OK, Shoeless Joe vs Dick Allen

[Chisox]

Agreed...

ALL players decline...it might not be a large decline...but they all decline...and you can bet the second half of Jackson's career would have had a lower OPS+ than the first half because the statistical probability of a player having a second half OPS+ greater than the first half is something like half a percent.

More importantly, although OPS+ is league indexed, it is much more difficult to get a high OPS+ in a balanced pitcher-favoring league than it is in a radically unbalanced pitcher favorable era. The deadball era was very weak in terms of overall talent disposition by modern standards...meaning we should expect a bigger gap between the stars and the rest. That means the stars will have a better chance of a high OPS+

In Allen's era, the league was highly balanced...he faced great pitching CONSISTANTLY...the best hitters of his time struggled to hit 150 for an OPS+ on a regular basis...the same cannot be said of the deadball era and especially not the 20s.

I absolutely 100% agree with that along with your previous statement. Allen should come out ahead fairly easily.

[jalbright]

More importantly, although OPS+ is league indexed, it is much more difficult to get a high OPS+ in a balanced pitcher-favoring league than it is in a radically unbalanced pitcher favorable era. The deadball era was very weak in terms of overall talent disposition by modern standards...meaning we should expect a bigger gap between the stars and the rest. That means the stars will have a better chance of a high OPS+

In Allen's era, the league was highly balanced...he faced great pitching CONSISTANTLY...the best hitters of his time struggled to hit 150 for an OPS+ on a regular basis...the same cannot be said of the deadball era and especially not the 20s.

Keeping in mind the above from Matt, I calculate Allen's career ops+ dropping his last three (subpar) years at 165, compared to Jackson's career 170. Allen did this in about 600 more AB, but if you dropped another season, his OPS+ wouldn't change as it was 165 that particular year. The question becomes how much do you adjust for Matt's argument, if at all? It doesn't have to be much (3% or so does the trick) to tie it up or put Allen ahead.

Jim Albright

[SABR Matt]

I think it's fairly obvious that Allen's league was ATLEAST three percent more challenging than Jackson's league. But hey...whatever floats your boat.

[BoSox Rule]

Well, you know, Jackson did hit over .350

h

[Honus Wagner Rules]

In Allen's era, the league was highly balanced...he faced great pitching CONSISTANTLY...the best hitters of his time struggled to hit 150 for an OPS+ on a regular basis...the same cannot be said of the deadball era and especially not the 20s.

Isn't this just a euphemism for parity and mediocrity? I still don't get the argument that the 1960s was the "strongest" period in baseball history. "Competitive" perhaps but necessarily the "strongest".

[SABR Matt]

Not the way I see it, HWR

The league was rapidly adding players from untapped markets and improving in its' ability to (a) treat injuries (b) scout and groom talent and (c) improve conditions for the players by the time the 70s rolled around. I find it very unlikely undeed that the balance that occured in the 60s was an even spread of mediocrity. Why should the 60s be a weaker era than the 50s? All logical conclusions point to the 60s and 70s getting stronger with time. Just because we expanded, don't assume that the league was necessarily weaker. If expansion had weakedned baseball in the 60s, the way it would have done that would be to bring several HORRIBLE teams into baseball...creating a talent IMBALANCE...REDUCING parity...not creating a sea of mediocrity.

I think it's pretty clear just by looking at rosters from that decade that the 60s were a much deeper league than the deadball years.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Not the way I see it, HWR

The league was rapidly adding players from untapped markets and improving in its' ability to (a) treat injuries (b) scout and groom talent and (c) improve conditions for the players by the time the 70s rolled around. I find it very unlikely undeed that the balance that occured in the 60s was an even spread of mediocrity. Why should the 60s be a weaker era than the 50s? All logical conclusions point to the 60s and 70s getting stronger with time. Just because we expanded, don't assume that the league was necessarily weaker. If expansion had weakedned baseball in the 60s, the way it would have done that would be to bring several HORRIBLE teams into baseball...creating a talent IMBALANCE...REDUCING parity...not creating a sea of mediocrity.

I think it's pretty clear just by looking at rosters from that decade that the 60s were a much deeper league than the deadball years.

I think you may have misunderstood my post. I believe that the 1960s was higher quality of baseball than the teens. What I am not so sure about is whether the 1960s had the highest quality of baseball ever. Some here at BBF emphatically assert that view as if it were some logical tautology. I don't think it's so cut and dry.

[SABR Matt]

Oddly...I never said that...I have stated publicly that I believe the period from 78 to 86 was the best period in major league history.

[ElHalo]

Allen will probably get trounced in this poll. But he was, of course, a FAR superior hitter. The fact that no one seems to realize that is, well, not my problem.

Ok, let's see. Jackson had almost the same SLG, despite playing in the friggin dead ball era. Jackson hit at least 80 points over league average 5 times, to Allen's none. I find no logical justification for saying that Allen was anywhere close to being as good of a hitter as Jackson. Jackson is probably one of the top 5 hitters of all time; Allen might be top 25, but that's probably stretching it.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Oddly...I never said that...I have stated publicly that I believe the period from 78 to 86 was the best period in major league history.

This era has a special aura for me. I began watching baseball around 1976, so I gew up in this era.

[SABR Matt]

That was just a very balanced and deep league IMHO...a lot of first time or near-irst-time WS winners and participants in that period.

[Ubiquitous]

If the mid 70's to early 90's wasn't the highest quality it was probably the most interesting despite what ElHalo might say to the contrary. You had every single way of playing baseball being tried and being tried successfully. You had the power game, the running game, the pitching game, and with free agency you allowed teams to quickly improve their team instead of stagnating in mediocrity. On top of all that with the arrival of superstations and cable TV more people throughout the country were able to watch baseball games and track a team throughout the season.

Latins, Whites, Blacks they were all playing the game.

You had great home run hitters, great base stealers, great hitters, great glove men, great power pitchers, great finesse pitchers, and the arrival of the dominating closer

[Blackout]

I'll go with Joe

[SABR Matt]

Although IMHO the "dominating closer" was a NEGATIVE thing...(in that great relief pitchers used to pitch in the 7th and 8th when the game was tied...not the 9th...and that was the better way)....I agree with you in general Ubi.

[538280]

Ok, let's see. Jackson had almost the same SLG, despite playing in the friggin dead ball era. Jackson hit at least 80 points over league average 5 times, to Allen's none. I find no logical justification for saying that Allen was anywhere close to being as good of a hitter as Jackson. Jackson is probably one of the top 5 hitters of all time; Allen might be top 25, but that's probably stretching it.

I know you don't think the 1970s were very high quality, but either way you do have to give in that they were at least hard to dominate, right? Anyway, Allen had great years in the 1960s as well.

Anyway, let's just take a look at some relative stats:
.............Rel. BA....Rel. OBP......Rel. SLG
Allen.........112..........117...........140
Jackson......132.........124...........145

I don't think there's any question Allen was the better slugger. He's only five points behind in rel. SLG, not factoring in league quality. Jackson does have a 20 point edge in rel. BA, but that deserves a HUGE LQ hit. Look at all the deadball stars, Jackson, Cobb, Collins, Speaker, even Hornsby into the 20s. The stars of that period had ridiculous relative stats because the average player at that time was so weak. Allen played in a much more sophisticated environment where the best players couldn't distance themselves as much.

Jackson also never had a decline period. He was banned before he could. If he had his proper decline we could expect his rel. BA and OBP to drop about five points (like Allen's) and his rel. SLG to drop ten (because one point of rel. SLG means less). That would put Allen at 112/117/140 and Jackson at 127/119/135. I think being fair with the LQ, you should put Allen ahead.