Wagner/Mays: Who Do You Rank Higher as Historical Players?

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Circumstance one: Mays is born white and plays in a segregated league. All players of color who finished ahead of him are removed from the leader boards as if it never happened. These are the extra league leads he would've won (only in ink catagories, so OBP/OPS/OPS+ ect are not listed):

I see the point you're trying to make here, but it can't accurately be made. When you remove every player of color, you must fill in those spots with other white players, some of which would be great. These white players would not consider any other sport so they'd all filter into baseball, and their skills would be strong as they'd grow up playing non-stop. That's not even the major point though imo, it's who you put up numbers against. Consider who he'd have been facing in your scenario. He never had to face Marichal in his career anyway, and removing Gibson would still leave him facing the likes of Drysdale, Koufax, Spahn and Roberts on a regular basis.

[Windy City Fan]

I see the point you're trying to make here, but it can't accurately be made. When you remove every player of color, you must fill in those spots with other white players, some of which would be great. These white players would not consider any other sport so they'd all filter into baseball, and their skills would be strong as they'd grow up playing non-stop. That's not even the major point though imo, it's who you put up numbers against. Consider who he'd have been facing in your scenario. He never had to face Marichal in his career anyway, and removing Gibson would still leave him facing the likes of Drysdale, Koufax, Spahn and Roberts on a regular basis.

I'm not attempting to say we should award Mays X amount of ink points in comparison to Wagner. I agree we cannot pinpoint the affects of a deeper league on ink, but the general idea is pretty conclusively proven I think. Wagner, facing much less top notch competition, had a HUGE advantage for ranking league leads.

Also, I don't know if those replacement whites would be great players. Most likely they would be replacement level players. Granted there might be a fluke season or two in there, but for the most part removing the black stars from the league is going to open up slots for much weaker white players. And then as you said, there'd be the issue of facing different pitchers in a segregated or raided league, which would of course alter Mays' numbers along with everyone else.

Still, I think the general idea I'm trying to convey here is backed up by what I posted. If Mays and the NL were in a similar circumstance that Wagner and his NL were in, Mays would've racked up a lot more league leaderships. His overall relative numbers would jump out more as well I'd say.

.................................................. .........................................

Bill: I think you got the wrong guy, I never made a big deal about positional adjustments. Remember Bill, I rank Cobb ahead of Wagner just like you. I might include a slight adjustment for an hard hitting shortstop, but even with that the LQ adjustment is too much for Wagner to overcome.

[Minstrel]

But what I need to know is why is PA suddenly not decisive? If Wagner can hold Willie to a draw in hitting/running, why is PA not proving decisive? Can you see why others are stunned at your sudden de-emphasizing of that which you insisted was decisive earlier? And now, suddenly, LQ is resurrected as the new 'magic bullet'.

League quality isn't "resurrected," it's always a factor to consider, just as positional adjustment is. League quality was not made so much of in the Wagner/Cobb debate because it's not consensus that Cobb faced a much tougher league than Wagner did.

It is a virtual consensus that Willie Mays' integrated league was considerably stronger than Wagner's league. Therefore, it becomes relevant.

[Windy City Fan]

League quality isn't "resurrected," it's always a factor to consider, just as positional adjustment is. League quality was not made so much of in the Wagner/Cobb debate because it's not consensus that Cobb faced a much tougher league than Wagner did.

It is a virtual consensus that Willie Mays' integrated league was considerably stronger than Wagner's league. Therefore, it becomes relevant.

I'd say it is a concensus that Cobb's AL of the 1910's was easily stronger than Wagner's NL of the 1900's. I think pretty much everyone around here agrees that the NL of the 1900's is the weakest league of the 20th century that doesn't have the word Federal in it or took place during WW II.

[ChrisLDuncan]

I've always said that Mays was the greatest player that I've ever seen. Born and raised in the Bay Area. But I ranked Wagner over my "darling" Mays. While others may not agree with me on value and positional adjustments, I'm not going to change my vote just because of the sentimental spot Mays holds for me.

I thank you for your objectivity

[Minstrel]

I'd say it is a concensus that Cobb's AL of the 1910's was easily stronger than Wagner's NL of the 1900's. I think pretty much everyone around here agrees that the NL of the 1900's is the weakest league of the 20th century that doesn't have the word Federal in it or took place during WW II.

Wagner's league was probably weaker. I've seen debate both here and elsewhere as to how much weaker. For example, if you compare WARP1 and WARP3 numbers (WARP1 not being league-adjusted), Cobb's WARP numbers decrease about as much as Wagner's when adjusted for league.

[ChrisLDuncan]

I see the point you're trying to make here, but it can't accurately be made. When you remove every player of color, you must fill in those spots with other white players, some of which would be great. These white players would not consider any other sport so they'd all filter into baseball, and their skills would be strong as they'd grow up playing non-stop. That's not even the major point though imo, it's who you put up numbers against. Consider who he'd have been facing in your scenario. He never had to face Marichal in his career anyway, and removing Gibson would still leave him facing the likes of Drysdale, Koufax, Spahn and Roberts on a regular basis.

Yeah or they can Mantle to that league to compete with too instead of a guy like Frank Robinson

[Bill Burgess]

Bill: I think you got the wrong guy, I never made a big deal about positional adjustments. Remember Bill, I rank Cobb ahead of Wagner just like you. I might include a slight adjustment for an hard hitting shortstop, but even with that the LQ adjustment is too much for Wagner to overcome.

Oops! Sorry about that Craig. I had you confused with someone else. Forgive me, old friend.

Bill

[ChrisLDuncan]

Hmm. Wow. Whatever happened here? What happened to Honus' vaunted ability to make up 17 OPS+ points on a CFer? Poof? Gone With the Wind?

Oh my. Any explanations here, PA advocates? Sounds like some people have a lot of explaining to do. Didn't someone claim that he gave every SS a huge OPS+ boost. And in this particular case, all he needs is a meesly 6 point OPS+ bump. Hmm.

Appears all that SHORTSTOP rhetoric, about 'opening another hitting slot' got suddenly closed down. Oh well. You win some, you lose some. But the pattern is so obvious by now.

Can anybody explain to me how Honus could make up a 17 point OPS+ gap on someone who outhit, outran him, but can't make it up a 6 point OPS+ gap on someone who he outhit, outran and outfielded, and had a massive PA adjustment on???!!! That's an awful lot of PA to disappear on us!!! Is it me, or has all logic flown out the window, again. Brings out the Inner Freak in me!

The thing that gets me Bill is I don't see where the PA crowd is on Rogers Hornsby. If a SS is able to make up a 17 point gap on a CF, where is the same logic when a 2B has a 19 point LEAD on a CF? I know Mays played longer, but the PA should go way into the Rajah's favor.

[yanks0714]

From 1900-1910, Wagner achieved an almost impossible feat. On the whole, he was the best hitter, fielder and runner in his league. Others may have had a better year than he did in one of the skills, but overall - he was dominant.

Now, I am fully informed that someone will immediately post that the only reason Honus could do that was due to the chronic weakness in the NL, due to the incessant AL raids. And they may be quite right on that. But does anyone doubt that Hans couldn't have done that even if his league had stayed strong? Holding a man responsible for the inherent weakness of his competition is so wrong.

Yes! Bill, for once I've found something I can agree with you on. Yeah, maybe the league was weak, but so what? They all had the same chance as Honus did....and Honus outshone them all. Why blame or penalize him if he was so much better than everyone else? isn't that the idea behind ranking players, who was the best???

[Windy City Fan]

The thing that gets me Bill is I don't see where the PA crowd is on Rogers Hornsby. If a SS is able to make up a 17 point gap on a CF, where is the same logic when a 2B has a 19 point LEAD on a CF? I know Mays played longer, but the PA should go way into the Rajah's favor.

Hornsby has a few other knocks against him, real or percieved ....

1) Longevity. Hornsby never played over a 100 games after 1929, when he was a mere 33 years old. His lack of a significant decline phase helps his career rate stats considerably.

2) Defense. Hornsby played second, but he didn't play it particularly well. Also, second in Hornsby's day was not a key defensive position. Third was considered to be far more important defensively in the 1920's. In the modern game, there's no way Hornsby would be playing second base. He'd probably be at first or maybe third if his arm was strong enough.

3) Intangibles. Right or wrong, Hornsby has a reputation as a gigantic horse's ass. JRB has posted some interesting things that indicate that reputation might not be entirely deserved, but many do still ding Hornsby for being a difficult guy in the clubhouse.

Positional adjustments, if one uses them at all, are not the final word on things. One has to look at everything.

[Windy City Fan]

Yes! Bill, for once I've found something I can agree with you on. Yeah, maybe the league was weak, but so what? They all had the same chance as Honus did....and Honus outshone them all. Why blame or penalize him if he was so much better than everyone else? isn't that the idea behind ranking players, who was the best???

But Wanger had a rather unique situation in that he was in a thin league that was also devoid of top tier talent. Put Mays (or Cobb or Gerhig or Speaker or Aaron or any other superstar from the game's history) in that situation and they too would easily dominate as much if not more than Wagner. Take a look at my post about what kind of black ink Mays could've had if he played in a league with no other black players and all the top white stars in the AL.

As I said above, those figures are strictly hypothetical, but they are meant just to give an idea of how dominant Mays (or any great player) would seem when he has absolutely no competition.

[yanks0714]

Hmm. Wow. Whatever happened here? What happened to Honus' vaunted ability to make up 17 OPS+ points on a CFer? Poof? Gone With the Wind?

Oh my. Any explanations here, PA advocates? Sounds like some people have a lot of explaining to do. Didn't someone claim that he gave every SS a huge OPS+ boost. And in this particular case, all he needs is a meesly 6 point OPS+ bump. Hmm.

Appears all that SHORTSTOP rhetoric, about 'opening another hitting slot' got suddenly closed down. Oh well. You win some, you lose some. But the pattern is so obvious by now.

Can anybody explain to me how Honus could make up a 17 point OPS+ gap on someone who outhit, outran him, but can't make it up a 6 point OPS+ gap on someone who he outhit, outran and outfielded, and had a massive PA adjustment on???!!! That's an awful lot of PA to disappear on us!!! Is it me, or has all logic flown out the window, again. Brings out the Inner Freak in me!

Man, I agree with you on one post and the very next post of yours I read just blows me away in it's utter and absolute insidiousness.

Even you should be able to see that Wagner / Cobb was a comp of two deadball players which meant they were playing under the same circumstances.
OTOH, Mays gets a huge boost in LQ.
There, it's explained to you. Hopefully, you'll be able to understand this seemingly simple factor.

BTW, I see that Leecemark has already explained it to you. So, now you have two that have explained it to ya just in case you missed one of the posts.

[yanks0714]

Bill just to give you an idea of the edge Wagner had in facing such watered down competition I decided to figure out what black ink Mays could've accumulated under two hypothetical circumstances. I've only gone up to 1963, but I think it proves my point. (Also, I forgot to look at minor areas like games played and at bats, and I'm too lazy to back and see if it makes a difference)

Circumstance one: Mays is born white and plays in a segregated league. All players of color who finished ahead of him are removed from the leader boards as if it never happened. These are the extra league leads he would've won (only in ink catagories, so OBP/OPS/OPS+ ect are not listed):

1957 Runs (Banks and Aaron removed)
1958 SLG (Banks removed)
1959 Runs (Pinson removed)
1959 Doubles (Aaron and Pinson removed)
1961 SLG (Aaron, Cepeda, Robinson removed)
1961 Doubles (Aaron and Pinson removed)
1961 HR (Cepeda removed)
1961 RBI (Cepeda, Robinson removed)
1961 Steals (Wills, Pinson, Robinson, Aaron removed)
1962 SLG (Aaron Robinson removed)
1962 Runs (Robinson removed)
1962 Doubles (Robinson removed)
1962 RBI (Davis removed)
1963 SLG (Aaron removed)
1963 Runs (Aaron removed)
1963 HR (Aaron and McCovey removed)
39 Extra Black Ink Points (That's better than the career black ink totals of Tris Speaker, Joe DiMaggio, and Frank Robinson)

Circumstance Two: Mays is born white and plays in a segregated league that has been raided of all its top talent, ala the NL of the 1900's. All players of color are removed and all white players in my top 75 of all-time are removed. Here's the extra ink titles Mays would've won:

1954 Runs (Snider/Musial removed)
1955 AVG (Ashburn removed)
1955 RBI (Snider removed)
1957 AVG (Musial removed)
1957 Runs (Banks and Aaron removed)
1957 HR (Aaron, Banks, Snider removed)
1958 AVG (Ashburn removed)
1958 SLG (Banks removed)
1958 Hits (Ashburn removed)
1958 Triples (Ashburn and Banks removed)
1959 SLG (Aaron, Banks, Mathews removed)
1959 Runs (Pinson removed)
1959 Doubles (Pinson and Aaron removed)
1959 HR (Mathews, Banks, Aaron, Robinson removed)
1960 RBI (Aaron, Mathews, Banks removed)
1961 SLG (Aaron, Cepeda, Robinson removed)
1961 Doubles (Aaron and Pinson removed)
1961 HR (Cepeda removed)
1961 RBI (Cepeda, Robinson removed)
1961 Steals (Wills, Pinson, Robinson, Aaron removed)
1962 SLG (Aaron Robinson removed)
1962 Runs (Robinson removed)
1962 Doubles (Robinson removed)
1962 RBI (Davis removed)
1963 SLG (Aaron removed)
1963 Runs (Aaron removed)
1963 HR (Aaron and McCovey removed)
103 Extra Black Ink Points (By way of comparison, Wagner had 109 Black Inks points for his entire career)

Now remember that's only going up to 1963 too!

Excellent point and post!

[yanks0714]

But what I need to know is why is PA suddenly not decisive? If Wagner can hold Willie to a draw in hitting/running, why is PA not proving decisive? Can you see why others are stunned at your sudden de-emphasizing of that which you insisted was decisive earlier? And now, suddenly, LQ is resurrected as the new 'magic bullet'.

Always have that magic bullet in the chamber, for all occasions. Some consistency would be refreshing.

Bill, others aren't stunned. We just understand much better than you do.