How Good Was Chuck Klein's Peak?

[willshad]

Chuck Klein is in the hall of fame based totally on a 5 year peak from 1929-1933. I liken him to Todd Helton, who had a similiar peak from 2000-2004. Both men had amazing raw stats that were aided by their era (to lesser extent) and to their home parks (to a greater extent). Yet Klein was more 'dominant' in his own league, thus much more worthy of hall enshrinement, in my opinion.
But how good was his peak, historically speaking? Going by OPS+ it was great, but not spectacular. However, he managed to get a LOT of black ink stuffed into those 5 years. Also, if the MVP voting was the same as it is today, he probbaly would have won the MVP 3 or 4 out of the 5 years. In 1930 it would have been close between him and Hack Wilson. In 1931 he was robbed by Frisch, perhaps the worst season ever for an MVP. In 1932 he won it, and in 1933 Carl Hubbell won it. Im not sure, but I think that the rule back then was nobosy could win it more than once, so that would disqualify Klein that year.

[SavoyBG]

Chuck Klein is in the hall of fame based totally on a 5 year peak from 1929-1933. I liken him to Todd Helton, who had a similiar peak from 2000-2004. Both men had amazing raw stats that were aided by their era (to lesser extent) and to their home parks (to a greater extent). Yet Klein was more 'dominant' in his own league, thus much more worthy of hall enshrinement, in my opinion.
But how good was his peak, historically speaking? Going by OPS+ it was great, but not spectacular. However, he managed to get a LOT of black ink stuffed into those 5 years. Also, if the MVP voting was the same as it is today, he probbaly would have won the MVP 4 out of the 5 years. There is no doubt he would have won it in 1930 had there been a vote. In 1931 he was robbed by Frisch, perhaps the worst season ever for an MVP. In 1932 he won it, and in 1933 Carl Hubbell won it. Im not sure, but I think that the rule back then was nobosy could win it more than once, so that would disqualify Klein that year.

There was no rule against somebody winning it more than once at that time. I think the writers did not see players on losing teams as being very valuable, as they don't nowadays either. I know a couple of voters who tell me that they would never vore for a player on a losing team.

Klein's peak was about the same as Rusty Staub.

[willshad]

There was no rule against somebody winning it more than once at that time. I think the writers did not see players on losing teams as being very valuable, as they don't nowadays either. I know a couple of voters who tell me that they would never vore for a player on a losing team.

Klein's peak was about the same as Rusty Staub.

Klein was much beter than Staub for peak. if a guy had Klein's peak and the length of a career as Staub he would be one of the best players of all time. I think Jim Rice is a better comparison. You are only going by OPS+ I think..that is really not the only thing one can go by. For instance, in 1969 Staub had an OPS+ of 166 but with unimpressive raw numbers. 79 RBI? Klein had a lower OPS+ in 1930 but had a historic season and led the league in almost everything. The seasons arent comparable.
As for the 'losing team' argument..the guy won the triple crown for goodness sake. Id like to think that if someone won the triple crown today he would win the MVP over a pitcher, even if his team was in last place.

[bob]

Despite some huge numbers in RBI, TB and hits his peak isnt enough for me to consider him a for-sure HOFer, especially since he dropped of a cliff after whn he left philly in '34 (comparatively speaking).
His isnt a top level peak and was overshadowed by more than a couple of people in the same era.
EDIT: Willshad, in 1930 NL Klein was second best to Wilson in many stats from triple crown numbers to rate stats. Not by much, but Wilson is ahead that year in my books.

[SavoyBG]

Klein was much beter than Staub for peak. if a guy had Klein's peak and the length of a career as Staub he would be one of the best players of all time. I think Jim Rice is a better comparison. You are only going by OPS+ I think..that is really not the only thing one can go by. For instance, in 1969 Staub had an OPS+ of 166 but with unimpressive raw numbers. 79 RBI? Klein had a lower OPS+ in 1930 but had a historic season and led the league in almost everything. The seasons arent comparable.

Have to disagree Will. That's why we have OPS+, to take away the distorted raw numbers that occur in ridiculous hitters eras and ridiculous home parks like the Baker Bowl. Staub only had 79 RBIs because nobody else on his team was ever on base in 1969 and he was not playing in a Little League field like Klein was in 1930.

There were 1187 runs scored in 77 games at the baker bowl in 1930 - that's 15.4 per game.

There were 709 runs scored in 81 games in Montreal (Jarry Park) in 1969. That's only 8.8 per game.

There were almost twice as many runs scored in the evironment that Klein was playing his home games at in 1930 than there were in the environment that Staub was playing his hime games at in 1969.

If 1969 Staub were playing in 1930 in the Baker Bowl his raw numbers would look very similar to klein's numbers.

[willshad]

Have to disagree Will. That's why we have OPS+, to take away the distorted raw numbers that occur in ridiculous hitters eras and ridiculous home parks like the Baker Bowl. Staub only had 79 RBIs because nobody else on his team was ever on base in 1969 and he was not playing in a Little League field like Klein was in 1930.

There were 1187 runs scored in 77 games at the baker bowl in 1930 - that's 15.4 per game.

There were 709 runs scored in 81 games in Montreal (Jarry Park) in 1969. That's only 8.8 per game.

There were almost twice as many runs scored in the evironment that Klein was playing his home games at in 1930 than there were in the environment that Staub was playing his hime games at in 1969.

If 1969 Staub were playing in 1930 in the Baker Bowl his raw numbers would look very similar to klein's numbers.

Possibly, but he didnt. And its not like everyone on the Phillies those seasons were putting up numbers like Klein. The fact that he led the league in many categories makes his seasons much better than Staub's. Rusty never led in anything except games played and grounded into double plays.

[willshad]

Despite some huge numbers in RBI, TB and hits his peak isnt enough for me to consider him a for-sure HOFer, especially since he dropped of a cliff after whn he left philly in '34 (comparatively speaking).
His isnt a top level peak and was overshadowed by more than a couple of people in the same era.
EDIT: Willshad, in 1930 NL Klein was second best to Wilson in many stats from triple crown numbers to rate stats. Not by much, but Wilson is ahead that year in my books.

Who would you rank higher at this point, Klein or Todd Helton?

[SavoyBG]

Possibly, but he didnt. And its not like everyone on the Phillies those seasons were putting up numbers like Klein. The fact that he led the league in many categories makes his seasons much better than Staub's. Rusty never led in anything except games played and grounded into double plays.

Staub led his league in doubles in 1967.

Klein's seasons are not better than Staub's. He was only leading in things because he was the best hitter on a team that playing half of its games in a park with a 230 foot RF fence.

Here's Klein's road numbers in 1930:

AB   R    H    TB   2B  3B  HR  RBI   BB   AVG  OBP  SLG  OPS
322  67  107  186  27  5    14   61   29  .332  .389 .578  967

For his career Klein hit .354 with an OBP of .411 and a SLG% of .619 at home.

On the road he was .285/.345/.465 for his career. If he had played in a normal park for his entire career his numbers would be nothing special, and doubtful he would ever had led in anything other than maybe stolen bases that one time.

Staub was .279/.366/.431 for his full career, playing in a much lower scoring era than Klein.

Klein on the road -.285/.345/.465
Staub full career -.279/.366/.431

[willshad]

I realize that Klein's road numbers aren't great..but you cannot totally discount what he did at home, either. Guys like Larry Walker, Todd Helton, Jim Rice, Ron Santo, Billy Williams, Yaz, Ernie Banks, Wade Boggs, etc werent so great on the road either, and yet we dont act as if they played somewhere else their whole career and judge them based on that. To an extent you have to judge based on what someone DID, not what they WOULD HAVE done, in another time and place.

[SavoyBG]

I realize that Klein's road numbers aren't great..but you cannot totally discount what he did at home, either. Guys like Larry Walker, Todd Helton, Jim Rice, Ron Santo, Billy Williams, Yaz, Ernie Banks, Wade Boggs, etc werent so great on the road either, and yet we dont act as if they played somewhere else their whole career and judge them based on that.

Sure we do. Most of the argument against Rice being a hall of famer is that his numbers are severely distorted by his home park. In fact, he's a good comp for Klein. A guy who would seem to have been the best hitter in his league for several based solely on his raw numbers, but under deeper scrutiny it becomes obvious that neither player was truly great and both looked a lot better then they were because of their home parks.

Yaz was .306/.405/.503 in Fenway and just .264/.360/.422 on the road for his career.

[The Splendid Splinter]

I realize that Klein's road numbers aren't great..but you cannot totally discount what he did at home, either. Guys like Larry Walker, Todd Helton, Jim Rice, Ron Santo, Billy Williams, Yaz, Ernie Banks, Wade Boggs, etc werent so great on the road either, and yet we dont act as if they played somewhere else their whole career and judge them based on that. To an extent you have to judge based on what someone DID, not what they WOULD HAVE done, in another time and place.

At least Helton is good away from home... .294/.394/.494 away... but he's just so good at home that does make his numbers look better .362/.461/.652...

Helton and Klein are very similar really... although Helton isn't done..... yet.

[willshad]

Sure we do. Most of the argument against Rice being a hall of famer is that his numbers are severely distorted by his home park. In fact, he's a good comp for Klein. A guy who would seem to have been the best hitter in his league for several based solely on his raw numbers, but under deeper scrutiny it becomes obvious that neither player was truly great and both looked a lot better then they were because of their home parks.

Yaz was .306/.405/.503 in Fenway and just .264/.360/.422 on the road for his career.

Thats my point..nobody sees Yaz as a .264 .360 .422 type of guy. He is often seen on top 30 lists of the best players ever. he is an extrme example, because not only is he not judged based on his average road stats, but he isnt even judged on his average total stats, either....he is instead looked at as a superstar that he was for about 3 seasons out of a 24 year career.
My point is, that while people may take into account the home/road disparity, they certainly dont just look at road stats.

[AstrosFan]

I think one needs to account for the home/road disparity. It shouldn't be the first thing we turn to, but we should be aware of it. But those who do must keep in mind that players do adjust to their home park, and so if you choose to use the road numbers as your guide to a player's true quality, you should give the numbers some kind of upward boost.

Klein's splits are so extreme, that even with the home field boost, his peak still isn't very impressive. Take his road numbers, give him a full 10% home field boost (which is high), account for the park-neutral run context in which he played, and adjust to a 162 game schedule, and it may not be one of the top 100 peaks of all time. I don't have enough information on split data of all players to say that with any certainty, but Klein's peak is just not very impressive. He's not even a borderline Hall of Famer to me. He's a definite no.

[AstrosFan]

Thats my point..nobody sees Yaz as a .264 .360 .422 type of guy. He is often seen on top 30 lists of the best players ever. he is an extrme example, because not only is he not judged based on his average road stats, but he isnt even judged on his average total stats, either....he is instead looked at as a superstar that he was for about 3 seasons out of a 24 year career.
My point is, that while people may take into account the home/road disparity, they certainly dont just look at road stats.

Yaz gets a boost because he is seen by some as the best fielding LFer in history, but I think you have a point here. I'm not sure if you're comparing him to Klein directly, but Yaz has a much longer career, and played in a much lower run context (once we take parks out of the equation).

[SavoyBG]

Other than Staub here are some other players whose peak is very close to Klein's.

Earl Averill
Cesar Cedeno
Billy Williams
Roy White
Bill Terry

[brett]

At least Helton is good away from home... .294/.394/.494 away... but he's just so good at home that does make his numbers look better .362/.461/.652...

Helton and Klein are very similar really... although Helton isn't done..... yet.

Helton is also a great defensive first baseman-top 5-10 all time, and because his defense stayed great, even his later seasons like '06 and '07 were valuable overall. He was making up an equivalent of about 10 OPS+ points on defense.

Klein, by the way was actually one of the first players to reach 300 career home runs, though off the top of my head he went into the hall by the VC in 1980? I'll check.

Still, in 1961 there were only 19 career 300 home run men I believe:

Ruth
Foxx
Williams
Ott
Gehrig
Musial
Snider
Mize
Greenberg
Hornsby
Dimaggio
Berra
Simmons
Mathews
Mays
Mantle
Hodges
Klein

one more...help me out

And all were basically hall of fame locks except Hodges and Klein.


By the way, how do people compare him to Medwick?

I have Medwick higher all time but still outside the top 100.

Rate these guys:

Medwick
Terry
Hack Wilson
Klein
Babe Herman

[brett]

Kiner is the other one of the guys with 300 through '61. I remember that there were 19 at the end of the year that Maris hit '61 because there was a little book published on the greatest home run hitters.

Banks and Killebrew were still 1 season away.

Its amazing because there are 118 300 home run men now. In '61 Klein was +19 now he is #118.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Klein's peak was much higher than Staub's, according to Offensive Winning Percentage. What's more, Klein's peak was more concentrated. Klein had two back-to-back seasons with an OWP over .800; Staub NEVER had such a season.

Klein clearly had a peak consistent with HOF induction on the basis of peak value. I think that this is beyond question, even adjusting for era and park. Klein was a problem drinker which caused something of an early decline, and he died at age 54, but his first five (5) years are a clear HOF peak, and, indeed, his first nine (9) years are easily consistent with a HOF career, even adjusting for park.

In his 1984 Historical Baseball Abstract, Bill James quoted another observer of Klein's career that "there's just too much there" to keep him out of the HOF. And I agree with that. Lots of guys played in the Baker Bowl and didn't do anywhere near what Klein did; indeed, if it were so easy to do what Klein did, there would be a host of Phillie outfielders that were career .300-.305 hitters with 200-ish HRs from that era that people would be making HOF cases for. There aren't. Klein did things that others didn't do; in fact, Klein did things others didn't come close to doing in the Baker Bowl. Or in Wrigley Field. I'm not sure how I rate Klein in terms of career value, but in terms of peak value, Chuck Klein is a clear HOFer, and heads and tails above Rusty Staub.

[SavoyBG]

Klein's peak was much higher than Staub's, according to Offensive Winning Percentage. What's more, Klein's peak was more concentrated. Klein had two back-to-back seasons with an OWP over .800; Staub NEVER had such a season.

Klein clearly had a peak consistent with HOF induction on the basis of peak value. I think that this is beyond question, even adjusting for era and park. Klein was a problem drinker which caused something of an early decline, and he died at age 54, but his first five (5) years are a clear HOF peak, and, indeed, his first nine (9) years are easily consistent with a HOF career, even adjusting for park.

In his 1984 Historical Baseball Abstract, Bill James quoted another observer of Klein's career that "there's just too much there" to keep him out of the HOF. And I agree with that. Lots of guys played in the Baker Bowl and didn't do anywhere near what Klein did; indeed, if it were so easy to do what Klein did, there would be a host of Phillie outfielders that were career .300-.305 hitters with 200-ish HRs from that era that people would be making HOF cases for. There aren't. Klein did things that others didn't do; in fact, Klein did things others didn't come close to doing in the Baker Bowl. Or in Wrigley Field. I'm not sure how I rate Klein in terms of career value, but in terms of peak value, Chuck Klein is a clear HOFer, and heads and tails above Rusty Staub.

Sorry, can't agree Bear.

Yes, Klein's peak offensively was a bit better than Staub, but overall they were even. Staub's numbers are actually slightly higher, but he was playing 162 games seasons. Adjust for that and their peak is almost dead even.

Best three years - win shares
Klein - 31, 30, 28
Staub - 32, 30, 28

Best 5 consecutive years - win shares
Klein - 140
Staub - 145

Klein's peak according to win shares is NOWHERE NEAR hall of fame value.

BTW, since you're mentioning Bill James and the HA. in the NHA abstarct he's got Klein at # 40 among RFers and Staub at # 24.

[willshad]

I think one needs to account for the home/road disparity. It shouldn't be the first thing we turn to, but we should be aware of it. But those who do must keep in mind that players do adjust to their home park, and so if you choose to use the road numbers as your guide to a player's true quality, you should give the numbers some kind of upward boost.

Klein's splits are so extreme, that even with the home field boost, his peak still isn't very impressive. Take his road numbers, give him a full 10% home field boost (which is high), account for the park-neutral run context in which he played, and adjust to a 162 game schedule, and it may not be one of the top 100 peaks of all time. I don't have enough information on split data of all players to say that with any certainty, but Klein's peak is just not very impressive. He's not even a borderline Hall of Famer to me. He's a definite no.

Do you not account for things like league leadership and MVP voting? I think what separates Klein from guys like Walker, Helton, and even Williams and Banks, was his domination. Maybe it was because there were less teams back then, but he racked up a LOT of ink in those 5 years, and deserved top 2 or 3 in MVP each season. One cannot say that about many players...thet for 5 seasons they were among the best 3 players in the league.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Sorry, can't agree Bear.

Yes, Klein's peak offensively was a bit better than Staub, but overall they were even. Staub's numbers are actually slightly higher, but he was playing 162 games seasons. Adjust for that and their peak is almost dead even.

Best three years - win shares
Klein - 31, 30, 28
Staub - 32, 30, 28

Best 5 consecutive years - win shares
Klein - 140
Staub - 145

Klein's peak according to win shares is NOWHERE NEAR hall of fame value.

BTW, since you're mentioning Bill James and the HA. in the NHA abstarct he's got Klein at # 40 among RFers and Staub at # 24.

There are a whole bunch of rankings in James' Historical Basball Abstracts that, personally, I believe James got it right the first time, and wrong the second time.

James' 1984 Historical Basball Abstract discussed rankings in terms of both Peak Value and Career Value; his 2000 Historical Basball Abstract was more focused on overall rankings, and did not focus in on peak vs. career value. I might (and I emphasize "might") agree that Staub's career was more valuable then Klein's career, but I can't agree that Staub's peak was more valuable than Klein's.

Adjusted OPS+ (Staub)
1967 NL-153-6
1969 NL-166-5
1971 NL-147-7
1976 AL-137-8

Offensive Win% (Staub)
1967 NL-.730-9
1969 NL-.785-3
1971 NL-.713-7
1976 AL-.677-9

Adjusted Batting Runs (Staub)
1967 NL-41-6
1968 NL-28-10
1969 NL-54-4
1971 NL-40-6
1976 AL-32-6
Car-356-87

Adjusted OPS+ (Klein)
1929 NL-153-6
1930 NL-159-3
1931 NL-152-3
1932 NL-165-2
1933 NL-176-1
1934 NL-136-9
1937 NL-130-9
1939 NL-127-10
Car-137-95

Offensive Win% (Klein)
1929 NL-.776-5
1930 NL-.799-3
1931 NL-.783-3
1932 NL-.819-1
1933 NL-.851-1
1934 NL-.673-9
1937 NL-.705-6
Car-.723-49

Adjusted Batting Runs (Klein)
1929 NL-49-6
1930 NL-62-3
1931 NL-43-1
1932 NL-60-2
1933 NL-63-1
Car-338-99

If you want to make the case that these figures don't make enough of an adjustment to do justice to Staub, that's another point. To the degree that these stats are park-neutral, it's hard for me to see how Staub had the higher peak.

[SavoyBG]

Do you not account for things like league leadership and MVP voting? I think what separates Klein from guys like Walker, Helton, and even Williams and Banks, was his domination. Maybe it was because there were less teams back then, but he racked up a LOT of ink in those 5 years, and deserved top 2 or 3 in MVP each season. One cannot say that about many players...thet for 5 seasons they were among the best 3 players in the league.

That's just it, Shad. He wasn't among the best three players in the league for 5 seasons. It's just a mirage, an illusion caused by his preposterous home park. He was NEVER among the top three players in the league in ANY season. The best he did was # 5 in two seasons.

Here's the league leaders in win shares over those 5 seasons:

1929
Hornsby - 42
Wilson - 32
Ott - 31
O'Doul - 31
P. Waner - 30
L. Waner - 27
Stephenson - 26
Herman - 26
Lucas - 26
Klein - 26

Klein is not even the best player on his team in 1929, O'Doul was better. He finishes in a 4 way tie for the 7th best player in 1929.

1930
Wilson - 35
Herman - 32
Terry - 32
Cuyler - 29
Hartnett - 29
Lindstrom - 28
Ott- 28
English - 28
Klein - 28

Klein finishes in a 4 way tie for 6th in 1930.

1931
Berger - 31
Terry - 29
Brandt - 27
Ott - 26
Herman - 26
Cuyler - 26
P. Waner - 26
Hafey - 25
Klein - 25

Klein finishes in a two way tie for 8th in 1931.

1932
O'Doul - 33
Ott - 33
Terry - 32
P. Waner - 32
Warneke - 31
Klein - 31

Klein finishes tied for 5th in 1932.

1933
Berger - 36
Vaughan - 34
Hubbell - 33
Ott - 31
Klein - 30

Klein finishes 5th in 1933.

If you're just gonna gawk at raw numbers without adjusting for the context you're gonna end up being fooled.

[SavoyBG]

There are a whole bunch of rankings in James' Historical Basball Abstracts that, personally, I believe James got it right the first time, and wrong the second time.

James' 1984 Historical Basball Abstract discussed rankings in terms of both Peak Value and Career Value; his 2000 Historical Basball Abstract was more focused on overall rankings, and did not focus in on peak vs. career value. I might (and I emphasize "might") agree that Staub's career was more valuable then Klein's career, but I can't agree that Staub's peak was more valuable than Klein's.

Adjusted OPS+ (Staub)
1967 NL-153-6
1969 NL-166-5
1971 NL-147-7
1976 AL-137-8

Offensive Win% (Staub)
1967 NL-.730-9
1969 NL-.785-3
1971 NL-.713-7
1976 AL-.677-9

Adjusted Batting Runs (Staub)
1967 NL-41-6
1968 NL-28-10
1969 NL-54-4
1971 NL-40-6
1976 AL-32-6
Car-356-87

Adjusted OPS+ (Klein)
1929 NL-153-6
1930 NL-159-3
1931 NL-152-3
1932 NL-165-2
1933 NL-176-1
1934 NL-136-9
1937 NL-130-9
1939 NL-127-10
Car-137-95

Offensive Win% (Klein)
1929 NL-.776-5
1930 NL-.799-3
1931 NL-.783-3
1932 NL-.819-1
1933 NL-.851-1
1934 NL-.673-9
1937 NL-.705-6
Car-.723-49

Adjusted Batting Runs (Klein)
1929 NL-49-6
1930 NL-62-3
1931 NL-43-1
1932 NL-60-2
1933 NL-63-1
Car-338-99

If you want to make the case that these figures don't make enough of an adjustment to do justice to Staub, that's another point. To the degree that these stats are park-neutral, it's hard for me to see how Staub had the higher peak.

I didn't say he had a higher peak, I said it was even. Once everything is factored in they each had about the same overall value at their peaks.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I didn't say he had a higher peak, I said it was even. Once everything is factored in they each had about the same overall value at their peaks.

I really can't agree with that assertion.

I might agree that Staub had a more vaulable career, although Klein probably brought more to the table, defensively, as well as on the basepaths. Staub grew fat and slow in his later years, and was injured with surprising frequency.

[SavoyBG]

I really can't agree with that assertion.

I might agree that Staub had a more vaulable career, although Klein probably brought more to the table, defensively, as well as on the basepaths. Staub grew fat and slow in his later years, and was injured with surprising frequency.

What you're missing is that it took a lot more runs to win a game in Klein's peak era and home park than it did in Staub's peak era. That's why even though Klein created more offense above league averages it still wasn't enough to make his peak more valuable (in terms of winning games) than Staub's peak.

Neither was good as a fielder. Klein was C-, Staub a D+. Both had excellent throwing arms for a time.

There can't really be an argument as to who had more career value.