 PM

Just trying to answer your question.

No, that's cool. I appreciate that. Even though I'm not big into formulas and what-not, doesn't hurt to learn what's involved in them.

The only thing I question is this "league strength" issue. That gets thrown around on here quite a bit..."this is the toughest league" type stuff. To me, an easy offensive environment (EVERYTHING is geared toward offense) doesn't make for a tougher league. It makes for an easier league.

Now, a totally different issue would be how hard it is to separate from the pack. THAT could be considered "tough" to do today, but only because the game is easier for everyone, even the middle tier guys are competing for grey ink in any given year. So, why not adjust upwards for anything relating to INK, and adjust down for raw numbers?

SABR Matt

02-21-2006, 11:03 PM

Off topic note:

Happy Birthday Bill. :)

Sultan_1895-1948

02-21-2006, 11:09 PM

I second that.

Happy Birthday William!! :D

HAVE A GOOD ONE !! :dance

Bill Burgess

02-22-2006, 06:23 AM

Happy Birthday Bill. :)
Thank you, Matt.

Bill

RuthMayBond

02-22-2006, 06:30 AM

Happy B-day, old man
(from one old man to another :waving :p ;) :clapping :D :eek: :coffee :laugh :dance :lookitup

leecemark

02-22-2006, 06:31 AM

Bill Burgess

02-22-2006, 06:32 AM

Happy B-day, old man
(from one old man to another :waving :p ;) :clapping :D :eek: :coffee :laugh :dance :lookitup
Thanks, and I feel every minute of them.

Anybody like my latest find for Randy. Posted a nice Bob Considine piece in Babe Ruth Thread. I thought it was cool.

Bill

Bill Burgess

02-22-2006, 06:36 AM

--Happy Birthday and many more to you Bill. I've seen alot of fine posters come and go, but you've always been here. I expect to still be duking it out with you when we're both drooling in our porridge and soiling our diapers (not too much longer for you;) ).
Thank you, Mark. We disagree a lot, but we've always retained a healthy respect for each other. And after we've lost so many members, it's reassuring to have you're stability here on Fever. You are a mainstay stable here. And I think we've helped make Fever a very respected site. But tell me. You've not responded yet to the arrival of Wesley Frick. Did his posts impress you any?

Bill

leecemark

02-22-2006, 06:50 AM

--I don't think I've read any of his posts. Where is he participating?

Bill Burgess

02-22-2006, 07:17 AM

--I don't think I've read any of his posts. Where is he participating?
His first post was in the Detroit Tigers forum, which I put a link to in "What's your view of Ty Cobb?

And here it is.

http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=480633&postcount=72

Along with my introduction of him.

http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=481371&postcount=347

Bill

538280

02-22-2006, 07:39 AM

Sultan_1895-1948

02-22-2006, 12:00 PM

Anybody like my latest find for Randy. Posted a nice Bob Considine piece in Babe Ruth Thread. I thought it was cool.

Bill

That WAS cool. Thanks for that Bill :D

Bill Burgess

02-22-2006, 01:03 PM

That WAS cool. Thanks for that Bill :D
It's my pleasure, Randy.

Bill

Bill Burgess

02-22-2006, 01:11 PM

Happy Birthday Bill!

Frank Thomas, well, as far as just pure hitting, he's way up there with Ruth, Williams, Gehrig, etc. Check his rates, and adjust them for era (including LQ). He's right up there. 3rd all time in EqA. His two best hitting seasons were both shortened by the strike.

I think this also boils down to my thoughts on the "best hitter" as we talked about with Dick Allen. When talking about the "best" hitter, I put much more emphasis on peak seasons and rates than longevity. When talking about the "greatest" I'd put more weight to longevity.

Thank you, Chris.

You used to have Frank Thomas 3rd as an all time hitter? But Chris. Even you have to realize just how that sounds to our ears. While peak is a factor we must all consider, longevity is how all must be rated ultimately.

If Frank is rated #3, Mr. Cobb, Hornsby & Gehrig should sue. We simply cannot over-rank hitters for a few great seasons, such as Thomas, Allen and Belle. We simply cannot make these kinds of assertions, and commit disservices to better long-term hitters. Bonds, A-Rod, even Henderson must be given precedence, due to so many better seasons. PLEASE be more moderate & reasonable in these matters.

torez77

02-22-2006, 05:52 PM

leecemark

02-22-2006, 05:55 PM

Bill Burgess

02-22-2006, 06:46 PM

Rank Player (age) Adjusted OPS+ Bats
1. Babe Ruth+* 207 L
2. Ted Williams+* 190 L
3. Barry Bonds* (40) 184 L
4. Lou Gehrig+* 179 L
5. Rogers Hornsby+ 175 R
6. Mickey Mantle+# 172 B
7. Dan Brouthers+* 170 L
Joe Jackson* 170 L
9. Albert Pujols (25) 169 R
10. Ty Cobb+* 167 L
11. Jimmie Foxx+ 163 R
Mark McGwire 163 R
13. Pete Browning 162 R
14. Dave Orr 161 R
Frank Thomas (37) 161 R
16. Stan Musial+* 159 L
17. Hank Greenberg+ 158 R
Johnny Mize+* 158 L
Tris Speaker+* 158 L
20. Dick Allen 156 R
Rank Player (age) Adjusted OPS+ Bats
Willie Mays+ 156 R
Manny Ramirez (33) 156 R
23. Hank Aaron+ 155 R
Joe DiMaggio+ 155 R
Mel Ott+* 155 L
26. Roger Connor+* 154 L
Frank Robinson+ 154 R
28. Ed Delahanty+ 152 R
Charlie Keller* 152 L
30. Jeff Bagwell (37) 150 R
Gavvy Cravath 150 R
Nap Lajoie+ 150 R
Honus Wagner+ 150 R
34. Elmer Flick+* 149 L
Jason Giambi* (34) 149 L
Charley Jones 149 R
Benny Kauff* 149 L
Ralph Kiner+ 149 R
Jim Thome* (34) 149 L
40. Vladimir Guerrero (29) 148 R
Rank Player (age) Adjusted OPS+ Bats
Harry Heilmann+ 148 R
Willie McCovey+* 148 L

538280

02-22-2006, 07:05 PM

Where do you see Thomas is 3rd in EqA? Baseball Prospectus has him behind Ruth, Williams, and Bonds, and tied with Gehrig. Are you expanding his shortened seasons for the strike?

You're right. I was speaking from memory and apparently my memory was faulty. Anyway, though, 4th all time is really, really great.

P.S-He is really ahead of Gehrig if you go into the 4th percentile. They aren't really tied. And Frank has a better 5 year peak:

Thomas-.396, .368, .365, .365, .364
Gehrig-.372, .371, .364, .361, .359

And Frank has three more years right at about the same level as his 5th best. Frank has 6 years EqA over .360, Gehrig only has three. IMO, Thomas goes over Gehrig when ranking the best hitters of all time.

Bill Burgess

02-22-2006, 08:12 PM

IMO, Thomas goes over Gehrig when ranking the best hitters of all time.

You have a singular, unique genius for disappearing down the rabbit hole in Alice In Wonderland.

Myankee4life

02-22-2006, 08:24 PM

You're right. I was speaking from memory and apparently my memory was faulty. Anyway, though, 4th all time is really, really great.

P.S-He is really ahead of Gehrig if you go into the 4th percentile. They aren't really tied. And Frank has a better 5 year peak:

Thomas-.396, .368, .365, .365, .364
Gehrig-.372, .371, .364, .361, .359

And Frank has three more years right at about the same level as his 5th best. Frank has 6 years EqA over .360, Gehrig only has three. IMO, Thomas goes over Gehrig when ranking the best hitters of all time.

Funny you show there 5 year numbers....make it their top 10 since Thomas drops off significantly. Thomas may have had a better peak but Gehrig wasn't that far behind and did it twice as long.

Best OPS+ seasons

Gehrig- 221,208,203,195,194,190,181,177,177,177 Career- 179
Thomas- 212,181,180,178,178,177,174,160,151,149 Career- 161

Look at this and you cant possibly tell me with a straight face that Thomas
is in Gehrig's stratosphere. An 18pt lead in OPS+ is a massive lead....
That's roughly the difference between Jimmie Foxx and Jeff Bagwell....
.or Jeff Bagwell and Derek Jeter.

Gehrig Rel BA 121 Rel OB 128 Rel SLG 159
Thomas Rel BA 115 Rel OB 127 Rel SLG 137

Again not particularly close except OB.... But a 6 pt lead in BA and a
even bigger 22! pt lead in SLG.

Gehrig Relative Total AVG- 176
Thomas Relative Total AVG- 155

Total AVG is a measure of overall offensive production including
baserunning. Gehrig manhandles Thomas with a 21pt lead.

Gehrig Relative Secondary AVG- 190
Thomas Relative Secondary AVG- 182

Secondary AVG is bases earned on extra base hits and walks divided
by at bats and walks....its a good measure of power and patience
at the plate. Gehrig leads comfortably by 8pts.

Gehrig Relative Isolated power- 245
Thomas Relative Isolated power- 169

Isolated power is a measure of a players true power. its Slugging %
(minus) Batting AVG. C'mon its not even close a 78pt lead!!!!!!

Gehrig Relative Runs Created-(RC) 2197/ (LgRC) 1157 = 190
Thomas Relative Runs Created (RC) 1658/ (LgRC) 1032 = 161

C'mon Chris.......Its just not close....You're better off comparing Thomas
with R Jackson. Really I cant see anyone above Gehrig. I don't think
their PEAKS were even close unless you prove me otherwise.

Myankee4life

02-22-2006, 08:25 PM

You have a singular, unique genius for disappearing down the rabbit hole in Alice In Wonderland.

LOL....I know what you mean. absurd just absurd :ughh

Captain Cold Nose

02-23-2006, 12:18 PM

I was away yesterday, but Happy Birthday, Bill. Many more and to your health.

Honus Wagner Rules

02-23-2006, 01:49 PM

--Thomas was a great hitter for 7 years. That is plenty of time to establish his quality. That he started breaking down and couldn't stay on the field after that reduces his value as a hitter. It doesn't reduce his greatness as a hitter.
Was Thomas "great" last year when he hit .219? What has happened to him? I know he's older but .219? :ughh

I always had a feeling Thomas would not age well given his size and lack of all around skills.

Edgartohof

02-23-2006, 01:57 PM

Was Thomas "great" last year when he hit .219? What has happened to him? I know he's older but .219? :ughh

I always had a feeling Thomas would not age well given his size and lack of all around skills.

Hey, you gotta give him props for still managing an amazing .590 Slg (.371 ISO), 12 of his 23 hits were HR's. I would expect him to perform a little better this season, with a more respectable BA.

But as to the Hurt and Gehrig, I would say that their peaks were equal, but if either one was ahead, it was only by the slightest of margins, and in the end, Gehrig's consistency wins out. Thomas just couldn't keep it up.

Bill Burgess

02-23-2006, 02:19 PM

I was away yesterday, but Happy Birthday, Bill. Many more and to your health.
Thank you, Scott. I appreciate that. Hope your vacation was relaxing.

Bill

Bill Burgess

03-04-2006, 08:38 PM

Lots of guys haven't shared their opinions proflies yet. I'm still waiting on, among many others;

abacab, Splendid Splinter, BoSox Rule, Honus Wagner Rules, Imapotato, Appling, West Coast Orange & Black, Captain Cold Nose, Mordecai, 2Chance, tonjes, Mac195, Catcher24, CyNotSoYoung, tearsforamariner, barzilla, dgarza, RealNod, Ipod, Kroxquo, Say Hey, Eddie Collins, ShoelessJoe3, Chancellor, Improbus, Windy City, Lou Gehrig, Zito6, Baseball Guru, BillyF29, Roy Hobbs, Dave Kent, nightal, westsidegrounds and lots more besides.

Bill Burgess

SABR Matt

04-11-2006, 01:47 PM

I couldn't find the other thread Bill...that's why I put the discussion of recent PCA tweaking in the one I could find.

But a copy of the big list with new PCA statistics should stay in the Official Opinions thread since it represents my "official" stance right nowwhile I wait for continued research efforts on more modern methods.

Bill Burgess

04-11-2006, 01:51 PM

SABR Matt's Post:

At the risk of being stoned as a witch by people tired of sabermetrics or laughed at by people prefering microsabermetrics to uberstats...I thought someone out there might be interested in the changes to the PCA leaderboards based on the latest versions of the GI method and on normally calibrated win statistics that place all players in one distribution instead of uniquely in their own leagues.

GI Labels:

O-Rk - Offensive Rank (all positions)
OP-Rk - Offensive Rank (position specific)
P-Rk - Pitching Rank
DP-Rk - Defensive Rank (always position specific)

CAREER - For offensive, defensive and pitching GI leaderboards, this refers to the total number of normalized PCA Wins Created credited to the player for the skill being measured (if it's an offensive leaderboard...it's offensive wins that are being measured).

RATE - This refers to the wins created for the specific skill, prorated to a standard career length where if the career exceeds the standard length, wins are simply reduced proportionally, and if the career is shorter than the standard length, wins are added to the career total at the all-time average rate.

PEAK - This refers to the wins a player created for the skill being measured above twice the average scoring rate.

RANGE - This represents the upward variability term for the skill being measured. By upward variability, we mean wins created above (and ONLY above) the player's career average scoring rate in each season for which he has a record...summed over all of those seasons. This is designed to cancel out the downward biasing impacts of a long career and therefore costly decline phase and balance with the protated element to make a fair evaluation.

The fifty greatest hitters of all time:

First Last O-Rk CAREER RATE PEAK RANGE TOTAL
Babe Ruth 1 264.52 249.15 132.04 27.54 673.25
Barry Bonds 2 258.57 223.21 114.67 32.13 628.58
Ted Williams 3 238.52 239.84 115.44 20.42 614.22
Ty Cobb 4 265.2 202.88 107.25 37.75 613.08
Rickey Henderson 5 237.42 177.9 82.29 43.63 541.24
Mickey Mantle 6 207.43 208.01 82.95 24.7 523.09
Honus Wagner 7 213.05 181.49 77.19 38.32 510.05
Stan Musial 8 224.91 176.93 70.61 26.89 499.34
Rogers Hornsby 9 188.69 192.02 72.81 24.93 478.45
Willie Mays 10 213.52 170.91 63.21 22.86 470.5
Lou Gehrig 11 187.89 190.04 67.79 19.87 465.59
Hank Aaron 12 222.69 159.75 55.76 23.59 461.79
Mel Ott 13 199.65 176.17 59.94 20.19 455.95
Tris Speaker 14 200.48 167.23 54.18 24.23 446.12
Frank Thomas 15 165.6 175.24 62.53 21.35 424.72
Eddie Collins 16 189.73 157.65 44.91 22.24 414.53
Joe Morgan 17 175.97 155.33 44.09 28.48 403.87
Frank Robinson 18 184.72 157.3 40.93 20.01 402.96
Jimmie Foxx 19 160.04 162.13 47.1 24.09 393.36
Nap Lajoie 20 154.22 147.49 38.02 28.54 368.27
Mark McGwire 21 135.11 149.93 47.18 24.31 356.53
Reggie Jackson 22 156.24 136.86 33.65 27.09 353.84
Ed Delahanty 23 135.86 146.06 43.83 24.71 350.46
Billy Hamilton 24 137.05 152.35 43.37 17.31 350.08
Eddie Mathews 25 147.42 145.95 31.88 21.79 347.04
George Brett 26 153.09 131.7 31.42 28.32 344.53
Dan Brouthers 27 136.68 151.55 41.48 12.11 341.82
Willie McCovey 28 139.85 141.84 33.54 24.16 339.39
Mike Schmidt 29 146.65 145.75 28.46 16.82 337.68
Rod Carew 30 143.45 135.97 29.31 25.36 334.09
Carl Yastrzemski 31 164.91 117.87 23.44 27.04 333.26
Johnny Mize 32 128.31 144.96 39.66 12.55 325.48
Paul Molitor 33 151.87 124.89 23.66 24.55 324.97
Harry Heilmann 34 134.33 140.92 30.59 18.36 324.2
Edgar Martinez 35 130.84 139.25 32.65 20.27 323.01
Joe DiMaggio 36 127.3 142.05 33.36 14.27 316.98
Wade Boggs 37 136.49 127.09 25.66 25.47 314.71
Willie Stargell 38 129.78 135.95 28 20.28 314.01
Dick Allen 39 122.1 139.11 36.07 16.15 313.43
Al Kaline 40 147.22 126.95 19.38 19.22 312.77
Roger Connor 41 129.92 137.29 28.07 16.44 311.72
Eddie Murray 42 148.92 116.19 20.13 26.13 311.37
Jeff Bagwell 43 133.15 137.53 22.82 15.98 309.48
Tim Raines 44 135.65 130.95 22.39 20.26 309.25
Gary Sheffield 45 127.9 136.01 27.09 17.56 308.56
Harmon Killebrew 46 131.81 132.88 21.37 17.03 303.09
Rafael Palmeiro 47 143.52 123.47 14.88 16.78 298.65
Paul Waner 48 135.57 125.98 17.16 17.55 296.26
Jesse Burkett 49 130.24 132.74 18.59 14.57 296.14
Fred McGriff 50 127.16 125.05 21.49 22.31 296.01

Top 10's for offense at each position:

C
First Last Ps O-Rk CAREER RATE PEAK RANGE TOTAL
Mike Piazza C 122 87.45 109.4 13.36 11.42 221.63
Carlton Fisk C 139 94.32 95.28 6.41 20.62 216.63
Yogi Berra C 198 87.8 98.16 2.02 8.42 196.4
Ted Simmons C 213 86.17 88.19 4.16 14.91 193.43
Johnny Bench C 227 83.87 92.3 2.67 9.79 188.63
Bill Dickey C 257 71.82 90.44 5.31 11.46 179.03
Gabby Hartnett C 262 75.29 92.41 2.85 8.14 178.69
Gary Carter C 298 76.42 82.63 0.5 11.15 170.7
Roger Bresnahan C 326 61.4 90.71 5.2 8.6 165.91
Mickey Cochrane C 328 66.97 91 1.44 5.57 164.98

1B
First Last Ps O-Rk CAREER RATE PEAK RANGE TOTAL
Lou Gehrig 1B 11 187.89 190.04 67.79 19.87 465.59
Frank Thomas 1B 15 165.6 175.24 62.53 21.35 424.72
Jimmie Foxx 1B 19 160.04 162.13 47.1 24.09 393.36
Mark McGwire 1B 21 135.11 149.93 47.18 24.31 356.53
Dan Brouthers 1B 27 136.68 151.55 41.48 12.11 341.82
Willie McCovey 1B 28 139.85 141.84 33.54 24.16 339.39
Johnny Mize 1B 32 128.31 144.96 39.66 12.55 325.48
Roger Connor 1B 41 129.92 137.29 28.07 16.44 311.72
Eddie Murray 1B 42 148.92 116.19 20.13 26.13 311.37
Jeff Bagwell 1B 43 133.15 137.53 22.82 15.98 309.48

2B
First Last Ps O-Rk CAREER RATE PEAK RANGE TOTAL
Rogers Hornsby 2B 9 188.69 192.02 72.81 24.93 478.45
Eddie Collins 2B 16 189.73 157.65 44.91 22.24 414.53
Joe Morgan 2B 17 175.97 155.33 44.09 28.48 403.87
Nap Lajoie 2B 20 154.22 147.49 38.02 28.54 368.27
Charlie Gehringer 2B 72 118.01 115.28 9.88 15.08 258.25
Roberto Alomar 2B 84 110.4 106.15 10.97 18.89 246.41
Craig Biggio 2B 95 111.79 104.57 8.48 15.27 240.11
Lou Whitaker 2B 126 99.74 99.95 5.47 15.4 220.56
Ryne Sandberg 2B 128 95.85 100.4 6.45 16.01 218.71
Larry Doyle 2B 135 91.52 108.1 8.33 9.3 217.25

3B
First Last Ps O-Rk CAREER RATE PEAK RANGE TOTAL
Eddie Mathews 3B 25 147.42 145.95 31.88 21.79 347.04
George Brett 3B 26 153.09 131.7 31.42 28.32 344.53
Mike Schmidt 3B 29 146.65 145.75 28.46 16.82 337.68
Wade Boggs 3B 37 136.49 127.09 25.66 25.47 314.71
Ron Santo 3B 113 97.11 100.94 8.58 17.82 224.45
Darrell Evans 3B 117 109 101.52 2.41 10.6 223.53
Stan Hack 3B 120 97.33 106.79 6.57 11.38 222.07
Frank Baker 3B 138 84.63 105.79 13.28 13.13 216.83
Chipper Jones 3B 165 83.87 105.22 9.21 9.24 207.54
John McGraw 3B 166 74.62 106.78 15.98 9.75 207.13

SS
First Last Ps O-Rk CAREER RATE PEAK RANGE TOTAL
Honus Wagner SS 7 213.05 181.49 77.19 38.32 510.05
Arky Vaughan SS 80 105.08 119.52 15.48 11.16 251.24
Alex Rodriguez SS 85 96.02 118.92 20.16 11.14 246.24
Barry Larkin SS 154 92.99 98.96 4.69 14.04 210.68
Luke Appling SS 158 98.57 96.23 5.06 10.24 210.1
Cal Ripken Jr. SS 160 102.04 79.21 5.26 22.61 209.12
Alan Trammell SS 168 85.98 89.94 8.92 22.24 207.08
Bill Dahlen SS 192 92.86 89.43 1.51 13.99 197.79
Joe Cronin SS 242 83.31 90.67 0.47 9.39 183.84
Derek Jeter SS 290 68.13 91.92 5.05 7.24 172.34

LF
First Last Ps O-Rk CAREER RATE PEAK RANGE TOTAL
Barry Bonds LF 2 258.57 223.21 114.67 32.13 628.58
Ted Williams LF 3 238.52 239.84 115.44 20.42 614.22
Rickey Henderson LF 5 237.42 177.9 82.29 43.63 541.24
Carl Yastrzemski LF 31 164.91 117.87 23.44 27.04 333.26
Tim Raines LF 44 135.65 130.95 22.39 20.26 309.25
Jesse Burkett LF 49 130.24 132.74 18.59 14.57 296.14
Sherry Magee LF 52 120.58 129.79 20.82 15 286.19
Fred Clarke LF 54 127.63 128.8 15.42 13.75 285.6
Billy Williams LF 61 127.75 121.45 11.27 13.09 273.56
Goose Goslin LF 68 119.1 120.23 13.57 15.98 268.88

CF
First Last Ps O-Rk CAREER RATE PEAK RANGE TOTAL
Ty Cobb CF 4 265.2 202.88 107.25 37.75 613.08
Mickey Mantle CF 6 207.43 208.01 82.95 24.7 523.09
Willie Mays CF 10 213.52 170.91 63.21 22.86 470.5
Tris Speaker CF 14 200.48 167.23 54.18 24.23 446.12
Billy Hamilton CF 24 137.05 152.35 43.37 17.31 350.08
Joe DiMaggio CF 36 127.3 142.05 33.36 14.27 316.98
Ken Griffey Jr. CF 53 120.34 129.73 20.99 14.8 285.86
Duke Snider CF 62 114.07 125.24 19.24 14.42 272.97
Jimmy Wynn CF 79 103.37 115.97 16.66 15.54 251.54
Fred Lynn CF 90 99.3 112.46 16.33 16.88 244.97

RF
First Last Ps O-Rk CAREER RATE PEAK RANGE TOTAL
Hank Aaron RF 12 222.69 159.75 55.76 23.59 461.79
Mel Ott RF 13 199.65 176.17 59.94 20.19 455.95
Reggie Jackson RF 22 156.24 136.86 33.65 27.09 353.84
Harry Heilmann RF 34 134.33 140.92 30.59 18.36 324.2
Al Kaline RF 40 147.22 126.95 19.38 19.22 312.77
Paul Waner RF 48 135.57 125.98 17.16 17.55 296.26
Larry Walker RF 51 115.7 130.5 27.34 19.24 292.78
Sam Crawford RF 57 132.45 125.02 11.51 12.25 281.23
Tony Gwynn RF 58 128.25 125.34 13.21 13.78 280.58
Dave Winfield RF 64 133.72 108.21 10.99 19.03 271.95

UT (top 25 here...players without a majority (55%) defensive position)
First Last Ps O-Rk CAREER RATE PEAK RANGE TOTAL
Babe Ruth UT 1 264.52 249.15 132.04 27.54 673.25
Stan Musial UT 8 224.91 176.93 70.61 26.89 499.34
Frank Robinson UT 18 184.72 157.3 40.93 20.01 402.96
Ed Delahanty UT 23 135.86 146.06 43.83 24.71 350.46
Rod Carew UT 30 143.45 135.97 29.31 25.36 334.09
Paul Molitor UT 33 151.87 124.89 23.66 24.55 324.97
Edgar Martinez UT 35 130.84 139.25 32.65 20.27 323.01
Willie Stargell UT 38 129.78 135.95 28 20.28 314.01
Dick Allen UT 39 122.1 139.11 36.07 16.15 313.43
Gary Sheffield UT 45 127.9 136.01 27.09 17.56 308.56
Harmon Killebrew UT 46 131.81 132.88 21.37 17.03 303.09
Robin Yount UT 56 129.02 105.33 18.58 28.44 281.37
Pete Rose UT 59 153.56 96.82 6.02 19.89 276.29
Joe Jackson UT 66 101.68 128.98 30.91 10.26 271.83
George Davis UT 70 122.75 120.92 9.24 11.6 264.51
Harry Stovey UT 71 103.8 123.87 22.9 11.36 261.93
Hugh Duffy UT 86 100.87 114.64 15.76 14.94 246.21
Pete Browning UT 94 87.53 117.22 24.51 11.16 240.42
Dale Murphy UT 97 97.14 103.22 14.66 22.55 237.57
Reggie Smith UT 99 100.96 113.31 11.06 11.55 236.88
Ernie Banks UT 102 106.22 102.18 7.99 17.66 234.05
Frank Howard UT 103 95.18 111.95 13.75 12.75 233.63
King Kelly UT 109 88.98 111.43 16.27 12.33 229.01
Kiki Cuyler UT 121 96.68 108.75 6.71 9.7 221.84
Jim O'Rourke UT 124 94.44 107.44 8.28 10.98 221.14

New top-50 for starting pitchers and top 15 for relievers:

First Last Ps P-Rk CAREER RATE PEAK RANGE TOTAL
Walter Johnson SP 1 178.51 122.79 32.64 23.03 356.97
Cy Young SP 2 197.56 108.96 22.6 24.24 353.36
Roger Clemens SP 3 145 129.33 37.27 25.07 336.67
Lefty Grove SP 4 130.62 131.58 34.05 20.71 316.96
Pete Alexander SP 5 152.11 118.77 22.25 17.17 310.3
Christy Mathewson SP 6 136.87 115.25 27.46 25 304.58
Greg Maddux SP 7 118.9 114.9 26.79 24.98 285.57
Carl Hubbell SP 8 104.49 111.15 24.08 20.85 260.57
Tom Seaver SP 9 121.85 103.61 15.6 18.07 259.13
Randy Johnson SP 10 102.67 111.49 23.8 17.71 255.67
Pedro Martinez SP 11 87.13 111.13 28.8 15.78 242.84
Tim Keefe SP 12 115.87 94.08 7.66 16.24 233.85
Kid Nichols SP 13 115 93.12 7.01 15.51 230.64
Fergie Jenkins SP 14 106.28 94.95 9.05 15.86 226.14
Nolan Ryan SP 15 114.41 85.95 5.87 17.91 224.14
Dennis Eckersley SP 16 88.59 98.69 17.34 18.18 222.8
Bert Blyleven SP 17 108.52 87.07 7.8 19.16 222.55
Ed Walsh SP 18 89.63 104.71 16.38 9.7 220.42
Dazzy Vance SP 19 86.29 100.67 16.25 14.38 217.59
Bob Gibson SP 20 94.13 95.89 10.98 16.34 217.34
Warren Spahn SP 21 109.47 84.75 5.57 17.5 217.29
Gaylord Perry SP 22 105.23 78.71 9.19 20.23 213.36
Amos Rusie SP 23 95.07 99.65 5.66 9.41 209.79
Rube Waddell SP 24 82.04 96.36 14.94 15.09 208.43
Hal Newhouser SP 25 79.61 93.78 13.55 15 201.94
John Clarkson SP 26 95.79 86.17 3.77 15.82 201.55
Sandy Koufax SP 27 73.47 97.05 18.22 11.59 200.33
Stan Coveleski SP 28 77.1 90.28 13.1 16.18 196.66
Steve Carlton SP 29 97.56 74.63 5.88 18.52 196.59
Luis Tiant SP 30 80.44 88.23 10.53 16.48 195.68
Juan Marichal SP 31 77.59 84.83 12.05 19.38 193.85
Charlie Buffinton SP 32 79.18 87.52 10.76 16 193.46
Bob Feller SP 33 85.1 88.17 5.91 13.63 192.81
Phil Niekro SP 34 100.11 74.6 0.34 17.65 192.7
Babe Adams SP 35 75.47 89.84 11.35 15.07 191.73
Joe McGinnity SP 36 80.83 89.26 8.03 13.17 191.29
Robin Roberts SP 37 89.6 76.9 6.04 18.21 190.75
3Finger Brown SP 38 76.29 88.56 10.69 14.27 189.81
Eddie Plank SP 39 93.19 83.47 2.96 9.35 188.97
Don Sutton SP 40 95.38 73.14 3.75 15.8 188.07
Addie Joss SP 41 68.08 92.33 10.56 7.9 178.87
Charley Radbourn SP 42 83.08 74.53 4.46 16.78 178.85
Jim Bunning SP 43 77.82 81.02 4.33 14.09 177.26
Eddie Cicotte SP 44 67.67 78.83 11.82 17.07 175.39
Pud Galvin SP 45 94.88 63.77 0 15.04 173.69
Ted Breitenstein SP 46 70.82 85.86 5.44 9.84 171.96
Red Ruffing SP 47 80.92 75.53 2.72 12.78 171.95
Lefty Gomez SP 48 61.41 82.82 11.48 14.29 170
Jim Whitney SP 49 71.66 78.36 4.01 13.7 167.73
Curt Schilling SP 50 69.22 85.82 4.02 8.38 167.44

First Last Ps P-Rk CAREER RATE PEAK RANGE TOTAL
Hoyt Wilhelm RP 60 67.09 64.37 14.85 12.07 158.38
Rich Gossage RP 82 53.53 56.43 19.03 17.4 146.39
Bruce Sutter RP 208 36.62 50.03 14.71 12.16 113.52
Ron Reed RP 218 50.52 43.81 7.03 10.55 111.91
Mariano Rivera RP 234 34.61 52.49 16.09 6.05 109.24
Stu Miller RP 313 37.96 42.28 8.31 11.45 100
John Hiller RP 364 33.08 43.75 8.88 9.22 94.93
Tom Gordon RP 366 38.81 40.2 6.09 9.62 94.72
Trevor Hoffman RP 378 29.43 46.78 11 6.4 93.61
Tug McGraw RP 408 33.55 40.43 7.42 10.05 91.45
Tom Henke RP 434 29.22 46.11 9.72 5.23 90.28
Gene Garber RP 440 33.5 40.24 6.6 9.55 89.89
Kent Tekulve RP 453 35.74 43.78 4.15 5.76 89.43
Ellis Kinder RP 460 34.9 42.19 5.15 6.55 88.79
Rollie Fingers RP 482 36 40.27 3.77 7.41 87.45

Top-20s defensively at each position:

P
First Last Ps DP-Rk CAREER RATE PEAK RANGE TOTAL
Greg Maddux SP 1 10.64 8.4 1.01 1.62 21.67
John Clarkson SP 2 9.01 9.21 1.15 1.28 20.65
Cy Young SP 3 9.15 6.53 1 2.4 19.08
Bob Caruthers SP 4 8.4 7.52 0.35 1.5 17.77
Carl Mays SP 5 7.27 8.41 0.71 0.84 17.23
Charley Radbourn SP 6 7.57 7.21 0.48 1.69 16.95
Christy Mathewson SP 7 7.44 7.26 0.57 1.5 16.77
Ed Walsh SP 8 6.81 8.63 0.93 0.36 16.73
Dennis Martinez SP 9 7.33 7.52 0.5 1.17 16.52
George Bradley SP 10 6.78 7.23 0.29 1.56 15.86
Freddie Fitzsimmons SP 11 6.4 7.44 0.56 1.12 15.52
Charlie Buffinton SP 12 6.79 6.72 0.42 1.44 15.37
Adonis Terry SP 13 6.97 6.27 0.19 1.52 14.95
Kevin Brown SP 14 6.31 6.89 0.38 1.34 14.92
Tommy John SP 15 6.59 5.71 0.52 2 14.82
Bob Lemon SP 16 6.3 7.18 0.34 0.97 14.79
Doc White SP 17 6.02 7.76 0.55 0.46 14.79
Carl Hubbell SP 18 5.78 7.52 0.59 0.82 14.71
Dave Stieb SP 19 5.94 7.46 0.45 0.66 14.51
Tom Glavine SP 20 6.01 6.68 0.48 1.21 14.38

C
First Last Ps DP-Rk CAREER RATE PEAK RANGE TOTAL
Ivan Rodriguez C 1 38.33 42.81 6.8 6.73 94.67
Gary Carter C 2 37.77 36.16 4.14 8.34 86.41
Bob Boone C 3 33.95 33.32 1 6.64 74.91
Lance Parrish C 4 30.67 33.76 2.57 6.25 73.25
Johnny Bench C 5 32.79 33.11 0.37 4.71 70.98
Tony Pena C 6 30.17 32.36 1.87 5.14 69.54
Thurman Munson C 7 26.31 35.02 2.49 3.85 67.67
Carlton Fisk C 8 31.82 29.71 0.46 4.51 66.5
Al Lopez C 9 26.72 30.21 0.72 5.02 62.67
Jim Sundberg C 10 26.97 29.61 1.3 4.64 62.52
Jim Hegan C 11 24.24 30.74 0.86 4.67 60.51
Gabby Hartnett C 12 25.73 29.13 0.38 3.96 59.2
Del Crandall C 13 23.09 30.47 0.82 4.5 58.88
Johnny Edwards C 14 23.21 31.62 0.19 3.63 58.65
Rollie Hemsley C 15 23.28 30.74 0.28 3.48 57.78
Mike Scioscia C 16 22.39 31.08 0.76 3.13 57.36
Rick Dempsey C 17 21.93 29.13 1.26 4.38 56.7
Yogi Berra C 18 25.36 27.01 0.06 4.2 56.63
Brad Ausmus C 19 21.29 29.31 1.67 4.33 56.6
Lou Criger C 20 19.69 31.81 1.52 2.89 55.91

1B
First Last Ps DP-Rk CAREER RATE PEAK RANGE TOTAL
Keith Hernandez 1B 1 32.09 32.73 2.93 5.85 73.6
Pete O'Brien 1B 2 27.49 34.02 2.59 1.66 65.76
Roger Connor 1B 3 29.53 29.14 1.52 5.05 65.24
Joe Kuhel 1B 4 29.8 29.33 0.77 4.2 64.1
John Olerud 1B 5 27.58 28.75 1.37 4.8 62.5
Mark Grace 1B 6 27.9 26.87 1.18 5.93 61.88
Steve Garvey 1B 7 28.02 25.75 1.35 6.12 61.24
Tony Perez 1B 8 30.17 25.91 0.03 4.54 60.65
Jimmie Foxx 1B 9 26.75 25.14 0.47 5.95 58.31
Fred Tenney 1B 10 25.85 26.39 0.5 4.66 57.4
Wally Pipp 1B 11 26.26 28.39 0.06 2.26 56.97
George Kelly 1B 12 24.03 28.65 0.62 3.25 56.55
Norm Cash 1B 13 25.31 27.06 0.29 3.29 55.95
Vic Power 1B 14 22.99 28.07 1.16 3.25 55.47
Todd Helton 1B 15 20.71 29.87 2.19 2.26 55.03
Jake Daubert 1B 16 24.87 25.07 0.07 4.63 54.64
Tino Martinez 1B 17 23.83 27.02 0.73 2.78 54.36
Ed Konetchy 1B 18 24.24 23.34 0.68 5.3 53.56
Jake Beckley 1B 19 26.38 22.21 0 4.9 53.49
Bill Terry 1B 20 21.21 25.42 0.78 5.71 53.12

2B
First Last Ps DP-Rk CAREER RATE PEAK RANGE TOTAL
Bid McPhee 2B 1 66.99 62.93 0.45 6.36 136.73
Bill Mazeroski 2B 2 64.03 62.41 0.47 7.07 133.98
Frank White 2B 3 59.27 55.39 0.43 5.65 120.74
Nellie Fox 2B 4 60.5 53.54 0 5.94 119.98
Eddie Collins 2B 5 60.99 45.65 0.34 9.02 116
Frankie Frisch 2B 6 57.4 51.02 0.15 6.37 114.94
Bobby Grich 2B 7 50.56 52.7 2.13 8.84 114.23
Nap Lajoie 2B 8 57.62 46.49 0.34 9.28 113.73
Billy Herman 2B 9 49.07 51.21 0 7.4 107.68
Johnny Evers 2B 10 48.03 53.45 0.02 5.1 106.6
Red Schoendienst 2B 11 49.63 50.17 0.18 6.11 106.09
Willie Randolph 2B 12 50.36 48.33 0.13 6.78 105.6
Bobby Lowe 2B 13 46.44 50.23 1.42 6.36 104.45
Bobby Doerr 2B 14 47.41 50.56 0 5.79 103.76
Lou Whitaker 2B 15 49.7 46.62 0 7.4 103.72
Joe Gordon 2B 16 44.04 53.26 0.19 4.65 102.14
Fred Pfeffer 2B 17 43.33 49.55 0 5.3 98.18
Charlie Gehringer 2B 18 47.24 43.06 0 6.2 96.5
Del Pratt 2B 19 41.52 45.74 0.01 6.13 93.4
Claude Ritchey 2B 20 38.98 45.69 0 5.16 89.83

3B
First Last Ps DP-Rk CAREER RATE PEAK RANGE TOTAL
Brooks Robinson 3B 1 52.63 37.59 1.09 6.2 97.51
Jimmy Collins 3B 2 36.64 39.93 2.45 5.54 84.56
Tim Wallach 3B 3 38.29 35.94 1.39 5.76 81.38
Clete Boyer 3B 4 35.4 40.48 1.42 3.42 80.72
Buddy Bell 3B 5 39.05 33.75 1.08 6.2 80.08
Terry Pendleton 3B 6 35.2 38.21 1.35 4.65 79.41
Graig Nettles 3B 7 38.11 32 1.9 6.62 78.63
Mike Schmidt 3B 8 39.15 34 0.14 5.16 78.45
Ron Santo 3B 9 36.5 33.72 0.5 6.49 77.21
Pie Traynor 3B 10 35.05 35.98 0.86 5.18 77.07
Gary Gaetti 3B 11 37 32.19 1.09 6.67 76.95
Willie Kamm 3B 12 32.01 36.2 0.15 3.14 71.5
Billy Nash 3B 13 29.37 34.76 0.7 3.53 68.36
Frank Baker 3B 14 29.42 35 0.22 2.87 67.51
George Brett 3B 15 31.65 30.06 0.42 4.6 66.73
Robin Ventura 3B 16 29.07 30.37 0.44 4.75 64.63
Heinie Groh 3B 17 28.38 33.32 0.04 2.87 64.61
Ken Boyer 3B 18 29.23 30.34 0.18 4.51 64.26
Scott Rolen 3B 19 25.71 35.66 0.68 1.99 64.04
Harry Steinfeldt 3B 20 27.18 31.28 0.01 4.26 62.73

SS
First Last Ps DP-Rk CAREER RATE PEAK RANGE TOTAL
Ozzie Smith SS 1 73.5 59.88 1.67 7.45 142.5
Mark Belanger SS 2 53.38 58.5 1.34 5.03 118.25
Joe Tinker SS 3 52.25 56.56 0 4.16 112.97
Honus Wagner SS 4 60.51 43.94 0.2 6.49 111.14
Luis Aparicio SS 5 56.81 45.3 0 8.55 110.66
Herman Long SS 6 51.27 53.3 0.27 3.9 108.74
Bill Dahlen SS 7 56.16 45.46 0 5.15 106.77
Rabbit Maranville SS 8 55.94 42.11 0 7.56 105.61
Dave Concepcion SS 9 50.73 45.01 0.16 6.56 102.46
Pee Wee Reese SS 10 47.68 45.78 0.17 7.67 101.3
Dave Bancroft SS 11 45.07 47.34 0.45 8.15 101.01
Luke Appling SS 12 50.09 43.24 0.03 6.96 100.32
Tony Fernandez SS 13 45.61 46.33 0.31 7.42 99.67
Marty Marion SS 14 42.76 52.15 0 4.12 99.03
Phil Rizzuto SS 15 42.95 51.55 0 3.67 98.17
Joe Cronin SS 16 44.68 45.7 0.3 7.33 98.01
Roy McMillan SS 17 44.56 45.67 0.01 7.15 97.39
Cal Ripken Jr. SS 18 52.71 35.97 0 7.12 95.8
Everett Scott SS 19 40.87 48.38 0.35 5.25 94.85
Barry Larkin SS 20 43.85 44.07 0 6.92 94.84

LF
First Last Ps DP-Rk CAREER RATE PEAK RANGE TOTAL
Rickey Henderson LF 1 47.99 35.92 3.94 10.53 98.38
Jimmy Sheckard LF 2 40.14 38.65 1.5 6.55 86.84
Carl Yastrzemski LF 3 40.4 29.62 1 8.12 79.14
Jose Cruz LF 4 36.75 35.82 0.96 4.95 78.48
Goose Goslin LF 5 34 31.72 2.41 8.37 76.5
Al Simmons LF 6 33.01 30.98 1.42 8.65 74.06
Luis Gonzalez LF 7 32.37 33.83 1.14 5.67 73.01
Fred Clarke LF 8 34.66 31.49 0.71 5.41 72.27
Zack Wheat LF 9 32.04 28.23 1.05 7.71 69.03
Barry Bonds LF 10 33.89 26.36 0.1 4.6 64.95
Joe Kelley LF 11 28 30.65 0.27 5.14 64.06
Tim Raines LF 12 30.05 29.37 0 4.52 63.94
George Burns LF 13 27.84 30.13 0.58 4.89 63.44
Garret Anderson LF 14 24.77 32.53 0.94 4.41 62.65
Kevin McReynolds LF 15 24.11 31.36 1.72 4.35 61.54
Joe Medwick LF 16 27.13 29.68 0.23 4.23 61.27
Sherry Magee LF 17 27.57 27.27 0.4 5.41 60.65
Augie Galan LF 18 23.19 29.69 0.71 5.43 59.02
Lou Brock LF 19 28.76 24.79 0.29 4.93 58.77
Bob Johnson LF 20 24.82 27 0.15 4.1 56.07

CF
First Last Ps DP-Rk CAREER RATE PEAK RANGE TOTAL
Tris Speaker CF 1 78.98 57.65 5.98 12.86 155.47
Andruw Jones CF 2 52.02 64.68 13.55 5.72 135.97
Max Carey CF 3 68.81 56.4 4.58 5.91 135.7
Richie Ashburn CF 4 59.77 57.06 3.58 7.72 128.13
Curt Flood CF 5 54.97 60.87 5.69 6.23 127.76
Willie Mays CF 6 64.12 44.92 0.99 7.65 117.68
Paul Blair CF 7 46.95 52.98 5.04 7.66 112.63
Willie Davis CF 8 48.38 41.94 1.42 8.99 100.73
Lloyd Waner CF 9 42.39 46.28 1.5 7.8 97.97
Devon White CF 10 41.55 44.69 2.96 8.14 97.34
Dom DiMaggio CF 11 38.46 48.63 2.55 7.12 96.76
Brett Butler CF 12 44.74 43.73 1.6 5.89 95.96
Sam West CF 13 39.04 46.41 2.56 7.89 95.9
Ty Cobb CF 14 47.71 32 2.22 10.33 92.26
Jim Piersall CF 15 38.28 45.68 1.36 5.89 91.21
Lance Johnson CF 16 32.98 44.55 3.32 6.61 87.46
Curt Welch CF 17 32.26 46.61 2.95 5.51 87.33
Vada Pinson CF 18 42.95 36.43 0.37 6.81 86.56
Marquis Grissom CF 19 38.73 39.69 1.33 6.11 85.86
Cy Seymour CF 20 34.32 42.55 2.33 6.39 85.59

RF
First Last Ps DP-Rk CAREER RATE PEAK RANGE TOTAL
Roberto Clemente RF 1 48.54 40.74 3.64 10.02 102.94
Al Kaline RF 2 49.26 40.16 3.23 9.03 101.68
Sam Rice RF 3 41.88 37.75 1.46 7.78 88.87
Harry Hooper RF 4 41.17 36.55 2.15 6.92 86.79
Paul Waner RF 5 40.33 35.39 0.84 8.14 84.7
Hank Aaron RF 6 44.41 30.17 0.48 7.73 82.79
Tony Oliva RF 7 30.77 42.19 2.84 2.79 78.59
Tony Gwynn RF 8 35.34 32.3 1.48 9.39 78.51
Johnny Callison RF 9 30.74 34.75 2.42 6.95 74.86
Enos Slaughter RF 10 33.46 34.18 0.9 6.28 74.82
Brian Jordan RF 11 28.52 39.03 3.21 3.56 74.32
Dave Parker RF 12 30.61 33.28 2.48 6.62 72.99
Sammy Sosa RF 13 31.72 30.44 2.17 7.73 72.06
Willie Keeler RF 14 32.55 32.05 1.41 5.96 71.97
Chief Wilson RF 15 26.89 36.76 1.39 5.1 70.14
Tim Salmon RF 16 26.75 36.85 1.86 4.1 69.56
Paul O'Neill RF 17 29.79 32.02 0 5.28 67.09
Dwight Evans RF 18 30.54 28.73 0.89 6.8 66.96
Bobby Bonds RF 19 28.43 32.32 0 4.75 65.5
Wally Moses RF 20 27.5 30.52 1.14 5.91 65.07

Notable fielders in the UT bracket
First Last Ps DP-Rk CAREER RATE PEAK RANGE TOTAL
Tommy Leach UT 1 46.66 43.79 0.59 5.68 96.72
Robin Yount UT 2 50.79 38.38 0.86 6.65 96.68
George Davis UT 3 47.96 40.73 0.02 6.2 94.91
John Ward UT 4 40 40.83 0.24 6.62 87.69
Scott Fletcher UT 5 36.52 42.25 1.17 5.57 85.51
Andre Dawson UT 6 39.58 36.13 1.14 7.68 84.53
Stan Musial UT 7 40.11 29.5 2.84 11.11 83.56
Reggie Smith UT 8 33.66 35.28 1 5.49 75.43
Hugh Duffy UT 9 32.79 35.3 0.27 5.44 73.8
Dale Murphy UT 10 33.48 31.6 0.69 7.29 73.06
Frank Robinson UT 11 35.15 30.24 0.17 6.42 71.98
Ernie Banks UT 12 36.13 29.91 0.02 5.46 71.52
Gil McDougald UT 13 30.07 37.76 0 2.94 70.77
Jackie Robinson UT 14 29.85 37.13 0.48 2.21 69.67
Tommy McCarthy UT 15 27.64 34.51 3.47 3.75 69.37
Jimmie Dykes UT 16 32.9 29.61 0 5.99 68.5
Jimmy Ryan UT 17 31.09 29.97 0.11 5.68 66.85
Pete Rose UT 18 37.88 22.63 0.14 6.18 66.83
Phil Garner UT 19 30.15 33.26 0 3.1 66.51
Dots Miller UT 20 28.81 33.4 0.33 3.84 66.38

Top 50 players overall by the normalized PCA/GI method

First Last Ps Rank OFFENSE DEFENSE PITCH NetGI
Babe Ruth UT 1 673.25 65.1 74.6 812.94
Ty Cobb CF 2 613.08 92.26 -0.14 705.2
Barry Bonds LF 3 628.58 64.95 0 693.54
Ted Williams LF 4 614.22 50.37 0 664.6
Rickey Henderson LF 5 541.24 98.38 0 639.62
Honus Wagner SS 6 510.05 111.14 0.04 621.23
Tris Speaker CF 7 446.12 155.47 0 601.59
Willie Mays CF 8 470.5 117.68 0 588.18
Stan Musial UT 9 499.34 83.56 0 582.9
Mickey Mantle CF 10 523.09 53.74 0 576.82
Hank Aaron RF 11 461.79 82.79 0 544.58
Rogers Hornsby 2B 12 478.45 64.03 0 542.47
Eddie Collins 2B 13 414.53 116 0 530.53
Lou Gehrig 1B 14 465.59 44.68 0 510.27
Mel Ott RF 15 455.95 36.92 0 492.86
Joe Morgan 2B 16 403.87 78.74 0 482.61
Nap Lajoie 2B 17 368.27 113.73 0 482
Frank Robinson UT 18 402.96 71.98 0 474.94
Jimmie Foxx 1B 19 393.36 58.31 3.26 454.93
Frank Thomas 1B 20 424.72 19.75 0 444.47
Walter Johnson SP 21 68.75 6.52 356.97 432.24
Billy Hamilton CF 22 350.08 78.29 0 428.37
Mike Schmidt 3B 23 337.68 78.45 0 416.13
Al Kaline RF 24 312.77 101.68 0 414.45
Reggie Jackson RF 25 353.84 58.91 0 412.75
Carl Yastrzemski LF 26 333.26 79.14 0 412.4
George Brett 3B 27 344.53 66.73 0 411.26
Ed Delahanty UT 28 350.46 57.65 0 408.12
Cy Young SP 29 30.82 19.08 353.36 403.26
Joe DiMaggio CF 30 316.98 82.51 0 399.49
Eddie Mathews 3B 31 347.04 51.05 0 398.09
Rod Carew UT 32 334.09 59.31 0 393.4
Mark McGwire 1B 33 356.53 26.71 0 383.24
Carlton Fisk C 34 216.63 66.5 0 382.23
Paul Waner RF 35 296.26 84.7 0 380.97
Robin Yount UT 36 281.37 96.68 0 378.05
Dan Brouthers 1B 37 341.82 36.92 -0.79 377.95
Roger Connor 1B 38 311.72 65.24 0 376.95
Tim Raines LF 39 309.25 63.94 0 373.19
Willie McCovey 1B 40 339.39 33.62 0 373.01
Wade Boggs 3B 41 314.71 57.63 0.02 372.36
Johnny Mize 1B 42 325.48 42.55 0 368.04
Paul Molitor UT 43 324.97 40.89 0 365.86
Roberto Clemente RF 44 256.87 102.94 0 359.81
George Davis UT 45 264.51 94.91 -0.18 359.24
Tony Gwynn RF 46 280.58 78.51 0 359.1
Fred Clarke LF 47 285.6 72.27 0 357.88
Harry Heilmann RF 48 324.2 31.8 0 356
Jeff Bagwell 1B 49 309.48 45.39 0 354.87
Charlie Gehringer 2B 50 258.25 96.5 0 354.75

538280

04-11-2006, 02:20 PM

3B
First Last Ps O-Rk CAREER RATE PEAK RANGE TOTAL
Eddie Mathews 3B 25 147.42 145.95 31.88 21.79 347.04
George Brett 3B 26 153.09 131.7 31.42 28.32 344.53
Mike Schmidt 3B 29 146.65 145.75 28.46 16.82 337.68

Matt, personally I think Schmidt should be certainly above Brett. Don't see anyway to have Brett ahead. I could see Mathews ahead just on offense, so not a big deal.

But, Brett....I realize the real reason why Brett is ahead is because he does better in the "range" category. Now, from what I understand that measures offensive wins above the career average, and is meant to eliminate biases against long career players with bad declines.

That, to me, seems to be a system that definitely favors Brett, who had a couple amazing offensive years, but his normal season wasn't nearly as good. In other words, there's a much bigger difference between his peak seasons and his normal seasons than is typical of players.

Schmidt, on the other hand, was consistently great every year, and never separated that much from his average, even though his best seasons may only be slightly lower than Brett and his normal season is way better.

So, the way I see it, Brett rates ahead basically because his career rate is lower, and because of that he was able to separate more from it in his peak seasons. Schmidt ranks behind because his career rate is higher.

Let me know if I'm misunderstanding, but from my interpretation that seems to be a very flawed method.

SABR Matt

04-11-2006, 02:39 PM

OK...you're correct in your interpretation of Brett's peak seasons and the meaning of the range statistic...however, if Brett had a lower career performance rate it doesn't really show up in his prorated wins statistic. If Schmidt were really consistantly better than Brett in his prime years, we would expect Brett's career scoring rate to be far worse...

In fact the way the ratings break down between Brett and Schmidt to me proves the validity of Range element. You'll notice that Schmidt's career scoring rate is just about as high above Brett's...as Brett's Range is above Schmidt's. They essentially cancel each other out. Which in the case of two players who had essentially the same kind of career, but one player had great peak seaosns (which intrinsically have more value than weaker peaks...and the difference is greater than what it appears to be numerically because greater peaks have a much higher probability of drastically changing the fortunes of your teams) and the other had a weaker peak but was more consistant...is what I was after.

Notice: Brett had a longer and more productive career than Schmidt offensively, and had more ability at his peak than Schmidt...I tend to put less of a premium on year to year consistency and more of a premium on things that I think define what greatness is to me...Absolute ability (peak performance), Lognevity, and Efficiency. The "Range" element is designed to work with the "Rate" element to best measure the player's Efficiency...because IMHO, the player scoring 8 wins every year for ten years is slightly less valuable to his team than the guy scoring 10, then 6, then 10, then 6...over the same lifespan because those ten win seasons are not linearly (2 wins) more valuable than the 8-win seasons. The more wins a player is worth, the less linear is the relationship between his value and the value of the average player...salary structure in today's game confirms that GMs think the same way. Great players...who are worth about twice as many wins as average players...don't make twice what the average player makes...they make 5 to 10 times what the average player makes.

Bill Burgess

04-11-2006, 02:46 PM

SABR Matt

04-11-2006, 02:55 PM

csh19792001

04-11-2006, 03:58 PM

I can present the normalized PCA ratings in any form now as well...so if anyone is curious about individual seasons, career structures, or anythign else that can be looked with uberstats for any player in the game's history, I can get the data pretty much instantly.

What's a Z-Score?

The z-score is a statistical measure of how a particular number compares to the average. Technically it is the number of standard deviations from the mean, but one need not have a complete mathematical understanding of the z-score to appreciate that it shows how a given player performs compared to the competition.

For example, if the league average for home runs is 9 and a player hits exactly 9 home runs, his z-score is zero. If he hits more than 9 HRs his z-score will be positive and if he hits fewer than 9 it will be negative. Precisely how positive and how negative will depend on how other players in the league fared. For example:

In the National League in 2001 the league average for home runs was about 12. The leaders:
Barry Bonds 73
Sammy Sosa 64
Luis Gonzalez 57
Several others also exceeded 40. Bonds' HR z-score was +5.20.

In the American League in 1920 the league average for home runs was about 4. The leaders:
Babe Ruth 54
George Sisler 19
Tilly Walker 19
Happy Felsch 17

Nobody else exceeded 12. Ruth hit nearly three times as many HRs as anyone else (in fact, he alone hit more than any team beside the Yankees), so his HR z-score was +8.45 which shows mathematically what we see intuitively: that his performance was more dominant than that of Bonds in 2001.
These two examples deal with some of the most extraordinary numbers of all time, but usually league leaders need not have such high z-scores. Also, certain statistics (like HRs and IBBs) are prone to higher z-scores than others. For example, the z-scores of recent American League OB% leaders:

Year Player OBP Z
2001 Giambi .477 +3.50 (6th all-time)
2002 Ramirez .450 +3.11 (25th all-time)
2003 Ramirez .427 +2.35
2004 Mora .419 +2.14

In short, z-score is a measure of a player's dominance in a given league and season. It allows us to compare players in different eras by quantifying how good they were compared to their competition. It it a useful measure but a relative one, and does not allow us to draw any absolute conclusions like "Babe Ruth was a better home run hitter than Barry Bonds." All we can say is that Ruth was more dominant in his time.

Example:
Highest Single Season Marks (Batting Average), arranged by Z-Scores:

Player Year / Lg AVG Z-Score
1. George Brett* 1980 AL .390 3.5937
2. Rod Carew* 1977 AL .388 3.5024
3. Wade Boggs* 1985 AL .368 3.1564
4. Tris Speaker* 1916 AL .386 3.1487
5. Rod Carew* 1974 AL .364 3.1269
6. Rogers Hornsby* 1924 NL .424 3.1249
7. Wade Boggs* 1988 AL .366 3.1075
8. Nap Lajoie* 1910 AL .384 3.0488
9. Ty Cobb* 1910 AL .383 3.0351
10. Nap Lajoie* 1901 AL .426 3.0194
11. Tony Gwynn 1994 NL .394 2.9848
12. Ichiro Suzuki 2004 AL .372 2.9685
13. Ted Williams* 1957 AL .388 2.9668
14. Barry Bonds 2002 NL .370 2.9444
15. Wade Boggs* 1986 AL .357 2.9167

This is illustative of the fact that these seasons all fell between the 99.97th and 99.99th percentile historically. The increments seperating them are infinitesmally small, in the scope of 16,241 players and 135 years of Major League Baseball.

http://www.alexreisner.com/baseball/stats/stat?s=AVG

SABR Matt

04-11-2006, 04:12 PM

How is that in reply to what I said? Not that I object to that article being posted...that is the basic idea behind normalizing PCA wins.

I can present z-scores for individual seasonal scoring rates and z-score leaders if anyone cares to see it in that form...

csh19792001

04-11-2006, 04:32 PM

How is that in reply to what I said?

It wasn't a reply; I was just abetting your tangent (as the title of the post itself denotes). :)

I figure it can't hurt to present something other than the same old tired stats based on league means, while also attempting to explain the rationale and methodology behind them.

William- if you want to move this to the stats forum or to its own thread, I'd have no objections. It may be more pertinent there and out of place on this thread, I don't know.

SABR Matt

04-11-2006, 04:40 PM

it seems like a tangent but it's actually a continuation of discussion on another thread (the Official Opinions thread)...I don't object to a copy of the original statistics I posted with subsequent discussion about the rankings and statistics being copied to the stats forum at your discretion.

SABR Matt

04-11-2006, 05:03 PM

Some example z-score leaderboards along with playing time and normalized wins...

Offensive seasons with a >3 z-score having at least 300 PA
PlayerID Yr Lg ZSCORE PA Norm_W
ruthba01 1920 AL 4.880 616 22.36
bondsba01 2004 NL 4.656 617 21.55
henderi01 1990 AL 4.654 594 20.74
bondsba01 2002 NL 4.481 612 20.72
ruthba01 1921 AL 4.426 693 23.23
brettge01 1980 AL 4.243 515 16.68
cobbty01 1910 AL 4.238 590 19.09
wagneho01 1908 NL 4.189 641 20.55
cobbty01 1917 AL 4.145 669 21.27
ruthba01 1924 AL 3.997 681 21.03
wagneho01 1904 NL 3.981 558 17.18
lajoina01 1901 AL 3.975 582 17.89
willite01 1957 AL 3.954 546 16.72
mantlmi01 1956 AL 3.948 652 19.94
mantlmi01 1962 AL 3.926 502 15.28
thomeji01 2002 AL 3.886 613 18.51
mantlmi01 1957 AL 3.884 623 18.81
willite01 1941 AL 3.872 606 18.25
ruthba01 1926 AL 3.829 652 19.46
willite01 1948 AL 3.827 638 19.04
ruthba01 1919 AL 3.818 542 16.14
giambja01 2001 AL 3.793 671 19.88
bondsba01 2001 NL 3.777 664 19.61
ruthba01 1923 AL 3.767 699 20.60
lajoina01 1904 AL 3.741 594 17.41
giambja01 2000 AL 3.711 664 19.34
henderi01 1985 AL 3.710 654 19.05
musiast01 1948 NL 3.688 694 20.11
hornsro01 1924 NL 3.674 640 18.50
carewro01 1977 AL 3.666 694 20.02
mcgwima01 1995 AL 3.547 422 11.87
willite01 1954 AL 3.521 526 14.71
morgajo02 1975 NL 3.511 639 17.83
bondsba01 2003 NL 3.508 550 15.33
wagneho01 1907 NL 3.501 580 16.15
thomafr04 1994 AL 3.493 517 14.37
henderi01 1993 AL 3.475 407 11.26
bondsba01 1992 NL 3.471 612 16.92
hornsro01 1925 NL 3.467 605 16.72
mcgwima01 1996 AL 3.451 548 15.09
mageesh01 1910 NL 3.45 647 17.81
molitpa01 1987 AL 3.436 542 14.87
willite01 1947 AL 3.432 693 19.00
wakefdi01 1944 AL 3.418 332 9.07
thomafr04 1997 AL 3.398 649 17.65
willite01 1946 AL 3.379 672 18.20
hamilbi01 1891 NL 3.337 636 17.06
bondsba01 1993 NL 3.328 674 18.05
cobbty01 1911 AL 3.307 654 17.42
brownpe01 1882 AA 3.301 314 8.36
hornsro01 1922 NL 3.295 704 18.71
ansonca01 1881 NL 3.276 369 9.76
duffyhu01 1894 NL 3.275 606 16.03
cobbty01 1912 AL 3.273 609 16.10
bondsba01 1996 NL 3.268 675 17.82
delahed01 1899 NL 3.261 645 17.00
hamilbi01 1893 NL 3.253 431 11.34
bagweje01 1994 NL 3.243 479 12.57
carrofr01 1889 NL 3.240 414 10.86
cobbty01 1909 AL 3.229 651 17.03
henderi01 1989 AL 3.225 381 9.96
delahed01 1896 NL 3.224 574 15.00
ruthba01 1932 AL 3.214 589 15.36
ottme01 1939 NL 3.212 508 13.24
ruthba01 1928 AL 3.210 684 17.82
willite01 1960 AL 3.189 390 10.11
hornsro01 1921 NL 3.172 674 17.40
mccovwi01 1969 NL 3.17 623 16.08
martied01 1995 AL 3.16 639 16.45
morgajo02 1976 NL 3.154 599 15.40
oneilti01 1887 AA 3.149 572 14.69
pagemi02 1977 AL 3.148 592 15.20
willite01 1949 AL 3.136 730 18.68
musiast01 1946 NL 3.135 702 17.97
willite01 1955 AL 3.089 417 10.55
gehrilo01 1934 AL 3.071 690 17.39
wagneho01 1900 NL 3.064 580 14.59
mantlmi01 1961 AL 3.055 646 16.21
thompja01 1980 AL 3.051 387 9.70
allendi01 1972 AL 3.050 609 15.27
cobbty01 1918 AL 3.038 473 11.82
connoro01 1886 NL 3.034 526 13.13
hamilbi01 1898 NL 3.032 508 12.68
stargwi01 1973 NL 3.028 609 15.18
speaktr01 1912 AL 3.025 675 16.82
kauffbe01 1915 FL 3.022 581 14.47
walkela01 1999 NL 3.022 513 12.77
walkela01 1997 NL 3.018 664 16.51
ruthba01 1931 AL 3.016 663 16.48
foxxji01 1932 AL 3.010 701 17.40

I can do the same kind of thing for fielders...pitchers...any position...restricted time periods...different cut-off points for significance...I can compare old PCA win counts to normalized win counts...etc

Sultan_1895-1948

04-11-2006, 05:19 PM

you lost me at "z-score." :ughh :o

RuthMayBond

04-11-2006, 06:06 PM

you lost me at "z-score." :ughh :oNo biggie, he just cut and pasted it from alexreisner.com :waving :waving

csh19792001

04-11-2006, 09:14 PM

No biggie, he just cut and pasted it from alexreisner.com :waving :waving

I was actually posting that to share something new with everyone- I posted the link (which I didn't have to do). I'm glad, though, that you can appreciate and thoughtfully reflect on what was presented (we can all always count on you for that). I also think it's great that regularly present novel information and unique insights that everyone can learn from here.

Your membership has really enriched this forum for as long as I can remember. I'm sure everyone would really miss your contributions were you not around anymore.

SABR Matt

04-11-2006, 10:20 PM

RRRRREEEEEEEOOOOOOWWWWWW!!!!!!

OK boys...play nice...LOL

Sultan_1895-1948

04-11-2006, 10:27 PM

No biggie, he just cut and pasted it from alexreisner.com :waving :waving

Should have quoted who I was referring to. That's my fault. I didn't read up far enough; just saw Matt's chart post #173 I think it was. Reading up, Chris did present a nice post that broke down Zscore.

SABR Matt

04-11-2006, 10:29 PM

Sultan_1895-1948

04-11-2006, 11:09 PM

, HWR...

I kinda do now. Thanks "PeerAccount Frank" :D

SABR Matt

04-11-2006, 11:43 PM

LOL...sorry Sultan...for some reason you and HWR get blended together in my head...don't ask me to explain that. :)

SABR Matt

04-12-2006, 02:08 AM

Here's a little adaptation to the original Z-Score research.

While all of the information you need to diagnose a player's season by PCA is included in the z-score data...a z-value doesn't have an intuitive baseball meeting. You can look at a batting average and know that .300 is good, .260ish is average and .220 is lousy. The same cannot be said for z-scores obviously...although anyone with some basic statistics knowledge knows that a 3 represents something within the top half a percent or so of the population.

By determining the all-time weighted mean and standard deviation of the batting average distribution, I was relatively easily able to fit the PCA Win distributions to the batting average distribution, and BAM...you've got an equivalent batting average (BP...sort of...does this in fitting runs created to the Equivalent Average framework...I don't think they directly fit one distribution to another though).

I've dubbed my version "PBA" (short for PCA batting average)...

Now here's the career of, for example, Hank Aaron using PBA:

Yr Lg PA PBA
1954 NL 509 0.266
1955 NL 665 0.319
1956 NL 660 0.317
1957 NL 675 0.353
1958 NL 664 0.337
1959 NL 693 0.377
1960 NL 664 0.350
1961 NL 671 0.356
1962 NL 667 0.371
1963 NL 714 0.386
1964 NL 634 0.350
1965 NL 639 0.349
1966 NL 688 0.332
1967 NL 669 0.363
1968 NL 676 0.326
1969 NL 639 0.376
1970 NL 598 0.332
1971 NL 573 0.402
1972 NL 544 0.317
1973 NL 465 0.355
1974 NL 382 0.304
1975 AL 543 0.253
1976 AL 308 0.256

Average is actually .262...not .260

For comparison...here are the top hitters in PBA with at least 300 PA:

PlayerID Yr Lg PA PCA_BA
ruthba01 1920 AL 616 0.500
henderi01 1990 AL 594 0.495
bondsba01 2004 NL 617 0.495
bondsba01 2002 NL 612 0.487
ruthba01 1921 AL 693 0.484
brettge01 1980 AL 515 0.475
cobbty01 1910 AL 590 0.474
wagneho01 1908 NL 641 0.472
cobbty01 1917 AL 669 0.470
wagneho01 1904 NL 558 0.462
ruthba01 1924 AL 681 0.462
lajoina01 1901 AL 582 0.461
willite01 1957 AL 546 0.460
mantlmi01 1956 AL 652 0.460
mantlmi01 1962 AL 502 0.459
thomeji01 2002 AL 613 0.457
mantlmi01 1957 AL 623 0.457
willite01 1941 AL 606 0.456
ruthba01 1926 AL 652 0.454
willite01 1948 AL 638 0.454
ruthba01 1919 AL 542 0.453
giambja01 2001 AL 671 0.452
ruthba01 1923 AL 699 0.451
bondsba01 2001 NL 664 0.451
lajoina01 1904 AL 594 0.450
giambja01 2000 AL 664 0.448
henderi01 1985 AL 654 0.448
musiast01 1948 NL 694 0.447
carewro01 1977 AL 694 0.446
hornsro01 1924 NL 640 0.446
mcgwima01 1995 AL 422 0.440
willite01 1954 AL 526 0.439
wagneho01 1907 NL 580 0.438
morgajo02 1975 NL 639 0.438
bondsba01 2003 NL 550 0.438
thomafr04 1994 AL 517 0.437
henderi01 1993 AL 407 0.436
hornsro01 1925 NL 605 0.436
bondsba01 1992 NL 612 0.436
mcgwima01 1996 AL 548 0.435
mageesh01 1910 NL 647 0.435
molitpa01 1987 AL 542 0.434
willite01 1947 AL 693 0.434
wakefdi01 1944 AL 332 0.433
thomafr04 1997 AL 649 0.432
willite01 1946 AL 672 0.431
hamilbi01 1891 NL 636 0.429
bondsba01 1993 NL 674 0.429
brownpe01 1882 AA 314 0.428
cobbty01 1911 AL 654 0.428
hornsro01 1922 NL 704 0.427
duffyhu01 1894 NL 606 0.426
ansonca01 1881 NL 369 0.426
cobbty01 1912 AL 609 0.426
bondsba01 1996 NL 675 0.426
delahed01 1899 NL 645 0.425
hamilbi01 1893 NL 431 0.425
bagweje01 1994 NL 479 0.425
delahed01 1896 NL 574 0.424
henderi01 1989 AL 381 0.424
cobbty01 1909 AL 651 0.424
carrofr01 1889 NL 414 0.424
ruthba01 1928 AL 684 0.423
ottme01 1939 NL 508 0.423
ruthba01 1932 AL 589 0.423
willite01 1960 AL 390 0.422
hornsro01 1921 NL 674 0.421
mccovwi01 1969 NL 623 0.421
pagemi02 1977 AL 592 0.420
martied01 1995 AL 639 0.420
oneilti01 1887 AA 572 0.420
morgajo02 1976 NL 599 0.420
musiast01 1946 NL 702 0.419
willite01 1949 AL 730 0.419
willite01 1955 AL 417 0.417
wagneho01 1900 NL 580 0.416
gehrilo01 1934 AL 690 0.416
thompja01 1980 AL 387 0.415
allendi01 1972 AL 609 0.415
mantlmi01 1961 AL 646 0.415
kauffbe01 1915 FL 581 0.414
cobbty01 1918 AL 473 0.414
hamilbi01 1898 NL 508 0.414
speaktr01 1912 AL 675 0.414
connoro01 1886 NL 526 0.414
stargwi01 1973 NL 609 0.414
walkela01 1999 NL 513 0.414
foxxji01 1932 AL 701 0.413
ruthba01 1931 AL 663 0.413
walkela01 1997 NL 664 0.413
brettge01 1985 AL 665 0.412
henderi01 1983 AL 622 0.412
cobbty01 1907 AL 646 0.412
gehrilo01 1935 AL 672 0.412
clarkja01 1987 NL 558 0.412
ruthba01 1918 AL 380 0.410
ottme01 1932 NL 673 0.410
mcgwima01 2000 NL 321 0.410
barnero01 1876 NL 342 0.409
brownpe01 1887 AA 610 0.408

Sultan_1895-1948

04-12-2006, 02:30 AM

So what's a good number? If .262 is Johnny Scrubhead, then a great season would be around a .400? And what is it telling us again? How does it differ from plain old relative BA? Please keep it as unadorned as possible.

SABR Matt

04-12-2006, 03:25 AM

First I have to correct the numbers..i decided to throw out extremely short playing-time generated batting averages and recalculate mean and standard deviation of batting averages for players having 100 ABs or more.

The mean is now .270 as opposed to .262 and the standard deviation is .037 (it was .051).

This change made the PBAs look a LOT more like ordinary batting averages. The new top 100 list for players with at least 300 PAs:

PlayerID Yr Lg PA PCA_BA
ruthba01 1920 AL 616 0.455
henderi01 1990 AL 594 0.446
bondsba01 2004 NL 617 0.446
bondsba01 2002 NL 612 0.440
ruthba01 1921 AL 693 0.438
brettge01 1980 AL 515 0.431
cobbty01 1910 AL 590 0.431
wagneho01 1908 NL 641 0.429
cobbty01 1917 AL 669 0.427
lajoina01 1901 AL 582 0.421
ruthba01 1924 AL 681 0.421
wagneho01 1904 NL 558 0.421
willite01 1957 AL 546 0.420
mantlmi01 1956 AL 652 0.420
mantlmi01 1962 AL 502 0.419
thomeji01 2002 AL 613 0.417
willite01 1941 AL 606 0.417
mantlmi01 1957 AL 623 0.417
ruthba01 1926 AL 652 0.415
ruthba01 1919 AL 542 0.415
willite01 1948 AL 638 0.415
giambja01 2001 AL 671 0.414
ruthba01 1923 AL 699 0.413
bondsba01 2001 NL 664 0.413
lajoina01 1904 AL 594 0.412
giambja01 2000 AL 664 0.411
henderi01 1985 AL 654 0.411
musiast01 1948 NL 694 0.410
hornsro01 1924 NL 640 0.409
carewro01 1977 AL 694 0.409
mcgwima01 1995 AL 422 0.404
willite01 1954 AL 526 0.403
wagneho01 1907 NL 580 0.403
bondsba01 2003 NL 550 0.403
morgajo02 1975 NL 639 0.403
thomafr04 1994 AL 517 0.402
henderi01 1993 AL 407 0.402
bondsba01 1992 NL 612 0.402
mageesh01 1910 NL 647 0.401
hornsro01 1925 NL 605 0.401
mcgwima01 1996 AL 548 0.401
molitpa01 1987 AL 542 0.400
wakefdi01 1944 AL 332 0.400
willite01 1947 AL 693 0.400
thomafr04 1997 AL 649 0.399
willite01 1946 AL 672 0.398
hamilbi01 1891 NL 636 0.396
bondsba01 1993 NL 674 0.396
brownpe01 1882 AA 314 0.395
hornsro01 1922 NL 704 0.395
cobbty01 1911 AL 654 0.395
delahed01 1899 NL 645 0.394
cobbty01 1912 AL 609 0.394
ansonca01 1881 NL 369 0.394
duffyhu01 1894 NL 606 0.394
bondsba01 1996 NL 675 0.394
carrofr01 1889 NL 414 0.393
hamilbi01 1893 NL 431 0.393
bagweje01 1994 NL 479 0.393
delahed01 1896 NL 574 0.392
ruthba01 1928 AL 684 0.392
ruthba01 1932 AL 589 0.392
ottme01 1939 NL 508 0.392
cobbty01 1909 AL 651 0.392
henderi01 1989 AL 381 0.392
willite01 1960 AL 390 0.391
hornsro01 1921 NL 674 0.390
martied01 1995 AL 639 0.390
mccovwi01 1969 NL 623 0.390
morgajo02 1976 NL 599 0.390
musiast01 1946 NL 702 0.389
willite01 1949 AL 730 0.389
oneilti01 1887 AA 572 0.389
pagemi02 1977 AL 592 0.389
willite01 1955 AL 417 0.387
allendi01 1972 AL 609 0.386
thompja01 1980 AL 387 0.386
wagneho01 1900 NL 580 0.386
mantlmi01 1961 AL 646 0.386
gehrilo01 1934 AL 690 0.386
speaktr01 1912 AL 675 0.385
cobbty01 1918 AL 473 0.385
kauffbe01 1915 FL 581 0.385
hamilbi01 1898 NL 508 0.385
connoro01 1886 NL 526 0.385
stargwi01 1973 NL 609 0.385
walkela01 1999 NL 513 0.385
foxxji01 1932 AL 701 0.384
brettge01 1985 AL 665 0.384
gehrilo01 1935 AL 672 0.384
henderi01 1983 AL 622 0.384
ruthba01 1931 AL 663 0.384
walkela01 1997 NL 664 0.384
cobbty01 1907 AL 646 0.383
clarkja01 1987 NL 558 0.383
ruthba01 1918 AL 380 0.382
ottme01 1932 NL 673 0.382
mcgwima01 2000 NL 321 0.382
willite01 1942 AL 671 0.381
belleal01 1994 AL 480 0.381

Now to explain what these numbers mean. The idea was to turn PCA Wins into a batting average like metric.

Let's say a player was worth 20 normalized wins in his greatest season, and he scored those wins in 600 plate appearances.

Now the alltime average scoring rate (normalized wins are all placed on a single distribution based on the average standard deviation of win scoring rates and the alltime average scoring rate) is about .00633 Wins/PA and the standard deviation was about .00617...so this figurative player, who scored at the rate of .03333 wins/PA would get a z-score of (.03333 - .00633) / .00617 (z = (observed value - mean value) / standard deviation) or 4.38.

This titanic hitter is up in the top 1/10000th of all player-seasons. Since we know the mean and standard deviation of batting average (.270 and .037 roughly), we can re-write the z-score equation:

4.38 (his PCA z-score for wins) = (PBA - .270)/.037

.270 + (4.38 * .037) = PBA...his PBA would be .432 (which is...incidentally...about the same as the highest full-season batting averages in the game's history).

Think of PBA exactly like you'd think of BA. .270 is average. .300 is good. .330 is VERY good. .400 is historically good. The best players of all time have peak seasons above .380 in PBA...the worst significant seasons are down in the upper .100s.

Hank Aaron's career PBA figures:

Yr Lg PA PCA_BA
1954 NL 509 0.273
1955 NL 665 0.313
1956 NL 660 0.312
1957 NL 675 0.338
1958 NL 664 0.327
1959 NL 693 0.357
1960 NL 664 0.337
1961 NL 671 0.341
1962 NL 667 0.353
1963 NL 714 0.363
1964 NL 634 0.337
1965 NL 639 0.336
1966 NL 688 0.323
1967 NL 669 0.346
1968 NL 676 0.318
1969 NL 639 0.356
1970 NL 598 0.323
1971 NL 573 0.376
1972 NL 544 0.312
1973 NL 465 0.340
1974 NL 382 0.302
1975 AL 543 0.263
1976 AL 308 0.266

If you had a player who hit that for his career...you'd be a pretty happy camper. :)

SABR Matt

04-12-2006, 03:27 AM

Here...by contrast...is Bill Bergen:

Yr Lg PA PBA
1901 NL 326 0.215
1902 NL 342 0.198
1903 NL 218 0.210
1904 NL 347 0.212
1905 NL 265 0.215
1906 NL 372 0.211
1907 NL 143 0.196
1908 NL 320 0.217
1909 NL 372 0.189
1910 NL 273 0.195
1911 NL 250 0.180

RuthMayBond

04-12-2006, 05:54 AM

I was actually posting that to share something new with everyone- I posted the link (which I didn't have to do). I'm glad, though, that you can appreciate and thoughtfully reflect on what was presented (we can all always count on you for that). I also think it's great that regularly present novel information and unique insights that everyone can learn from here.

Your membership has really enriched this forum for as long as I can remember. I'm sure everyone would really miss your contributions were you not around anymore.Well, I appreciate you really changing your tune, Chris (and I like the info in your posts too :clapping ) I guess every class needs a clown so I might as well be it. I just hope villages who are missing their idiots don't find out about me :laugh

RuthMayBond

04-12-2006, 05:55 AM

LOL...sorry Sultan...for some reason you and HWR get blended together in my head...don't ask me to explain that. :)I tend to get Sultan & csh19792001 blended :crazy

Bill Burgess

04-12-2006, 06:27 AM

I guess every class needs a clown so I might as well be it. I just hope villages who are missing their idiots don't find out about me :laughFat chance pal. That is my gig. Get yourself another Village!

Nerdgeek King of Turds

Bill Burgess

04-12-2006, 06:29 AM

Hopefully you understand what I meant by Z-Score, HWR...it's a representation of departure from the mean that accounts for the spread of the distribution...and in my case, I was normalizing PCA Win rates.Gotcha. Pie equals the square rute of my naval lint cubed, divided by toejam cheese? :grouchy :crazy

csh19792001

04-12-2006, 11:13 AM

Gotcha. Pie equals the square rute of my naval lint cubed, divided by toejam cheese? :grouchy :crazy

Hope I'm not wasting my time here, but I'll proceed anyway...

I'm not sure if the information from my earlier post on Z-Scores helped, but in case you're interested in learning about and understanding SD's, here's a good link.

http://www.robertniles.com/stats/stdev.shtml

It's just conceptual- no math formulae involved, I promise. Math only confuses most people (myself included) anyway.

We always use means here- "relative slugging", "OPS+", etc. The league hit .269 the year George Brett hit .390, he exceeded the league average by 121 points. But how meaningful is this, really, if we're going to put him up against guys who played against a completely different talent pool (which is what we do here all the time).

Did Nap Lajoie (who outhit his league by 137 points in 1901) actually have a better year hitting for average than Brett? Almost certainly not, and intuitively we would think that might be the case, but looking at the standard deviations is simply lending evidence to this hypothesis- by looking not just at the best in comparison to the average guy in that league, but at the spead of talent.

I don't know where George Brett's 1980 season ranks in terms of the traditional "relative batting average" list (do you have that handy)? But it's #1 alltime on the SD based list.

I'm not sure how to better explain it- I tried here:
http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=514119&postcount=30

Hope this helps.

RuthMayBond

04-12-2006, 11:16 AM

I don't know where George Brett's 1980 season ranks in terms of the traditional "relative batting average" list (do you have that handy)? But it's #1 alltime on the SD based list.He had an incredible year when he was playing, but I don't get that a guy who missed FORTY-FIVE games had the best season ever :confused: :noidea

SABR Matt

04-12-2006, 11:28 AM

C'Mon Bill! :) This ain't that complicated a statistical concept. Compared to the work they do at the hardball times or Tango Tiger's research, I'm still fashioning stone tools here while they're in the industrial age as far as complex math goes. LOL

More fun with numbers. With PBAs calculated, I can multiply them with the player's playing time (for batters, plate appearances, for pitchers, defense independent outs, for fielders PRGs)...and calculate PCA "Hits"...and therefore career PBAs...

Here are the top twenty position players with at least 500 PAs in terms of career PBA:

Player PBA PA
Babe Ruth 0.385 10617
Ted Williams 0.381 9791
Barry Bonds 0.369 11584
Mickey Mantle 0.360 9909
Ty Cobb 0.356 13072
Rogers Hornsby 0.354 9475
Frank Thomas 0.352 8478
Lou Gehrig 0.351 9660
Honus Wagner 0.343 11739
Billy Hamilton 0.342 7584
Benny Kauff 0.342 3564
Dan Brouthers 0.341 7653
Joe Jackson 0.341 5690
R. Henderson 0.341 13346
Mel Ott 0.340 11333
Stan Musial 0.340 12712
Mark McGwire 0.340 7660
Johnny Mize 0.338 7371
Todd Helton 0.338 4798
Hank Greenberg 0.336 6095

SABR Matt

04-12-2006, 11:34 AM

Hope I'm not wasting my time here, but I'll proceed anyway...

Obviously, PCA is a lot less prone to goofy returns than naked batting average or even relative average...but there are variations in the standard deviation of PCA win scoring rates and even some fluctuations in the scoring mean as credit shifts around freely between offense and defense (slightly) and between pitchers and fielding units (majorly). The normalized version avoids those variations.

And the results would appear to speak for themsveles...they're definitely significantly more crisp and logical than the already fairly solid (relatively speaking) findings from the un-normalized method.

csh19792001

04-12-2006, 11:39 AM

He had an incredible year when he was playing, but I don't get that a guy who missed FORTY-FIVE games had the best season ever :confused: :noidea

I agree, but batting average measures rate irresepctive of quantity. Brett's 1980 also ranks 5th alltime in RC/PA.

SABR Matt

04-12-2006, 12:07 PM

Right...the weakness of standard deviation research as is shown on that website is that it doesn't account for the fact that the less you play, the higher the likelihood is of wider variations in your batting average. Brett's 1980 season, although it appears to be the most unlikely (rare) batting average season of all time, is probably NOT the most unlikely...though it may be close...and that is because it is increasingly likely that a player will happen to cluster hits in such a way as to mount a high batting average the fewer at bats he takes (he is also increasingly likely to have a poorly timed slump that kills the BA).

Sultan_1895-1948

04-12-2006, 03:35 PM

csh19792001

04-12-2006, 04:43 PM

So let me try to get this straight. From what Chris and Matt have posted on zscore..

It's basically a fancy form of relative batting average?

It not only takes into account their relative batting average, but makes an adjustment by accounting for the likelihood of someone being further above lg avg.

In other words, since the beginning of baseball, until now, the odds of someone being further away from the mean has slowly decreased for various reasons, and zscore factors this in.

Which leads me to a question. If everyone recently has been taking the same approach, and the league BA is low because of it, why isn't Gwynn on those lists? Shouldn't he look like a God, because he would only stand out that much more in supposedly the highest talent era in history?

And is there a zscore for the power department that adjusts these guys down, since the homer has become so easy for everyone?

Gwynn DOES come out a God, actually. The first Schell book was polemical because it claimed Gwynn was the greatest hitter ever (people didn't understand Schell was only talking about BA and people got into an uproar about it). In his latest book, he looks not just at average, but every important offensive event.

Although he was almost 30 points behind Cobb in mean adjusted BA (which is ridiculous amount at that level), Gwynn actually comes out a fraction ahead of Ty after all the adjustments are made. Now, this comes with a caveat, which I raised when the thread was originally presented. Metal Ed aptly called it "The Babe Ruth/Tony Gwynn scenario". (It's the same reason, Sultan, why Babe ends up with 2,200 career K's, believe it or not). He and Gwynn were such outliers in terms of style that their respective fortes (or outlier numbers) are overestimated by Schell as a result.

Here's the explanation:

Here:
http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=277687&postcount=14
And Here:
http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=278102&postcount=17

Matt Sounders:
Do you want to field the other questions? You run circles around me with anything statistical. :)

csh19792001

04-12-2006, 04:46 PM

Randy, tell me what you think of these two respective lists, and why:

Schell's Adjusted BA:
1. Gwynn .338
2. Cobb .336
3. Carew .332
4. Hornsby .327
5. Musial .327
6. Lajoie .324
7. Joe Jackson .324
8. Wagner .324
9. Williams .322
10. Boggs .322
11. Browning .321
12. Speaker .319
13. Piazza .313
14. Brouthers .312
15, Puckett .312
16. Guerrero .311
17. Oliva .312
18. Donlin .311
19. Keeler .311
20. Edgar Martinez .311
21. Aaron .310
22. Derek Jeter .309
23. Joe Dimaggio .309
24. Babe Ruth .309
25. Eddie Collins .309

Ruth gets downgraded more than he should in average, but gets augmented more than he should in SLG/OBP/HR/K's because he was a complete iconoclast.

AVERAGE AVG
1 Ty Cobb .366
2 Rogers Hornsby .358
3 Joe Jackson .356
4 Lefty O'Doul .349
5 Ed Delahanty .346
6 Tris Speaker .345
7 Ted Williams .344
8 Billy Hamilton .344
9 Dave Orr .342
10 Dan Brouthers .342
11 Babe Ruth .342
12 Harry Heilmann .342
13 Pete Browning .341
14 Willie Keeler .341
15 Bill Terry .341
16 George Sisler .340
17 Lou Gehrig .340
18 Ichiro Suzuki .339
19 Todd Helton .339
20 Jake Stenzel .339
21 Jesse Burkett .338
22 Tony Gwynn .338
23 Nap Lajoie .338
24 Riggs Stephenson .336
25 Al Simmons .334

SABR Matt

04-12-2006, 05:56 PM

I want to make this absolutely clear Sultan (and anyone else who may be confused)...

IN THE CONTEXT OF SCHELL'S WORK...that being on z-score performances with respect to BA alone...the z-converted batting averages are something like a fancy form of relative BA (except that RelBA is expressed as a percentage of the average...not as a BA-like number)...in that it measures a player's batting relative to the distribution of other players.

What I'm presenting...PBA...is *not* like relative batting average although it's expressed on a BA scale. It is a scaled representation of offensive excellence in the form of something very familiar...a batting average. The ONLY reason I thought about putting PCA wins in this form is that I frequently get people asking me (with good reason) what the heck it means when I give a player's career in the form of PCA wins created. "How good are five wins? How bad is a player that produces no wins...?" etc. With normalized PCA statistics, I'm able to put it in a form that should immediately make sense for people used to looking at batting averages.

You have the central idea correct...a z-score...the number itself...represents the number of standard deviations away from the mean a variable is...and a standard deviation is simply a measure of how spread apart the distribution is. Hitting .400 when the league BA is .260 with a standard deviation of .080 isn't the same as hitting .400 with the standard dseviation set at .040...even though the average didn't change. Scoring 10 PCA offensive wins in a league with a lot of talent gap problems (like for instance, 1933, when competitive imbalance reached a local maximum, especially in the NL) doesn't mean NEARLY as much as it does today and even less so than it did in 1972.

The PCA batting average equivalency is an expression of a player's performance (expressed in win scoring rate) relative to the average perfoirmance of the league (like a Relative BA), but with the spread of that league factored in.

SABR Matt

04-12-2006, 05:57 PM

Hopefully that answers the questions...

And it's Souders...no N. :)

Sultan_1895-1948

04-12-2006, 07:38 PM

Gwynn DOES come out a God, actually.

In post #184 he's nowhere to be found.

Schell's Adjusted BA:
1. Gwynn .338
2. Cobb .336
3. Carew .332
4. Hornsby .327
5. Musial .327
6. Lajoie .324
7. Joe Jackson .324
8. Wagner .324
9. Williams .322
10. Boggs .322
11. Browning .321
12. Speaker .319
13. Piazza .313
14. Brouthers .312
15, Puckett .312
16. Guerrero .311
17. Oliva .312
18. Donlin .311
19. Keeler .311
20. Edgar Martinez .311
21. Aaron .310
22. Derek Jeter .309
23. Joe Dimaggio .309
24. Babe Ruth .309
25. Eddie Collins .309

Well, with the Babe thing, the bad must be taken with the good. At least the illogical numbers are consistent, and Schell apparently knew he was just going with surface numbers; not considering anything further.

I see no reason why Williams should be that much higher than DiMaggio and Ruth. Christ, he's got Edgar ahead of Collins, Ruth, and Aaron ! The grain of salt that must be taken with these, needs to be observed guy Guiness.

Matt, it is nicer to have the numbers come out looking more like batting averages instead of .00333222 or just 43,55, 33, 22...whatever. So that's cool.

SABR Matt

04-12-2006, 10:18 PM

I think Gwynn fails to show up in post 184 because that's individual batting seasons and while Gwynn was very very consistant...he never had the kind of eye popping batting average number in any one season that screams anomaly.

Lots of .340s and .350s...no .380s.

leecemark

04-12-2006, 10:26 PM

--What about 1994?

SABR Matt

04-12-2006, 10:27 PM

Matt, it is nicer to have the numbers come out looking more like batting averages instead of .00333222 or just 43,55, 33, 22...whatever. So that's cool.

Yeah...the goal was to make PCA figures a little more readable...I can throw all the win counts and relative win counts (Wins/Expected Wins) onto this board that I want...and with the GI method, I can throw up amalgum statistics that bear no resemblence to wins created, but most of you probably will never know what those figures actually mean.

Here are a few example offensive careers from different skill levels to exemplify how this method helps distill ability at a glance.

Jay Buhner
Yr Lg PA PBA
1987 AL 23 0.203
1988 AL 76 0.223
1988 AL 223 0.273
1989 AL 226 0.311
1990 AL 185 0.283
1991 AL 471 0.290
1992 AL 629 0.269
1993 AL 675 0.288
1994 AL 436 0.300
1995 AL 539 0.285
1996 AL 667 0.287
1997 AL 665 0.286
1998 AL 286 0.274
1999 AL 343 0.273
2000 AL 430 0.284
2001 AL 53 0.251

Neifi Perez
Yr Lg PA PBA
1996 NL 46 0.068
1997 NL 344 0.263
1998 NL 712 0.232
1999 NL 732 0.231
2000 NL 699 0.235
2001 NL 403 0.252
2001 AL 220 0.205
2002 AL 585 0.169
2003 NL 353 0.244
2004 NL 67 0.307
2004 NL 353 0.228

Jose Canseco
Yr Lg PA PBA
1985 AL 100 0.305
1986 AL 682 0.292
1987 AL 691 0.278
1988 AL 705 0.380
1989 AL 258 0.314
1990 AL 563 0.335
1991 AL 665 0.354
1992 AL 421 0.272
1992 AL 91 0.311
1993 AL 253 0.270
1994 AL 505 0.294
1995 AL 450 0.302
1996 AL 432 0.314
1997 AL 446 0.261
1998 AL 658 0.276
1999 AL 502 0.312
2000 AL 264 0.291
2000 AL 137 0.269
2001 AL 306 0.287

Jeff Cirillo
Yr Lg PA PBA
1994 AL 139 0.233
1995 AL 384 0.291
1996 AL 643 0.293
1997 AL 661 0.278
1998 NL 694 0.293
1999 NL 697 0.286
2000 NL 684 0.274
2001 NL 586 0.269
2002 AL 547 0.249
2003 AL 293 0.213
2004 NL 81 0.239

Otis Nixon
Yr Lg PA PBA
1983 AL 15 0.183
1984 AL 103 0.154
1985 AL 174 0.240
1986 AL 110 0.306
1987 AL 20 0.092
1988 NL 305 0.276
1989 NL 293 0.258
1990 NL 263 0.288
1991 NL 460 0.293
1992 NL 502 0.282
1993 NL 532 0.269
1994 AL 461 0.268
1995 AL 656 0.259
1996 AL 575 0.267
1997 AL 464 0.261
1997 NL 191 0.269
1998 AL 500 0.276
1999 NL 176 0.252

Albert Pujols
Yr Lg PA PBA
2001 NL 676 0.317
2002 NL 675 0.315
2003 NL 685 0.372
2004 NL 692 0.340

Babe Ruth
Yr Lg PA PBA
1914 AL 10 0.233
1915 AL 103 0.349
1916 AL 150 0.291
1917 AL 142 0.301
1918 AL 380 0.382
1919 AL 542 0.415
1920 AL 616 0.455
1921 AL 693 0.438
1922 AL 495 0.369
1923 AL 699 0.413
1924 AL 681 0.421
1925 AL 426 0.297
1926 AL 652 0.415
1927 AL 691 0.376
1928 AL 684 0.392
1929 AL 587 0.377
1930 AL 676 0.374
1931 AL 663 0.384
1932 AL 589 0.392
1933 AL 575 0.321
1934 AL 471 0.324
1935 NL 92 0.283

SABR Matt

04-12-2006, 10:30 PM

--What about 1994?

Short season...I don't recall what it was he was hitting off the top of my head...1994 was also a post-expansion year and the standard deviation of batting average increased slightly that year I believe.

Sultan_1895-1948

04-13-2006, 01:48 AM

Yeah...the goal was to make PCA figures a little more readable...I can throw all the win counts and relative win counts (Wins/Expected Wins) onto this board that I want...and with the GI method, I can throw up amalgum statistics that bear no resemblence to wins created, but most of you probably will never know what those figures actually mean.

Here are a few example offensive careers from different skill levels to exemplify how this method helps distill ability at a glance.

Albert Pujols
Yr Lg PA PBA
2001 NL 676 0.317
2002 NL 675 0.315
2003 NL 685 0.372
2004 NL 692 0.340

Babe Ruth
Yr Lg PA PBA
1930 AL 676 0.374
1931 AL 663 0.384
1932 AL 589 0.392
1933 AL 575 0.321
1934 AL 471 0.324
1935 NL 92 0.283

And they said he wasn't a 30's player :crazy :D Averaged .346 in those 6 years.

Matt, Gwynn might not have had that one monster year, but over his career, what's his PBA average? Different than Schells or the same?

leecemark

04-13-2006, 05:36 AM

--Gwynn hit .394 in 1994 (vs league average of .271). It was a short season, but Gwynn was playing everyday and still got into only 10 less games than the injury prone Brett of 1980 (.390 vs .270). It wasn't as good a year because Brett was hitting for power as well as average, but if you are just looking at BA it was every bit as impressive.

SABR Matt

04-13-2006, 08:17 AM

Remember, Sultan...Schell's adjusted batting was a measure of what Tony Gwynn would have hit (batting average wise) had all things been equal throughout baseball history.

The PBAs I'm giving you are NOT representations of batting averages the players would hit for...their representations of all of the elements of offense. Power, speed, plate discipline...they all go into creating PCA wins and from the rate at which the player scores those wins, I have calculated the equivalent batting average.

Tony Gwynn scores wins at a rate whose s-score would place him at a batting average (with the same z-score) of .308.

Brett had a .312, and Boggs had a .309 BTW

Windy City Fan

04-13-2006, 09:29 AM

Decided to answer RMB's question here, since apparently Bill wants all discussion in this thread, and just our opinions in the other.

I picked Boggs for my A Team because he fit most of the criteria I was looking for - good BB/K ratio, solid batting average, and a good fielder. The only place he fell short was in speed, but you can't have everything. Brett was the other guy I seriously considered, but Boggs was a little better at the things I was looking at, while Brett remains the better overall player.

If you look at my team, everyone hits for a good average and has a great OBP. Most of the guys can run, and only a few were whiffers (Mays, Gerhig, and Ruth).

I used to have Sisler as my 1B, but his home/road splits have caused me to reconsider. I even toyed with leaving Ruth off and putting in Speaker for more speed, contact, and defense, but decided Ruth's bat was too lethal to leave off.

SABR Matt

04-13-2006, 09:34 AM

Yeah...I figured you were trying to balance your line-up to include all of the skills rather than just pasting together the best from each position...

If I were to construct that kind of line-up it'd probably go:

RF - Ty Cobb
2B - Eddie Collins
SS - Honus Wagner
LF - Barry Bonds
RF - Babe Ruth
1B - Lou Gehrig
3B - Alex Rodriguez
C - Ivan Rodriguez
CF - Tris Speaker

Off the top of my head anyway.

Lead-off hitters top and bottom...good speed through most of the line-up...good up the middle defense...lethal MOTO offense, guys who get on base a lot at the top...whiffers confined to the MOTO

Sultan_1895-1948

04-13-2006, 09:39 AM

If you look at my team, everyone hits for a good average and has a great OBP. Most of the guys can run, and only a few were whiffers (Mays, Gerhig, and Ruth).

Something to keep in mind: Babe is a "whiffer" compared to his peers because for the most part, they weren't taking the same approach as him. For his strikeout numbers, it 's more fair to not look at relative numbers, and look at his raw numbers, and then adjust for how you think the talent of pitching was. Once you do that you can adjust the other way for the huge strikezone, and even more if you want to give him a 32 ounce bat, helmet, and the glove sized zone of today.

SABR Matt

04-13-2006, 09:46 AM

An interesting mesh of names on my all time defensive PBA leaderboard...

Great position-relative fielders...

Player PT PBA
An. Jones 1251 0.363
P. O'brien 1335 0.338
I. Rodriguez 1620 0.336
N. Perez 1044 0.334
Po. Reese 779 0.332
C. Flood 1651 0.331
T. Helton 1067 0.331
J. Fogerty 780 0.329
T. Oliva 1146 0.329
S. Rolen 1184 0.326
M. Belanger 1723 0.326
C. Boyer 1583 0.325
P. Polanco 673 0.324
B. McPhee 2129 0.323
J. Collins 1730 0.323
B. Mzeroski 2052 0.322
J. Clarkson 575 0.322
O. Smith 2455 0.321
Jac. Jones 720 0.320
T. Munson 1261 0.320
J. Tinker 1767 0.320
M. Carey 2440 0.320
R. Wilkins 578 0.318
B. Molina 549 0.317
T. Pendleton 1753 0.317
L. Criger 972 0.317
M. Marion 1492 0.315
R. Ashburn 2095 0.314
P. Blair 1643 0.314
W. Parker 1125 0.314
T. Speaker 2740 0.314
B. Jordan 1214 0.314
K. Hernandez 1935 0.313
H. Felsch 755 0.313
W. Kamm 1656 0.312
J. Gordon 1526 0.312
G. Moore 871 0.312
I. Suzuki 623 0.312
J. Valentin 1006 0.312
P. Rizzuto 1535 0.312
F. Baker 1542 0.311
D. Erstad 1062 0.311
C. Wlech 1151 0.311
G. Maddux 760 0.311
T. Hunter 754 0.310
Gil Coan 684 0.310
S. Seybold 938 0.310
D. DiMaggio 1398 0.310
H. Long 1890 0.309
B. Robinson 2800 0.309

Windy City Fan

04-13-2006, 10:17 AM

Something to keep in mind: Babe is a "whiffer" compared to his peers because for the most part, they weren't taking the same approach as him. For his strikeout numbers, it 's more fair to not look at relative numbers, and look at his raw numbers, and then adjust for how you think the talent of pitching was. Once you do that you can adjust the other way for the huge strikezone, and even more if you want to give him a 32 ounce bat, helmet, and the glove sized zone of today.

You're right Ruth isn't as much of a "whiffer" as his relative numbers would indicate, but he's still a whiffer. I agree take his raw totals and then adjust for league depth and conditions. If you do that, my gut feeling is his K total would remain about the same. So he's no Sammy Sosa, but he still strikeouts out on a fairly regular basis.

Matt: A-Rod is an interesting choice at third. I consider him a SS still, so I didn't consider him there. Hmmmmmm.

I see you included that abomination known as the DH. If I had done such a thing, Speaker would've made my OF (Mays probably moving to right and Cobb to left), and Williams would've been DH, with Ruth moving down to the B team. For pure hitting, I'll take Williams.

RuthMayBond

04-13-2006, 10:29 AM

Something to keep in mind: Babe is a "whiffer" compared to his peers because for the most part, they weren't taking the same approach as him. For his strikeout numbers, it 's more fair to not look at relative numbers.Any particular reason? He had five 1sts, five 2nds, a 3rd, a 4th, a 5th and two 9ths. If he hadn't had the "stomach ache" in '25 he certainly would have had another 1st (giving him firsts in four out of five straight years), his tie for 4th in '29 was in definitely fewer AB than who he was tied with (3rd would have given him 12 straight years of 3rd or more), and his 9th in '34 was in few AB.

Windy City Fan

04-13-2006, 10:36 AM

As Sultan pointed out, Ruth was one of only a handful of players during the 20's playing the long ball game, and therefore more likely to strikeout. By comparison, his peers were still mostly playing small ball and strived to avoid strikeouts. So given the vast difference in the style of ball Ruth was playing and the rest of the league was playing, its not surprising Ruth was consistently the biggest whiffer in the league. Transplant Ruth even a few decades forward, and now most of the guys are playing that game. His K's don't stand out nearly as much.

That said, no matter what era Ruth is transported to, he's still going to swing and miss on a fairly regular basis, it just comes with the territory of hitting for power.

SABR Matt

04-13-2006, 10:58 AM

Unless you're Joe DiMaggio or Barry Bonds.

barzilla

04-13-2006, 11:14 AM

We've talked about it elsewhere, but it would be nice to see what kind of negative impact strikeouts have in comparison with other outs. I think a productive outs statistic or "baserunners advance on outs (BAO)" stat would be good in lieu of sacrifice flies and bunts. Anytime a baserunner is advanced a hitter should get credit, but I'm just not sure how much it is worth at the end of the day.

We also might have a matrix where you have baserunners advanced on outs and pitches per out. A hitter to makes the pitcher go through five, six, or seven pitches has had a much more valuable out than someone who grounds out on the first pitch.

SABR Matt

04-13-2006, 11:37 AM

I've seen that played out five times in the last six Mariner games...often the game turns on an 11 or 12 pitch at bat in which a pitcher is cruising along but a guy fouls off a bunch of pitches and ruins the pitch count of the game.

Metal Ed

04-13-2006, 12:35 PM

Who cares how much Babe Ruth struck out, or how much he would strike out if he played today? I'm still waiting for the proof that strikeouts are worse than any other type of out. If anything, Ruth's strikeouts were a positive (for the fans).

Windy City Fan

04-13-2006, 02:21 PM

There are such a thing as productive outs. An out that advances a runner is clearly better than a strikeout. Conversely, there are things worse than a K, a double play for instance. The question is how much are these "productive outs" worth in comparison to a non productive out?

Sabermetrics generally tells us, they aren't worth much. And this is probably my biggest gripe with saber. I don't dispute that puttting togetehr a team based on the principles of sabermetrics will score you gobs and gobs of runs. The numbers work more base runners + less outs + extra base power = lots of runs. However, sabermetrics, at least the basic OPS version most of us are familar with, forgets one simple fact. In baseball, it doesn't matter if you win by ten runs or one run. Small ball/productive outs/speed won't produce such gaudy numbers, but I'll argue that it is more consistent. Saber plays the odds, and that means sometimes the odds work for you, sometimes they don't. Over the long haul you will score lots of runs, but that's no guarantee on a day to day basis.

I did a comparison a while back between one of the A's teams of the 90's (a total sabermetric team) and one of the Cardinal teams of the 80's (a quintessential small ball team). The A's scored more runs of course, but they were also all over the place. Sometimes racking up 20+ other times getting shutout. The Cards were much more consistent, their games bunched up around 3 to 4 runs per game. I'm pretty sure the A's despite their potent lineup were shutout more times than the weaker Cards lineup. Now I didn't compare those figures to the league scoring variations, so that is something that needs to be considered, but I truly believe small ball (and productive outs is a large part of small ball) is a more consistent, steady offense.

Also a while back, I was debating productive outs (I think with csh). We did the math based on historical scoring percentages with runners in certain positions and with X number of outs. Productive outs scored slightly more runs, but also created more outs. Saber was more effective in runs/out, but didn't have the same raw scoring.

Windy City Fan

04-13-2006, 02:51 PM

My discussion with cubbieinexile on Mark Grace and productive outs:
http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?p=521328#post521328

My research comparing small ball Cards with Saber based A's:
http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=354134&postcount=62

538280

04-13-2006, 07:33 PM

I give some credit for careers cut short by illness, death, or other tragedies if the player was still productive (Cochrane, Sisler, Puckett get credit. Munson, Joss, and Campenella don't)

Sisler certainly doesn't deserve credit. He wasn't productive in any meaning of the word after his injury. For a 1Bman, 100 OPS+ is generally around replacement level, and that is just about where Sisler was so as a hitter he was just about at the replacement level. He was also a god awful fielder, so horrible he's shown to be a below average fielder by most metrics despite his strong peak performances. Not a guy who anyone would really want around, a below replacement level player. Certainly not "productive" as you describe him.

SABR Matt

04-13-2006, 07:47 PM

I think he's saying he tends to not pay much attention to the horrible performance because he was a good player before the eye problem...

Windy City Fan

04-13-2006, 08:49 PM

I think he's saying he tends to not pay much attention to the horrible performance because he was a good player before the eye problem...

Correct. Before the eye problems, Sisler put up great numbers. He was still highly productive then illness cut him down. Puckett and Belle were still productive when illness cut their careers short. Cochrane was very productive before the beaning, and still not bad afterwards.

On the flip side, Addie Joss was coming off his worse year and a serious arm injury. Campy had two poor seasons before the accident, and was breaking down as he only topped 500 PA once in his last 4 years. Munson's decline wasn't quite as sharp, but he was declining nonetheless. 9 homeruns in his last two seasons. OPS+ of 100 and 95, his worst two seasons since his rookie year. These guys probably didn't have a lot left in the tank even if they had stayed healthy/alive.

SABR Matt

04-13-2006, 10:08 PM

The one danger I think you should watch out for when doing this kind of adjustment to account for tragically short or interrupted careers...

Sometimes players get hurt specifically because of the way they play the game. Sandy Koufax' arm exploded because he threw lots and lots of screwballs. Had he not done that, he wouldn't have been the dominant pitcher he was...had he not done that...he might have stayed healthy. Assuming he should get credit for not pitching due to early injury is shaky in his case...because you have to take the player for what he is...a power pitcher whose arm exploded due to abuse.

leecemark

04-13-2006, 10:21 PM

--I don't give ANYBODY any credit for what they may have done if they stayed healthy, regardless of whether it was a run of the mill injury or a tragedy that struck them down. If you are going to give Sisler a break for being just another guy after his sinus/eye problems, why not Cepeda for being the same due his bad knees or Mattingly because of his back or Will Clark with his (shoulder was it?). Each of those players was every bit as good as Sisler when healthy.
--As for pitchers, the guys whose arms blow out outnumber those who don't. Staying healthy is what separates the great pitchers from the flash in the pans.

SABR Matt

04-13-2006, 10:24 PM

Obviously, you know I agree with you Mark...I tend not to consider it a huge debating point anymore though...different people have different views on how to look at players and I don't really have a problem either way...my rankings include no "time off" adjustments (wartime, negro league service, injury...none of that) because that's all speculation, but I don't see a serious problem with people choosing a different approach.

-Kyle-

08-19-2006, 07:38 PM

Hm, Seaver above most of those guys, Williams above Paige, Nichols & Feller above Mathewson

Seaver I have ahead for LQ adujustments, Williams did better in the Negro Leagues than Paige, I think Nichols is vastly underrated, and Feller could be a little lower.

<Top 20 2b

4. Jackie Robinson
5. Nap Lajoie>

I give Jackie credit for years in the negro leauges, and deduct a little from Nap for being in the deadball era.

<Top 20 3b

5. Stan Hack>

Way too high

Great leadoff hitter in the deadball era, not much else. I guess he could go a little lower.

Thanks for the Feedback

538280

11-26-2006, 09:02 AM

I'm going to bring my discussion with Evan here now.

Ok, just wondering where you got the idea that I ONLY have him at 40 because of his batting average. His other stats could have been better to rank him higher. Lefty O'Doul isn't my #4 all time.

What other stats? His power, his walks, his what? Every single REAL statistical analysis which correlates with run scoring and really has to do with why teams win games has him in the top 20. Apparently you'd rather go by subjective interpretations and false assumptions dealing with the statistics than interpreting them in a way which actually has to do with a player's value on the field.

And why else to you rank him #40 then, outside of batting average? I asked you why you had him there earlier and all you said was that his BA was too low.

LOL. Predictive? If they can accurately predict whats what all the time, then i'll listen to it. Just because there's more math in it, doesnt make it right. This is where I have my beef with you.. You rely 100% on anything that has a lot of math in it at thats it. You put players through a system and thats how you rank them. You're missing a lot of the game, you're missing greatness.

What is greatness? Is greatness hitting for a .330 average, even if you're doing less for your team than when you're hitting .270? I understand what you guys mean by greatness, and I think it's a lot of BS and a way to apply your ridiculously false premises like "batting average really matters A TON".

Just because there's more math doesn't make it correct, I agree, but the math that is involved is not just meaningless manipulation of numbers. It is using things which have been PROVEN to correlate with how and why teams score runs and win games. And that is the bottom line. Again, it seems as if you're going on some fantasy standard which really has little to do with why teams win games.

No, you go by whichever way you want to throw numbers through a magical system that will tell us all what's what because you can throw negative numbers at outfielders or whatever exactly it is you do.

I do exactly what I feel is a good representation of what a player does for his team. And I'm obviously not alone in my ranking of Morgan-every single other person who has statistically tried to do the same has come up with the conclusion he's AT LEAST top 25.

What's your standard then of a top 20 player, and why doesn't Morgan live up to it? Again, why is he worse than his numbers, or why are these metrics overrating him. You MUST answer one of those questions to justify your ranking.

538280

11-26-2006, 09:06 AM

And I'd like to put a few more things here, just because I don't want them deleted:

As much as I know you're going to hate it, its pretty darn tough for me to put a .270 hitter in my Top 25. His OPS+ is very OBP heavy, and the power numbers dont dazzle me enough. I have never used Win Share or any advanced metric to rank all time players, and I doubt im going to start very soon.

Get over prejudices and biases. You can be a .270 hitter and absolutely crush a .330 hitter if you do other things much better. You can even be a .270 hitter without extremely elite power (like Morgan) and still be an offensive force. Morgan was an AWESOME OBP guy, he was an awesome baserunner, he played 2B, and did it very well. Take all of that into account and he IS at least one of the top 20 players of all time based on value to his teams. And EVERY statistical analysis of that confirms it. I think you might enjoy this article, by Craig Wright:

THE BALLAD OF LITTLE JOE
Eddie Robinson was the Houston Astros’ farm director when Joe Morgan was first scouted and signed. Morgan had been completely overlooked as a high school player, considered too small with too weak an arm. Robinson had hired a new scout, a former teammate from his White Sox days, a gentleman named Bill Wight. Being a novice to the scouting game, Wight had internalized a few scouting prejudices. The first player he signed was Walt “No-Neck” Williams, five six, 180 pounds-not your typical baseball prospect, but he went on to play ten years in the majors.

The second player Wight signed was Joe Morgan. Robinson remembers that they used to kid Wight about signing such funny looking players, “first Williams, and now a midget.” Actually, Morgan was the same height as Williams at the time but was twenty five or thirty pounds lighter. A lot of things had to come together for Morgan to get the chance to play professionally. He was fortunate that the Astros were an expansion team trying to fill out its minor-league rosters and willing to try anyone with reasonable promise. And Morgan was lucky enough to be seen by a scout who would not judge him solely on his size.

There were a number of similarities between Williams and Morgan. Both were ignored as high school players; both were unusually short but had surprising power for their size; both were fast runners; both had gone on to play college ball in hopes of sparking new interest among the scouts; and both had been born in Texas-which probably didn’t hurt them when they were being scouted by a Texas expansion team.

This is not to say that Morgan wouldn’t have eventually made it to the majors without the Astros or Bill Wight. If he had really played well in his remaining college seasons, Joe might have caught the eye of some other teams. We will never know for sure. Eddie Robinson remembers that in 1962 there was really no competition in signing him.

The Astros had to show a lot of patience with Morgan’s fielding, Robinson remembers: “He tried to do everything too fast in the field to make up for his weak arm. We had to hit him a lot of ground balls to get him to slow down and make the play first and then thrown the ball.” I took a look at the old reports from the Washington Senators’ scouts on Morgan in that first season. They were not very impressed. One a scale of one to five he was an overall three-a “passable” prospect at A ball. IN 46 categories he didn’t have a single one grade, not even for his speed. Defensively he was graded below average on the pivot and for his “hands” rating. He made 42 errors in 147 games at second base.

Of the three Senators scouts who saw Morgan that first season, one like him considerably better than the other two. His written were especially revealing. Note how the very first reference is to Morgan’s size, which was listed as five six, 150 pounds that season:

“Every time I look at this guy, I say to myself, I know he’s too small, but he did everything to get the job done. I keep thinking of a live major league fastball knocking the bat out of his hand, but I don’t know. He hit the left handers about as well as he did the right handers. For a little guy, he has occasional good power. I saw him hit late inning homers that defeated both Peninsula and Burlington. He was always coming up with the big play. He can pull the ball or go with the pitch. Excellent reflexes and instinct……Usually runs to first in 4.1; however, can do it in 3.9…..He would help the Washington organization.”

That is a remarkably farsighted, and for its time, very courageous report. Way to go, Joe Branzell.

One thing all the scouts missed was that Morgan walked a lot, 148 times in 148 games. Scouts are basically taught to ignore this. It drives me crazy that even on the forms used today, scouts are never asked to comment on this area of a player’s offense. If they want they can refer to it in their notes, but most never bother Their organizations are basically telling them through the scouting form that they don’t really care.

Morgan’s walks were the most unique thing about his play in 1963, but there scouts watched him for a total of 22 games and never said anything like, “He’s a smart hitter.”, or “he’s patient at the plate,” or, “He’s a selective hitter,” or even just, “He walks a lot.” Geez, he probably walked over 20 times in those games. That would be hard not to notice.
The next season everyone began to see that Houston had a real prospect. Joe Morgan won the MVP award in the Texas League. He hit .323 and led the league with 42 doubles to go along with 8 triples and 12 homers. He drew 105 walks, stole 47 bases, and did not ground into a single double play. His defensive improvement was just as remarkable, as he led the league in fielding percentage.

One of the Senators’ scouts picked out two of his deficiencies: “Runs real well although a little dumb on the bases. Saw him make a couple mistakes that hurt the club…This kid has a chance with the bat. The only I saw him look bad is fastballs high inside from LHP.”

The baserunning would continue to improve as Morgan matured and got a chance to study one set of pitchers rather than jumping from league to league. The hitting weakness came from his tendency to drop his back elbow. Morgan eventually developed his characteristic chicken flap with his back arm to remind himself to keep his back elbow up so he could handle the higher pitches better.

In 1965 Joe Morgan was the Astros’ starting 2Bman. He was named National League Rookie Player of the Year by The Sporting News. And surprise-he led the National League in walks. The next year Morgan was having a fine season when he was struck by a line drive in batting practice and suffered a hairline fracture of his kneecap. It was not a career threatening injury, but it disabled him for 41 days. He hit .285 in 122 games that season.

He hit .275 in 1967 with a bit more power. What makes 1967 stand out is tat this was the season that Morgan became serious about his baserunning. Morgan had been a successful stealer against minor leagues; 75 steals in 96 attempts, a .781 success rate. In the majors he had been running less and getting caught more: 32 for 50, .640. In 1967 he stole a career high 29 bases with a .853 success rate. Never again would that rate fall below .727 in a season.

The next season, 1968, would create a crisis in Morgan’s career. In the 5th game, he tore ligaments in his knee in a collision at second base. Surgery was required, and Morgan didn’t play again till late September when he got into five games, none at second base.

In 1969 there was talk of converting him to an outfielder. Since Morgan had arrived in the majors he had experienced a lot of trouble turning the double play. The scouting reports still harped on his weak arm and poor pivot. In 1967 he turned only 67 DPs in 130 games. Now the concern was that Joe would be gunshy around second after the injury. Morgan took that as a challenge to become a better 2Bman.

He worked hard in spring training and was allowed to remain at his position. He turned 79 double plays in 132 games at second, his best mark per baserunner per game in the majors thus far. He would continue to improve, and only once in his late 15 seasons would his DP rate be as bad as it was in his first three full seasons. Morgan had won a solid reprieve. He did play 14 games in the outfield in 1969, but they would be the last in his long career

Morgan still had a lot of work to do on his defense. His knee had not fully recovered in 1969, and Joe had the worst range numbers of his career. One scout said it as plain as could be: “He is not a good defensive player. He must hit to stay in the majors.” The knee did not help there either. Morgan hit for a career low .236, though he drew a new high of 110 walks and proved he could still go near full throttle in a straight line as he stole 49 bases at a decent .778 clip.

In 1970 Morgan was back to near full strength. He hit .268, drew 102 walks, stole 42 bases, and set new career high in doubles and runs scored. The scout who was so hard on Morgan’s defense was still unimpressed in April: “poor hands-poor arm-fair range-makes a poor double play…..is an overrated ballplayer.” By August the same scout was reporting, “Morgan has improved as a fielder…just about ready to develop into a good major league player…Would help us greatly.”

The defensive improvement was definitely there in the hard evidence. He set new career highs in range factor, fielding percentage, and double players per baserunner per game. What else is there?

By 1971, his late year in Houston, the fielding reports were basically positive: “his fielding is good enough for me. Arm is a little weak, but he knows how to play. Hands a little stiff, but he gets in front of the ball and gathers it in. . Saw him go out and get a relay, and he threw the runner out at the plate. Can make the double play.” Offensively, Morgan hit only .258 but set a new career high in power percentage (slugging percentage minus batting average), stole 40 bases in only 48 attempts (.833), and grounded into only four double plays in 160 games.

In 1972 baseball began to wake up as to how good a player Joe Morgan really was. At the same time that Joe was just beginning to reach his prime, he escaped the Astrodome, then the toughest hitters’ park in baseball. His first year with Cincinnati he set career highs in home runs, runs scored, RBI, walks, steals, batting average, slugging percentage, and on base percentage. On defense, the man who made 42 errors in his first pro season led the NL with a .990 fielding percentage and also led in fielding chances accepted. He was one of the top three players in the league, with only Johnny Bench and Billy Williams having comparable seasons.

In 1973, Joe Morgan made a significant breakthrough as a power hitter that had nothing to do with getting out of the Astrodome:

Power% HR per road game
1965-1971 Houston………135……………...085
1972-1977 Cincinnati……..206……………..156

………………………2B…….3B……..HR…….Power%
1971 Houston………..27…….11………13……….151
1972 Cincinnati……...23……..4……….16……….143
1973 Cincinnati……...35……..2……….26……….203

1973 is also when Joe Morgan did something that few could have conceived of just a few years earlier: He won the Gold Glove for defensive excellence at second base. Joe would win 4 more Gold Gloves, including one when he tied the record for fewest errors by a 2Bman in 150 games or more (five). While the scouts could accept that Morgan had improved his defense, some still stubbornly resisted the idea that he could become an excellent defensive 2Bman-still reporting on the talents rather than the production.

A Texas scout reported in August of 1973 that “Morgan does not complete a double play very well-below average erratic arm…fair hands.” That was rather an odd assessment, as Morgan led the league in double player despite playing behind a pitching staff allowing the 4th fewest baserunners. Joe had just led the league in fielding percentage in 1972, and in 1973 his .990 FP was 2nd in the league. He also led the position in chances fielded cleanly per game.

Besides being the best fielder at a premium defensive position, Morgan hit .290, slugged .493, had an OBP of .404, and stole 67 bases in 82 attempts (.817). In one of the craziest MVP votes of all time, Pete Rose won the award over a number of deserving candidates including Morgan, who finished 4th:

1973 MVP RANKING
……….......Position…BA……OBP……SLG…….Runs Produced…..RP per out
Rose………..RF……338……400……..437…………..111…………….234
Stargell……..LF……299……392……..646…………..123…………….331
Bonds………RF……283……370……..530…………..127…………….262
Morgan……..2B……290……404……..493…………..123…………….277

Really, there should have been no contest between Morgan and Rose and Bonds. Rose was not even a credible candidate. Stargell was so awesome with the bat that year a case could be made for his winning the award, but if I had a choice between a mediocre defensive LFer producing runs at a .331 rate and the best defensive 2Bman in the league producing the same number of runs, through a .277 clip, I would go with the 2Bman every time.

The next year’s MVP balloting was even harder to figure. Morgan missed a few more games and produced only 117 runs, but he was a far more efficient, with .302 runs per out expended. Steve Garvey, a first baseman, won the MVP while producing only 96 runs at a .208 clip. Garvey was notorious for channeling al lot his value into batting average and had only moderate power for a 1Bman. With Morgan’s broad offensive base, he could have matched Garvey’s actual contributions while hitting .250.

Morgan also won another Gold Glove. One scout still filed a report in September saying “Morgan’s defense is average.” That would be the last such report. As Morgan went on to win three more Gold Gloves, the reports began to come back with a terse “Good defense.”

In 1975 Morgan made yet another breakthrough to his offense. He tacked on 34 points to his previous career high in batting average and became a .327 hitter. He also drew a career high and league leading 132 walks for an amazing .466 OBP, the highest by a National Leaguer this side of World War II. He also stole 67 bases in 77 attempts, a career high success rate of .870. Joe produced 127 runs while using up only 354 outs, a .359 rate. Finally he was named the league’s most valuable player; I believe the key with the writers was his finally hitting .300.

It did not seem possible that Joe could get any better, yet 1976 was his best year in many ways. He stole 60 bases in 69 tries, a .870 success rate. He grounded into only two double player sin 141 games, he hit .320 and led the league in OBP with his second best mark ever (.444). He was still the Gold Glove 2Bman, and his runs produced per out actually went up to .375. But what made it a special year for Joe were two new career highs of 111 RBI and 27 homers, and he won the slugging title. In the Live Ball Era there has never been a slugging leader close to Morgan’s size. Hack Wilson was about the same height but about 40 pounds heavier. Mel Ott at five nine, 170 pounds is about as close as you can find.

Going back to the idea that old scouting habits die hard, I came across another report on Joe Morgan written in 1977 after he had won back to back MVP awards. Under “Player’s Weaknesses” the scout put “Somewhat limited because of small body.” Fortunately, the Hall of Fame does not have a size requirement.

In 1977, at age 33, Morgan had his last great season. He hit .288, stole 49 bases, drew 117 walks, won the Gold Glove, and hit 22 homers. Conceivably he had been the league’s best player four years in a row; he was at least in the top 3 for the past five seasons. By my calculations his 1977 performances was still in the top five.

Morgan had a very bad year in 1978. He was bothered by nagging injuries that caused him to miss 38 games without ever going on the disabled list. The final batting averages in his career particularly poor as he seemed to seek out some of the toughest hitting parks in baseball. He put in another year at Houston, two in San Francisco, and one in Oakland. Morgan hit only .248 from 1978 to 1984, but thanks to his power, walks, and steals he would remain one of the best offensive second basemen in the game.

1978-1984 AGES 34-40
…….......BA.....OBP…SLG…..SB%.....Runs produced...Runs per out…2Bman average
Morgan...248….375…..387…...813……….462…………….202………… .145

PER 162 GAMES
………...HR……BB…...SB
Morgan...14…….107…...25

Morgan’s continued success as a high percentage basestealer is especially noteworthy as an example of his knack of getting the most out of his ability. Fewer than ten players have stolen one hundred after turning 34. Only Davey Lopes had a high success rate that late in his career. Lou Brock, for example, had a .743 success rate after age 33. In his seven final seasons, Lou’s best mark was .781. Morgan averaged .813.

In reviewing Morgan’s career, it would be reasonable to assume that his attitude had a positive effect on his teammates. Bill James once pointed out that while Pete Rose liked to promote his image as an “impact” player, one who brings both great ability and a winning spirit to his team, Joe Morgan is probably more deserving of the title.

When Morgan was with the Astros, there were two notable periods of his absence, the 41 games he was out with the fractured kneecap, and the 157 games after he tore the ligaments in his knee in 1968. In those two seasons the Astros were 65-64, .504 winning percentage with Morgan available, and 79-116, .405 winning percentage while he was injured.
The Reds, with Pete Rose as a regular, played .538 from 19683 to 1971. In 1971, the year before Morgan joined the Reds, they were under .500, 79-83. In Morgan’s first year they jumped to 95-59 and won the pennant. I Morgan’s eight seasons with the Reds they finished first of second every year with an overall .600 win percentage. They took five divisional titles, three pennants, and two World Championships. The last divisional title in 1979 came after Rose left the Reds.

In 1980 Morgan joined the Astros and they won their first divisional title ever. In 1981 Joe went to the Giants, and their winning percentage jumped from .466 to .505. The next year they rose to .537 and finished only two wins behind the division winner. When Morgan left in 1983 the Giants fell to .488. For the seven year span of 1979-1985, the only two winning seasons for San Francisco were the two when Joe Morgan was their starting second baseman.

In 1983 Little Joe joined Pete Rose on the Phillies and helped move them from second place to pennant winners. In 1984 Morgan wanted to play his final season in his old stomping grounds in Oakland. The A’s improved three wins with the 40 year old Morgan starting at second base.

After Morgan escaped the expansion blues in Houston, he played for seven first place clubs involving three different franchises. All five clubs he joined won more games than they did the season before his arrival; that rivals the Reggie Jackson mystique or that of any other player you can name with that “winning” aura. Joe Morgan was a winner in every way conceivable.

I was absolutely delighted to see Joe Morgan receive the special honor of being elected to the Hall of Fame on the first ballot. Joe felt it was far from a sure ting, and it surprised a lot of folks, including myself. At Arlington Stadium I come across a lot of the AL sportswriters who have a Hall of Fame ballot. A few years ago I began asking them about Morgan’s chances when he came up for election. To a man they said he was a Hall of Famer, but not a single one expected him to go in on the first ballot.

A couple of things happened between then and Morgan’s election in 1990. The Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract became a classic and included a powerful argument that Morgan was baseball’s greatest second baseman in peak value, and second only to Edie Collins in career value. I don’t know if the first edition of this book influenced many voters, but I do know that through personal discussions I changed the votes of two fence sitters, and they in turn led a few colleagues to the light. And I expect Joe always had a solid core of voters among the NL veteran writers who saw him play every day.
But the battle is not won with Morgan’s election. It was also Jim Palmer’s first ballot, and the voting gave him a comfortable lead over Joe. Hey, I thought Palmer was great-first ballot material all the way-but relative to Morgan, well, he should have been an also-ran. And , of course, there are still a few folks scratching their heads about a first ballot Hall of Famer who hit .271 with less than 300 homers.

That simply is not just. Such a decision should be based on his accomplishments as a winning player, not how he was a winning player. Why is this so hard to see? That’s what this chapter is about. It’s about a scout who writes that a two time MVP is handicapped by his size, people ignoring his strong fielding record to conclude was not a good 2Bman because he had a weak arm; writers who fail to be impressed with offensive accomplishments that aren’t accompanied by big Triples Crown numbers; and a failure on practically everyone’s part to appreciate that a player who did well in many areas can produce immense value, often greater than dominating specialist.

It doesn’t matter that Morgan was once considered a marginal prospect, actually “no prospect” when he graduated from high school. It doesn’t matter that Joe was the smallest player in the National League during his career. It doesn’t matter that he had a weak arm. It doesn’t matter that there were stronger or faster players. It doesn’t matter that so many of his contributions lacked visibility or popular style. It doesn’t matter that that he hit .271 in his career. You can hit .271 and absolutely crush a .330 hitter if you do everything else well.

Morgan’s career is over. It is time to stop caring about what he should have done and focus on what he actually did (please be aware that the book was written in 1990, so some of these records listed below may have been since broken).

DEFENSE
-Holds ML record for consecutive errorless games at second base (91)
-Tied ML record for fewest errors by a second baseman, season, 150 games or more (five)
-Holds ML record for most seasons as a second baseman (22)
-Played more games an an infielder than any player in Live Ball Era; second on all time list to Eddie Collins
-Won five Gold Glove awards for defensive excellence at second base

BASESTEALING
-Stole more bases than any infielder in Live Ball Era (689). Among all players, only Lou Brock and Rickey Henderson have stole more bases in Live Ball Era.
-Only player in Live Ball Era to steal 10 or more bases in 18 individual seasons
-Career steal sucess rate of .810 is believed to be the highest among players with 600 career steals (Max Carey's mark is .794 for his 715 attempts when caught stealing were recorded. Carey has another 170 steals with no known sucess rate).
-Morgan and Tim Raines are the only two players ever to have six seasons of 40 or more steals with a sucess rate higher than 80%.
-Morgan is the only player to have 10 seasons of 20 or more steals with a success rate of higher than 80%

HITTING
-Smallest man in height or weight to have 250 or more career homers
-Lightest player in Live Ball Era to lead the league in slugging percentage
-Holds ML record for career home runs by a second baseman (266). (Hornsby has more overall but not more as a 2Bman)
-Most career doubles by an y post WWII infielder
-Second only to Rogers Hornsby for most extra base hits among all second basemen
-More extra base hits than any middle infielder after1930
-Holds NL record for base on balls (1799). Only Babe Ruth and Ted Williams ever drew more walks.
-Eight seasons with OBP over .400
-Eight times scored 100 runs or more, a record for postwar infielders including first basemen.
-More career runs scored than any postwar infielder.
-Scored more runs than any 2Bman except Eddie Collins and Charlie Gehringer.
-Despite batting leadoff in a non-DH league for most of his career, Morgan collected 1134 RBI, the most by a middle infielder after WWII.
-Morgan is the only player to hit more than 20 homers and steal more than 50 bases in the same season three times.
-Morgan was also one of the best players at staying out of the double play. The only other player I know of in the Live Ball Era with fever GIDPs per game is Richie Ashburn (.0379 to .0396). Every other player I looked at-Brock, Wills, McAuliffe, and some thiry other likely candidates-have all been over .0430.

“Well done, good and faithful servant.” There have been many, many more physically gifted players than Joe Morgan, but very few ever accomplished more in this game. he did it when and where it counted. His climb from “no prospect” to blue chip Hall of Famer is one of the most amazing stories in the history of the game. His job is done. All that remains is for use to appreciate it. We could use the practice

538280

11-26-2006, 09:09 AM

Im sure those making lists with Morgan lower than where others would like him to be are thinking to themselves... "Well Morgan wasnt a prospect out of high school" or "he was short, so he cant be on my list"

They're not, but read the other parts of that excerpt, such as this one:

"It doesn’t matter that that he hit .271 in his career. You can hit .271 and absolutely crush a .330 hitter if you do everything else well."

538280

11-26-2006, 01:50 PM

EvanAparra

11-26-2006, 05:12 PM

They're not, but read the other parts of that excerpt, such as this one:

"It doesn’t matter that that he hit .271 in his career. You can hit .271 and absolutely crush a .330 hitter if you do everything else well."

Like I've said before, get over it. Its not the only reason I rank him low. I dont believe his defense is all its cracked up to be, especially to the extent that many say its so much better than Hornsby's. Add that to not making these drastic LQ adjustments, and he falls below my 25 line.

EvanAparra

11-26-2006, 05:15 PM

I never understand, to this day, why people continually reject what are real statistical analysyes which are proven to be real measures of how and why teams score runs and win games. You'd really rather go by your own subjective interpretation, which for many people is based on cliches like BA is king and not much matters outside of the triple crown statistics, BA/HR/RBI. I still don't get it.

Do I need to say it even again? Who is using triple crown stats as a total basis? I didnt mention HR or RBIs, but it you want to say that thats the only reason people discount someone that YOU are a big fan of, than that's your problem. What I never understand, is how people can just use some metric to rate those who performed 80 years ago in a "top players" list. Like thats the be all and end all of it. There's more to the game instead of formuals and systems as much as you might dislike it.
Like if everyone who's list you disagree with aren't as enlightened as you because they dont know the way of your system or those of other sabermaticians. Read the name of the thread, "opinions". There are many ways to come to these, and debating them is fine, but acting like there is no way to rank except for the way you do is pushing it.

538280

11-26-2006, 05:18 PM

Like I've said before, get over it. Its not the only reason I rank him low. I dont believe his defense is all its cracked up to be, especially to the extent that many say its so much better than Hornsby's. Add that to not making these drastic LQ adjustments, and he falls below my 25 line.

The statistical metrics would agree with you on his defense, they generall show him to be a bit below average over his career. His DWS grade is a C, his FRAA is -16. No, the statistics do not show him to be a great fielder, in fact they show him to be an overrated one who didn't deserve his Gold Gloves. So they are in agreement with you there.

And yet-even though they agree with you on his defense, they STILL all place him in the top 20 even without LQ adjustments. So, why is he worse than his statistics, or why do they give an inaccurate picture of him (and they do agree with you on his greatness, and LQ does not have to be factored in).

It just seems to me, though perhaps you can provide another reason, that your reasoning is just based on some made up statistical standard which, in actuality, has nothing to do with why teams actually win games.

EvanAparra

11-26-2006, 05:21 PM

And yet-even though they agree with you on his defense, they STILL all place him in the top 20 even without LQ adjustments. So, why is he worse than his statistics, or why do they give an inaccurate picture of him

Because I don't follow these statistics that you do, have you not gotten that yet?

538280

11-26-2006, 05:24 PM

Do I need to say it even again? Who is using triple crown stats as a total basis? I didnt mention HR or RBIs, but it you want to say that thats the only reason people discount someone that YOU are a big fan of, than that's your problem. What I never understand, is how people can just use some metric to rate those who performed 80 years ago in a "top players" list. Like thats the be all and end all of it. There's more to the game instead of formuals and systems as much as you might dislike it.

There is more to the game than formulas and statistics and I have never denied it. I don't think it's totally fair either to base a player's rating entirely on statistics, I think there are other important factors that a player contributes outside of the statistics.

But that's exactly it-outside of the statistics, i.e., leadership, extra bases taken on the basepaths, how they get along with teammates, intangible skills that cannot be quantified.

The problem is that Joe Morgan EXCELS at those things and was hailed as one of the most adaptive, smart, great team leaders of his time or all time. I see no reason in the world why he is a worse player than his statistics would suggest, yet you insinuate that he was-without even giving any evidence to the contrary.

What I also have a problem with is people choosing to focus on things that hav been proved to be just flat out wrong and horrible ways to interpret the statistics. Now I'm not saying that statistical records aren't open to interpretation-they are. I'm not saying that you have to look at them the same way I do, but I DO have a problem with people making up some bogus statistical standard, like you can't be a top 20 player if you hit .270 and never hit 30 home runs, or like Craig Wright have idiot writers shaking their heads at a first ballot HOFer with a .271 BA and less than 300 homers. Those are made up statistical standards which have, if you inspect the issue, very little to do with why teams win games. Those metrics really do have to do with things that win games, yet you choose to continue to go by your ridiculous made up standard of "you can't hit .271 and be in the top 20". That is like invalidating hitting statistics because the teams that score the most runs don't always have the best batting averages.

538280

11-26-2006, 05:25 PM

Because I don't follow these statistics that you do, have you not gotten that yet?

Then what statistics do you follow? Do you follow things that have to do with why teams win, or do you focus on a made up standard, things that appeal to your eyes like .330 BAs with 100 RBI, but really do little for the team?

EvanAparra

11-26-2006, 05:29 PM

There is more to the game than formulas and statistics and I have never denied it. I don't think it's totally fair either to base a player's rating entirely on statistics, I think there are other important factors that a player contributes outside of the statistics.

Then why do you just base your rankings on what your system produces?

But that's exactly it-outside of the statistics, i.e., leadership, extra bases taken on the basepaths, how they get along with teammates, intangible skills that cannot be quantified.

The problem is that Joe Morgan EXCELS at those things and was hailed as one of the most adaptive, smart, great team leaders of his time or all time. I see no reason in the world why he is a worse player than his statistics would suggest, yet you insinuate that he was-without even giving any evidence to the contrary.

Again, I DONT. I guess i'm just not as good as you in ranking players.

but I DO have a problem with people making up some bogus statistical standard, like you can't be a top 20 player if you hit .270 and never hit 30 home runs, or like Craig Wright have idiot writers shaking their heads at a first ballot HOFer with a .271 BA and less than 300 homers.

Wow, AGAIN, (its getting really annoying to say this over and over again), get over it. I never said a .271 hitter would not make top 20, I said I would find it hard, and considering there is probably only one .270 in your top 20, I think im right.

Those are made up statistical standards which have, if you inspect the issue, very little to do with why teams win games. Those metrics really do have to do with things that win games, yet you choose to continue to go by your ridiculous made up standard of "you can't hit .271 and be in the top 20". That is like invalidating hitting statistics because the teams that score the most runs don't always have the best batting averages

Look above, im tired of repeating myself.

EvanAparra

11-26-2006, 05:31 PM

Then what statistics do you follow? Do you follow things that have to do with why teams win, or do you focus on a made up standard, things that appeal to your eyes like .330 BAs with 100 RBI, but really do little for the team?

Yes, exactly. :rolleyes: Well, actually, i'd like you to produce a good amount of people that hit .330 with 100 RBI and did little for their team.

538280

11-26-2006, 05:43 PM

Then why do you just base your rankings on what your system produces?

My system is not just statistical, it has an "intangibles" part where I give a player points based on those intangible factors that I mentioned. The fielding/baserunning parts also are partly based on non-statistical evidence.

Again, I DONT. I guess i'm just not as good as you in ranking players.

So you also see no reason in the world why he's worse than the statistical metrics would suggest-yet you have him #40?

Wow, AGAIN, (its getting really annoying to say this over and over again), get over it. I never said a .271 hitter would not make top 20, I said I would find it hard, and considering there is probably only one .270 in your top 20, I think im right.

Then what is your standard, I ask again. Again, every statistical metric says Joe Morgan has what it takes in other skills to be a top 20 player despite his .271 batting average. You apparently don't accept that, and I still want to know on what basis it is that you don't accept that.

538280

11-26-2006, 05:43 PM

Yes, exactly. :rolleyes: Well, actually, i'd like you to produce a good amount of people that hit .330 with 100 RBI and did little for their team.

Check out Dante Bichette.

I should have said less than a guy who may have hit .270 with 60 RBI (or another combination of less than stellar triple crown stats), but Bichette is actually an example of hitting .330 with 100 RBI while not doing much for his team.

And you still managed to not answer the real question I was asking.

EvanAparra

11-26-2006, 05:48 PM

So you also see no reason in the world why he's worse than the statistical metrics would suggest-yet you have him #40?

No, because, again, I dont go by any statistical metrics. I could care less about them. THAT'S why.

Then what is your standard, I ask again. Again, every statistical metric says Joe Morgan has what it takes in other skills to be a top 20 player despite his .271 batting average. You apparently don't accept that, and I still want to know on what basis it is that you don't accept that

I dont have a standard. I just go by what I feel and what I see.

538280

11-26-2006, 05:50 PM

No, because, again, I dont go by any statistical metrics. I could care less about them. THAT'S why.

I dont have a standard. I just go by what I feel and what I see.

I understand by now that you don't go by statistical metrics, but based on earlier comments you clearly go by some sort of statistical evidence. What kind of statistical evidence do you use then? Again, this just seems to lead into some made up statistical standard of yours which really has little to do with why teams win games.

Based on what he did to help his teams win, Joe Morgan was at least a top 20 player of all time. It is an inavoidable conclusion, and the ONLY way you can avoid it is to come up with your own made up statistical standard based on traditonal stats.

What do you feel and see about Joe Morgan that makes you think he is worse than those statistical metrics which you don't follow?

EvanAparra

11-26-2006, 05:54 PM

I understand by now that you don't go by statistical metrics, but based on earlier comments you clearly go by some sort of statistical evidence. What kind of statistical evidence do you use then? Again, this just seems to lead into some made up statistical standard of yours which really has little to do with why teams win games.

But what you use is definately what helps teams win games? What about when a new uberstat comes along and shows you that the last ones were lacking dimensions?

It is an inavoidable conclusion, and the ONLY way you can avoid it is to come up with your own made up statistical standard based on traditonal stats.

The way I can avoid it is to not go with metrics, not make up my own statistical standard.

What do you feel and see about Joe Morgan that makes you think he is worse than those statistical metrics which you don't follow?

LOL. I wouldnt know because I dont follow them.

I'll say one thing, I value greatness as much as I value value, or whatever you/everybody/me values. I believe he wasn't "great" enough to make my top 20. I dont have one certain aspect that makes me believe that, but I just do. I'll do more reading and look into more in depth, and maybe I will change my mind. But the metrics won't, like you seem to think.

538280

11-26-2006, 06:10 PM

But what you use is definately what helps teams win games? What about when a new uberstat comes along and shows you that the last ones were lacking dimensions?

Not every uberstat is perfect, and there are no doubt new discoveries to be made in sabermetrics. But the thing is, that it has already been definitively proven which statistics correlate with runs, and how certain measures are good measures of team winning games and scoring runs. Those are the ones put into these statistics, and they are in a TOTAL and COMPLETE consensus agreement that Joe Morgan is one of the top 20 players of all time, and again even without LQ adjustments.

The way I can avoid it is to not go with metrics, not make up my own statistical standard.

Then are you saying you ignore statistics completely? You have to have some way in which you interpret statistics to determine how great a player is. It doesn't have to be just statistics-but you have already said that that plays at least some part in it.

LOL. I wouldnt know because I dont follow them.

I'll say one thing, I value greatness as much as I value value, or whatever you/everybody/me values. I believe he wasn't "great" enough to make my top 20. I dont have one certain aspect that makes me believe that, but I just do. I'll do more reading and look into more in depth, and maybe I will change my mind. But the metrics won't, like you seem to think.

Why wasn't he great enough to you? You "just believe it"? So are you saying you just place him there because you just feel like it, not because of any evidence or anything like that. Well, I guess Hornsby is now out of my top 100, because I just don't believe he was great enough.

Of course I'm kidding but that's basically exactly what you just said.

EvanAparra

11-26-2006, 07:41 PM

Not every uberstat is perfect, and there are no doubt new discoveries to be made in sabermetrics. But the thing is, that it has already been definitively proven which statistics correlate with runs, and how certain measures are good measures of team winning games and scoring runs. Those are the ones put into these statistics, and they are in a TOTAL and COMPLETE consensus agreement that Joe Morgan is one of the top 20 players of all time, and again even without LQ adjustments.

See, thats weird, because he's not in everyone's top 20, its not like im the only one that doesn't believe so.

Then are you saying you ignore statistics completely?

Of course not.

EvanAparra

11-26-2006, 07:45 PM

Why wasn't he great enough to you? You "just believe it"? So are you saying you just place him there because you just feel like it, not because of any evidence or anything like that. Well, I guess Hornsby is now out of my top 100, because I just don't believe he was great enough.

Of course I'm kidding but that's basically exactly what you just said.

No, it's not basically what I said. As much as you may hate it, his slugging is low, his BA is low, his defense wasn't good enough to make up for it. If you want to argue his OBP and basestealing were good enough than that's fine. He was a valuable player no doubt, but not good enough to make my top 20.

And yes, because I believe him to not be in my top 20. I put Cobb #1 because I BELIEVE him to be the best ever, of course there are stats to back that up, but in the end it's whether I BELIEVE he was better than Ruth.

Without all the advanced metrics, Win Shares (which I think has Hornsby higher), or LQ adjustments, you probably wouldnt have Morgan smelling your top 10, so I dont get you cant understand how someone who doesnt pay attention to them doesnt have him up there. Get it now?

EvanAparra

11-26-2006, 09:21 PM

Based on what he did to help his teams win, Joe Morgan was at least a top 20 player of all time. It is an inavoidable conclusion, and the ONLY way you can avoid it is to come up with your own made up statistical standard based on traditonal stats.

Looks like i'm not the only one.

From Member's Official Opinions: Morgan's Rankings

33
19
Not in top 22
27
Not in top 20 (and from what ive seen of his opinions, no where near it)
10 (you)
18
30
17
14
15
27
not in top 20
20
not in top 20
15
20
In top 20 - but no order given
Not in top 20
Not in top 20
Not in top 20
16
Not in top 20
12
Not in top 20
Not in top 20
17
Not in top 20
26
Not in top 20 (me)
16
14

13 have Morgan in top 20, 16 don't. (2 Have Him at Exactly 20). Everyone must have come up with their own baseless statistical standards as well.

So while I may have him lower than anyone else, you have him higher than everyone else. And while I may even admit i'm wrong and move him a little higher, you having him in the top 10 is crazy, IMO, even crazier than having him above Hornsby.

538280

11-27-2006, 11:14 AM

See, thats weird, because he's not in everyone's top 20, its not like im the only one that doesn't believe so.

And I could easily be having these same discussions with them. No offense to those people, but those are also the same people who choose to ignore real statistical analysis most of the time and either go with their own baseless standard or go by "historical opinions" which are often baseless as well and filled with falsehoods, nevermind that you can use them to prove always anyone was better than anyone (like Curt Schilling saying Alex Gonzalez was a better fielder than Ozzie Smith?).

Of course not.

Then how do you use them? If you don't use them in the way that correlates to why teams win games, then how in the hell do you use them? I've been asking you this all thread and you still haven't answered?

EvanAparra

11-27-2006, 11:19 AM

And I could easily be having these same discussions with them. No offense to those people, but those are also the same people who choose to ignore real statistical analysis most of the time and either go with their own baseless standard or go by "historical opinions" which are often baseless as well and filled with falsehoods, nevermind that you can use them to prove always anyone was better than anyone (like Curt Schilling saying Alex Gonzalez was a better fielder than Ozzie Smith?).

I get it now. You know the way, everyone else is lost behind baseless standards.

Then how do you use them? If you don't use them in the way that correlates to why teams win games, then how in the hell do you use them? I've been asking you this all thread and you still haven't answered?

Sure, I use them in the way that I think they help teams win games. I think slugging means something, i think OBP means something, same with batting average, same with OPS+, same with baserunning, defense, and all of this relative to the leager. I played baseball, so I have a small idea as to what helps teams win games, I dont need a mathematical formula to tell me how the Red Sox beat the Orioles last night.

538280

11-27-2006, 11:24 AM

No, it's not basically what I said. As much as you may hate it, his slugging is low, his BA is low, his defense wasn't good enough to make up for it. If you want to argue his OBP and basestealing were good enough than that's fine. He was a valuable player no doubt, but not good enough to make my top 20.

His BA/OBP/SLG are good enough to give him a 132 OPS+. That is 4th all time among 2Bmen, being 4th at your position probably should get you a lot higher than 40th. And that OPS+ was driven by OBP, which is the much more important component of it-and yet shortchanged all the time because it is the much smaller number and the difference between that an the average is always smaller. He also was one of the best basestealers of all time. OPS+ does NOT do him total justice as an offensive player, and this is supported by every comprehensive metric out there, which I have already shown all have him around the 20th to 25th best career offensive players of all time.

You're going with a baseless standard. You say he's not that high because his BA and SLG weren't high enough, and then say "if you want to argue that his OBP and SB make up for that, then okay". Well, REAL and definitetive statistical analysyes have already been done on the subject, and they ALL (this isn't just one isolated study, but ALL of them which have ever been done) say that his total picture as an offensive player is enough to put him 20th-25th all time. You reject that because his BA and SLG aren't high enough? Again, you're going on a baseless, subjective standard which has nothing to do with why teams win games.

And yes, because I believe him to not be in my top 20. I put Cobb #1 because I BELIEVE him to be the best ever, of course there are stats to back that up, but in the end it's whether I BELIEVE he was better than Ruth.

That belief has to be based on evidence, though, and your evidence is nothing but your own made up standard, which really satisfies no one but (apparently) you and has nothing to do with why the game is won or the game of baseball. Your standard has not been confirmed by anything, and in fact is has already been definitively been proven wrong by every statistical study ever done on the subject.

Without all the advanced metrics, Win Shares (which I think has Hornsby higher), or LQ adjustments, you probably wouldnt have Morgan smelling your top 10, so I dont get you cant understand how someone who doesnt pay attention to them doesnt have him up there. Get it now?

So you don't want to learn or broaden your horizons? You'd rather continue to go on with your BS standard rather than adopt something that's accurate? You're acting in much the same way which you have discouraged AlecBoy06 from acting. When you hear real, definitive, and proven statistical statements your response is to plug your ears and not listen rather than learn for yourself and expand on what you know.

I have already explained to you that even without LQ adjustments Morgan would be comfortably in my top 25.

If it were not for advanced statistical methods like Win Shares I would still have Morgan where I have him. Though it would be much harder to prove, I would still have a true understanding of how statistics correlate to wins and losses for the team, and would be able to apply that knowledge towards an accurate list.