Lou Gehrig's/Jimmie Foxx's/Hank Greenberg's numbers if they played today

[brett]

I believe that if he was playing today, Lou Gehrig would have a decent chance at 800 career Home Runs. He would likely not have to suffer the multiple concussions that he had in his time, because of being able to wear batting helmets, and if he did have a concussion or two, he wouldn't be allowed to come back and play the next day.

There have been multiple medical studies in recent years that have shown that multiple concussions followed by a player coming back too soon from those injuries is what leads to ALS, or ALS type death, and that is likely what happened to Gehrig. There were at least 6 times that Gehrig was hit in the head with a pitch or knocked out on a collision at the plate only to come back and play the next day.

I see Gehrig as a career .320 hitter in modern MLB, 700-800 career HR's, a .427 career OBP, and the Yankees would have a few extra titles in the 2000's. I think Gehrig was just that good and would have been incredible in any era

As good as Pujols is, I see Gehrig as just a little bit better: more speed on the basepaths which led to more triples than Pujols, and a better OBP too. I think Pujols is the #2 1B of All-Time though and the #10 Non-Pitcher of All-Time, with a chance to get to around #5 or #6

1) The league batting average is down 7.0% compared to Gehrig's league and yet you have him only dropping about 5.9% (20 point out of .340) even though with your premise he would have had several years of decline. Why do you think he would have not dropped by at least the same relative percentage as the league has with better gloves, and specialized relief pitchers? Why would he not lose even more especially given 4-5 years of decline?

2) I have read that Gehrig hit a high percentage of low line drives, even among his home runs so I personally think that his home run rate would not really have been helped by smaller ballparks.

3) It does appear now that ALS, while probably genetic, it accelerated greatly by head trauma as ALS is basically an inability to repair the brain. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_933604.html That's interesting and does cause me to view Gehrig differently. If his disease had been simply a genetic inevitability then that's part of what makes him "him" but since playing related head trauma almost surely caused an early onset of ALS, I have an impulse to give Gehrig much more credit for what he might have done ha he not been afflicted so early. That would be enough for me to move him from the 9-14 range to the 5-8, or maybe even as high as battling Cobb for my #3 spot. I ran Gehrig's stats using the declines of Aaron, Ruth and Williams once and he would have had just under 3800 hits, 700 home runs, 750 doubles, 2800 RBI and about a .338 average and an OPS+ of 173. He would have been just past Aaron's career WAR total of 138 with about 140-142, just behind Cobb. I still think he was built perfectly for his time and able to take particular advantage.

[brett]

There must be some study you are referring to, but I don't think I've seen it.

AL
*********BB-HR (per 9 innings)
1919-1928 3.3- .35
1929-1945 3.6- .54
1946-1947 3.7- .54
1948-1954 4.0- .67
1955-1962 3.6- .88
1963-1993 3.3- .83
1994-2012 3.4-1.08

I don't see the trend. Historically, there is no correlation between walks and homers.

Do you have a study identifying walks based on a 'power-hitter' criterion? Moreover, the highest level of walks was historically after intergration.

The study correlated walks to slugging percentage (in standard deviations above average) for individual players, not years. Before 1920 there was no correlation between a players walk rate an slugging percentage. Some better sluggers got more walks and some got below average rates. Starting around 1920 and going until about 1955, the players with the highest relative slugging percentages got more than the league rate of walks. With integration again there was no correaltion-some sluggers walked more and some less. Actually however the partial data on the 2000s showed more walks for sluggers again. And as for your data, we are comparing the period 1920-1955 to the periods before and after. You can see that starting in the 50s home runs rose but walks no longer went up to match.

the basic theory is that with the live ball, the guys set up to take advantage received a relative boost in value and that the rest of the game was fairly low quality-playing 20 years in the past, no huge strikout pitchers, most hitters being allowed to make contact but power hitters being pitched around largely. The lower league baseline quality remained through Korea with athletes lost to consignment (consider that we removed a high percentage of healthy, fit males from the sports pool for 30 years) and that integration finally brought back a balance where the average joe was getting his share of value.

[drstrangelove]

I ran Gehrig's stats using the declines of Aaron, Ruth and Williams once and he would have had just under 3800 hits, 700 home runs, 750 doubles, 2800 RBI and about a .338 average and an OPS+ of 173. He would have been just past Aaron's career WAR total of 138 with about 140-142, just behind Cobb. I still think he was built perfectly for his time and able to take particular advantage.

Bill James had done something like this (689 homers, 3,928 hits, .330 average, 2,800 RBI, 2,475 walks, etc.) He said: "These are not unreasonable numbers, they just look unreasonable because they are so extraodrinary."

Gehrig was suffering the entire 1938 season with the disease, so it's not at all a stretch.

[drstrangelove]

The study correlated walks to slugging percentage (in standard deviations above average) for individual players, not years. Before 1920 there was no correlation between a players walk rate an slugging percentage. Some better sluggers got more walks and some got below average rates. Starting around 1920 and going until about 1955, the players with the highest relative slugging percentages got more than the league rate of walks. With integration again there was no correaltion-some sluggers walked more and some less. Actually however the partial data on the 2000s showed more walks for sluggers again. And as for your data, we are comparing the period 1920-1955 to the periods before and after. You can see that starting in the 50s home runs rose but walks no longer went up to match.

the basic theory is that with the live ball, the guys set up to take advantage received a relative boost in value and that the rest of the game was fairly low quality-playing 20 years in the past, no huge strikout pitchers, most hitters being allowed to make contact but power hitters being pitched around largely. The lower league baseline quality remained through Korea with athletes lost to consignment (consider that we removed a high percentage of healthy, fit males from the sports pool for 30 years) and that integration finally brought back a balance where the average joe was getting his share of value.

This is interesting. I'd like to see the study if you can find the link or suggest a google.

[brett]

This is interesting. I'd like to see the study if you can find the link or suggest a google.

I've seen and participated in two threads on the topic in the stats forum. I'll try to track them down.

[pheasant]

Frank Thomas during his peak years averages 133 walks per 162 games and he did that in the AL where they have a DH. I have put Lou Gehrig in that range today.

[brett]

Frank Thomas during his peak years averages 133 walks per 162 games and he did that in the AL where they have a DH. I have put Lou Gehrig in that range today.

That doesn't make sense to me. Frank Thomas was an extreme outlier in the 90s for drawing walks averaging more than the average league leader for 20 years prior and the years since his prime. Gehrig averaged around 110 for his peak 12-13 years but the league leaders in the decade before and after averaged more than he did and the top walk drawers drew proportionately more compared to the league when he played so I think he would certainly average relatively fewer in modern times, maybe Pujols like walk numbers.

[HitchedtoaSpark]

I have read that Gehrig hit a high percentage of low line drives, even among his home runs so I personally think that his home run rate would not really have been helped by smaller ballparks.

This makes no sense. The smaller parks of the '50s, '60s & '70s helped a "low line drive" hitter become the all-time home run champ.

[brett]

This makes no sense. The smaller parks of the '50s, '60s & '70s helped a "low line drive" hitter become the all-time home run champ.

The smaller parks would help home runs, but would you expect them to help someone who hits a lot of live drives, or a lot of fly balls more?

[flash143817]

That doesn't make sense to me. Frank Thomas was an extreme outlier in the 90s for drawing walks averaging more than the average league leader for 20 years prior and the years since his prime. Gehrig averaged around 110 for his peak 12-13 years but the league leaders in the decade before and after averaged more than he did and the top walk drawers drew proportionately more compared to the league when he played so I think he would certainly average relatively fewer in modern times, maybe Pujols like walk numbers.

Almost exactly 1/4 of Pujols career walks are intentional (256 of 1003). And those obviously don't factor in the "unintentional intentional" walks. This is a huge percentage that is probably surpassed only by Bonds throughout history.

He is a beneficiary of the same type of pitching that you say increased Gehrig's walk totals. They were pitching around a feared slugger. Do you believe that more than 1/4 of Gehrig's career walks would be classified as "intentional" by today's standards?

Otherwise I see no reason that Gehrig would decrease his walk total by about 20-30 per year down to Pujols levels. He was a very smart hitter that would probably rank among league leaders in walks every year. This probably puts him in the 100-115 range most years today.

You even mentioned yourself that the study showed an uptick in the 2000s for walking sluggers. That would imply that Pujols was playing in very similar walk conditions to Gehrig and still walking far less.

[pheasant]

Also, Gehrig's walk rates soared once Ruth was out of the picture. Gehrig averaged 130 walks per year during his 3 healthy years that Ruth was gone. And for 2 of those 3 healthy years, he had Dimaggio in the lineup. That lineup with Gehrig and Dimaggio was incredible, yet Gehrig still walked 130 times per year. Ruth drastically decreased Gehrig's walk totals, which only makes sense. If you take Ruth out of the equation, I believe he would have averaged 130 walks per year, a number in which only Ted Williams exceeded. Gehrig was indeed a BB machine.

[HitchedtoaSpark]

The smaller parks would help home runs, but would you expect them to help someone who hits a lot of live drives, or a lot of fly balls more?

The answer to this is obvious. Nonetheless, some line drive hitters like Aaron, Banks, Griffey, etc., have been able to put up some historic home run totals, due in no small part to the cozier dimensions of modern parks. There should be no doubt that Gehrig would be among this group had he a similar advantage in his day.

[brett]

Almost exactly 1/4 of Pujols career walks are intentional (256 of 1003). And those obviously don't factor in the "unintentional intentional" walks. This is a huge percentage that is probably surpassed only by Bonds throughout history.

He is a beneficiary of the same type of pitching that you say increased Gehrig's walk totals. They were pitching around a feared slugger. Do you believe that more than 1/4 of Gehrig's career walks would be classified as "intentional" by today's standards?

Otherwise I see no reason that Gehrig would decrease his walk total by about 20-30 per year down to Pujols levels. He was a very smart hitter that would probably rank among league leaders in walks every year. This probably puts him in the 100-115 range most years today.

You even mentioned yourself that the study showed an uptick in the 2000s for walking sluggers. That would imply that Pujols was playing in very similar walk conditions to Gehrig and still walking far less.

You are right about Pujols. Walks are high for sluggers recently. I think that Gehrig was pitched around a lot even if it was not intentional. I think I agree with 100-115 walks most year (keep in mind that he got a lot of plate appearances because his team turned the lineup over and played in a very high on base period, something like 50 more plate appearances per year as a result.

[brett]

Also, Gehrig's walk rates soared once Ruth was out of the picture. Gehrig averaged 130 walks per year during his 3 healthy years that Ruth was gone. And for 2 of those 3 healthy years, he had Dimaggio in the lineup. That lineup with Gehrig and Dimaggio was incredible, yet Gehrig still walked 130 times per year. Ruth drastically decreased Gehrig's walk totals, which only makes sense. If you take Ruth out of the equation, I believe he would have averaged 130 walks per year, a number in which only Ted Williams exceeded. Gehrig was indeed a BB machine.

Why would having Ruth in front of him reduce his walks? Anyway the main thing about the later increase in walks was that the Yankees offense was so prolific that the relative value of a walk, and a semi or wholly intentional walk decreased compared to the value of a hit. The more runners on base the more a single outvalues a walk.

[scribe114]

Wasn't Greenberg in this discussion too?

[brett]

Wasn't Greenberg in this discussion too?

Greenberg has a kind of torn up career. He lost all the war years and he also kind of gave up on baseball after he was traded to Pittsburgh (he played his best there but the war and the trade I think sapped his passion. He would probably have been at least a close third behind Foxx with maybe 525-530 home runs for quite a long period just giving him the 5 full years but had he not been sapped so much I think he would have topped Foxx and been the #2 home run hitter and #1 right handed home run hitter with about 550 again for something like 30 years. Also, he actually was likely traded as punishment for a statement he made as part of his military service, I don't remember what but something that made the Detroit owner mad.

His relative park adjusted batting average was only 109.4% meaning that in Pujols' league he would have hit about .290. I think that is optimistic. Greenberg and Foxx were both high strikout guys for their time, but there were just not as many strikeout pitchers back then so I think they drop a little more. Maybe .280 for Greenberg. Foxx' relative BA would put him at .309 and Gehrig's at about .316.
Foxx and Greenberg were right handed and there are more lefty pitchers today to balance out left handed hitters so maybe Gehrig goes down a tad say .310 and .285 for Greenberg and .305 for Foxx. Greenberg's park helped home runs some but I still think he gets over 500. Gehrig gets 650+ if his ALS was advanced by head trauma. Foxx probably drops slightly in a neutral park, but who knows, maybe he gets some therapy.

rough guess:
Gehrig .310 with 650 home runs
Foxx .305 and 475
Greenberg .290 and 540

[wrgptfan]

Post without the quote to which I was replying

[wrgptfan]

There must be some study you are referring to, but I don't think I've seen it.

AL
*********BB-HR (per 9 innings)
1919-1928 3.3- .35
1929-1945 3.6- .54
1946-1947 3.7- .54
1948-1954 4.0- .67
1955-1962 3.6- .88
1963-1993 3.3- .83
1994-2012 3.4-1.08

I don't see the trend. Historically, there is no correlation between walks and homers.

Do you have a study identifying walks based on a 'power-hitter' criterion? Moreover, the highest level of walks was historically after intergration.

There is some info regarding this in a history thread about 5-6 years ago titled "Reggie Jackson/Sam Crawford". Essentially I identified sluggers (defined as having an ISO 20? % greater than the league with a minimum of some number of PAs), then I compared their walk rate against the league. The results were not really surprising.

[brett]

There is some info regarding this in a history thread about 5-6 years ago titled "Reggie Jackson/Sam Crawford". Essentially I identified sluggers (defined as having an ISO 20? % greater than the league with a minimum of some number of PAs), then I compared their walk rate against the league. The results were not really surprising.

I believe it was found that from the 20s to the 50s, their walk rates were disproportionately high. Isolated power itself also became disporportionately high for the top sluggers. There was another thread on this later. I think it got refined to the top 5% of sluggers.

One way to think about it is that on average, a typical hitter before 1920 got about a 7:2:1 ratio of their batting value from average:isolated power:walks. The top hitters also got about the same ratio ON AVERAGE.

After 1920 the top hitter got more relative value from walks and isolated power and why this is important is that the average player was only getting more walks and extra bases in proportion to their increase in batting average so the best hitters got a relative boost

[flash143817]

You are right about Pujols. Walks are high for sluggers recently. I think that Gehrig was pitched around a lot even if it was not intentional. I think I agree with 100-115 walks most year (keep in mind that he got a lot of plate appearances because his team turned the lineup over and played in a very high on base period, something like 50 more plate appearances per year as a result.

True that Gehrig played in a great lineup so his raw walk totals are high. But his career walk % is 15.6, compared to 12.9 for Pujols. Since both guys are extremely durable and likely to see 650-700 plate appearances per year in the modern game, that still comes out to 20 or so extra walks per year for Gehrig compared to Pujols.

[Myankee4life]

rough guess:
Gehrig .310 with 650 home runs
Foxx .305 and 475
Greenberg .290 and 540

I can't agree that a hitter as powerful as Foxx, would have hit less Homeruns today than Fred Mcgriff.

[brett]

I can't agree that a hitter as powerful as Foxx, would have hit less Homeruns today than Fred Mcgriff.

I don't think he would have played as long. I also have to consider that his parks helped him out, but I'm thinking he breaks in at age 21 and then had a peak from between ages 22-31 which is 10 years. After age 31 he basically had one good and one solid year. I think he averages 40 a year from ages 22-31, maybe 30 as a 21 year old rookie and maybe 30 at age 32 and 15 at age 33. That's 475 in 13 years. Then again I'd probably have to raise his average 5-7 points with the short career, so maybe .312 at 475 in 13 years.

[White Knight]

I have Pujols and Gehrig very close for peak, but Foxx trailing Pujols by a decent margin. Eventually, Pujols will overtake Gehrig in the all-time rankings, especially if he tops 600 HRs. I.e, I already have Pujols ahead of Foxx for career value and quite a bit ahead for peak. As for peak, I think Gehrig and Pujols are a coinflip. I need to look at the numbers more to decide whom I think has the better peak of the two.

I don't have him coming close to Gehrig, ever.

[White Knight]

Regardless of whether he's more durable or not, Pujols has been consistently durable in his career. I don't think Gehrig crushes him in that department.

Playing every game vs. missing 7-10 games or so a year is crushing him over a 12 year period.

[White Knight]

Are you by any chance related to Pujols? TOP 5 or 6 best PLAYER ever? REALLY?

How high do you have Frank Thomas?

You are using numbers that show Foxx for his entire career, decline years included, while Pujols is just starting to decline. In a few years, his road stats will be well below Foxx's.

He's been vastly over-rating Pujols for years. To me he's nothing special, he's never even had a top 25 year.