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

[willshad]

To me ,Wagner may be the most overrated player of all time. Mays was better at the plate, and in the field, and, most importantly, did so against VASTLY superior competition. Not to say Wagner wasn't an all time great, and the best shortstop of all time. he certainly was. But if I were to put him into a modern perspective, I imagine Derek Jeter's bat and base stealing, combined with Omar Vizquel's glove.

[brett]

To me ,Wagner may be the most overrated player of all time. Mays was better at the plate, and in the field, and, most importantly, did so against VASTLY superior competition. Not to say Wagner wasn't an all time great, and the best shortstop of all time. he certainly was. But if I were to put him into a modern perspective, I imagine Derek Jeter's bat and base stealing, combined with Omar Vizquel's glove.

Since this poll I have changed and moved Mays higher, actually he's my #1 now.

I can't agree on your description though. Wagner was 5-11 200 pounds with hands as broad as dinner plate sized oven mitts. He led his league in slugging 6 times and extra base hits 7 times.

He was the Stan Musial of his time. I actually have more doubt that he would have been a great base-stealer or played shortstop than that he would have hit 400 home runs and batted .300 in today's game. He still probably would have run well, but probably less in today's game and he still would fit the mold of a modern big shortstop with a great arm (he stayed in right field for a couple years because it was 460 feet deep and they needed an arm and wheels out there.

I think he would have handled SS, but a team might have put him in the outfield to save a little wear and tear.

Now its not fair to say he could have hit 600 home runs with a live ball(he was the best power hitter of his time, but in a league of spray hitters), but I have no doubt he could have hammered like Ott (road numbers which were like .311 and 188 and over 300 doubles)? or Musial.

I have moved him down to a solid 4th (not considering Bonds right now) because he didn't play as long as Mays or Cobb, and I think that while his steals are meaningful, he probably wasn't better than about 70%. But he'd be the first 400/400 man. He is also possibly the best "first draft pick" if you were to draft an all time team because of how he outdoes the next available guys at his position.

[Bill Burgess]

willshad and brett,

I think you are forgetting some things here. Do you realize that Wagner was up against some of the most severe disadvantages ever? Not only was he playing in the worst hitting era ever (1900-1910), but he was also up against the worst hitting ballpark in baseball. First Exhibition park, 1900-1908, and then Forbes Field, 1909-1916.

Do you remember that Exhibition Park, where he had to play until the age of 32, had BOTH foul lines at 400 feet! That's quite a severe handicap on such a powerfully-built hitter. Wagner was probably even more powerful than Sam Crawford or Nap Lajoie. He was a fast, big SS, when most shortstops were fast, little guys.

John McGraw, who saw him his whole career, said they couldn't determine whether his hitting, fielding or running was the strongest part of his game. And McGraw was not exactly in the habit of handing out compliments to his opponents. He was more used to taunting, baiting and insulting them. Of all the players he had to play against, McGraw was most complimentary to Wagner, Hornsby and Traynor.

If you put Wagner in a more advantageous ballpark, his slugging stats would have had to go up, at least to some extent. I think he would have had at least mid-range pop. I think he would have transitioned to a later era probably easier than any other deadball hitter. I think he would likely have been posting numbers between .320-.350, and 25-35 HRs, while holding down a tough defensive post, either SS or 3B. And I think he might have run well, too. Maybe 40-50 SBs.

And I am deliberately under-stating his possible stats by a quite conservative degree. Do either of you guys call out my estimates? Did either of you forget to factor in his ballpark disadvantages? And the balls he was swinging at were the weirdest, most discolored ever. They normally played a game with 3-4 balls.

[brett]

Wilshad and brett,

I think you are forgetting some things here. Do you realize that Wagner was up against some of the most severe disadvantages ever? Not only was he playing in the worst hitting era ever (1900-1910), but he was also up against the worst hitting ballpark in baseball. First Exhibition park, 1900-1908, and then Forbes Field, 1909-1916.

Do you remember that Exhibition Park, where he had to play until the age of 32, had BOTH foul lines at 400 feet! That's quite a severe handicap on such a powerfully-built hitter. Wagner was probably even more powerful than Sam Crawford or Nap Lajoie. He was a fast, big SS, when most shortstops were fast, little guys.

John McGraw, who saw him his whole career, said they couldn't determine whether his hitting, fielding or running was the strongest part of his game. And McGraw was not exactly in the habit of handing out compliments to his opponents. He was more used to taunting, baiting and insulting them. Of all the players he had to play against, McGraw was most complimentary to Wagner, Hornsby and Traynor.

If you put Wagner in a more advantageous ballpark, his slugging stats would have had to go up, at least to some extent. I think he would have had at least mid-range pop. I think he would have transitioned to a later era probably easier than any other deadball hitter. I think he would likely have been posting numbers between .320-.350, and 25-35 HRs, while holding down a tough defensive post, either SS or 3B. And I think he might have run well, too. Maybe 40-50 SBs.

And I am deliberately under-stating his possible stats by a quite conservative degree. Do either of you guys call out my estimates? Did either of you forget to factor in his ballpark disadvantages? And the balls he was swinging at were the weirdest, most discolored ever. They normally played a game with 3-4 balls.

No I said he'd have batting numbers similar to Musial. (.330 with 400 career home runs, and 600+ doubles). I also don't discount his outfield years like some metrics do, because he played right field out of necessity for his team-he was the only guy fast enough and with enough arm to handle right field in that park. I think he would have lost some steals, but still stolen 400 and played solid SS or third base. I don't know how your description differs from mine. Musials bat, playing solid shortstop and stealing 400 bases is actually quite good. I've seen rankings that put him 7th-9th behind Williams, Mantle, Aaron, Speaker, Musial, Gehrig in addition to (Ruth, Mays and Cobb). Wagner is dead set solid #4 for me.

[Bill Burgess]

No I said he'd have batting numbers similar to Musial. (.330 with 400 career home runs, and 600+ doubles). I also don't discount his outfield years like some metrics do, because he played right field out of necessity for his team-he was the only guy fast enough and with enough arm to handle right field in that park. I think he would have lost some steals, but still stolen 400 and played solid SS or third base. I don't know how your description differs from mine. Musials bat, playing solid shortstop and stealing 400 bases is actually quite good. I've seen rankings that put him 7th-9th behind Williams, Mantle, Aaron, Speaker, Musial, Gehrig in addition to (Ruth, Mays and Cobb). Wagner is dead set solid #4 for me.

Oh, alright. In that case I suppose I'll have to let you live. A solid #4 is quite in line with most rankings. I have him a secure #2 for life. But anyone who has him in their Top 5 all-time, I can't argue with. We're closer than it first appeared. I was thinking more Musial, but you do qualify it with better fielding and running, which is significantly better.

So, we're cool! Good job.

[willshad]

willshad and brett,

I think you are forgetting some things here. Do you realize that Wagner was up against some of the most severe disadvantages ever? Not only was he playing in the worst hitting era ever (1900-1910), but he was also up against the worst hitting ballpark in baseball. First Exhibition park, 1900-1908, and then Forbes Field, 1909-1916.

Do you remember that Exhibition Park, where he had to play until the age of 32, had BOTH foul lines at 400 feet! That's quite a severe handicap on such a powerfully-built hitter. Wagner was probably even more powerful than Sam Crawford or Nap Lajoie. He was a fast, big SS, when most shortstops were fast, little guys.

John McGraw, who saw him his whole career, said they couldn't determine whether his hitting, fielding or running was the strongest part of his game. And McGraw was not exactly in the habit of handing out compliments to his opponents. He was more used to taunting, baiting and insulting them. Of all the players he had to play against, McGraw was most complimentary to Wagner, Hornsby and Traynor.

If you put Wagner in a more advantageous ballpark, his slugging stats would have had to go up, at least to some extent. I think he would have had at least mid-range pop. I think he would have transitioned to a later era probably easier than any other deadball hitter. I think he would likely have been posting numbers between .320-.350, and 25-35 HRs, while holding down a tough defensive post, either SS or 3B. And I think he might have run well, too. Maybe 40-50 SBs.

And I am deliberately under-stating his possible stats by a quite conservative degree. Do either of you guys call out my estimates? Did either of you forget to factor in his ballpark disadvantages? And the balls he was swinging at were the weirdest, most discolored ever. They normally played a game with 3-4 balls.

Your estimates are not far off from what I said...Derek Jeter with gold glove fielding. Also, I think if you raise his home run total due to the era, you must lower his stolen base total considerably as well. I certainly do not see him posting a 150 OPS+ in the modern game. He did not walk a lot, and being around a lot of other hitters at his level would bring down his relative rates. It is hard for me to believe that he was SO good, that, over 100 years later, there is hardly anyone at his position that has half the career value. I do not see him being that good now, except if maybe he juiced.

[brett]

Your estimates are not far off from what I said...Derek Jeter with gold glove fielding. Also, I think if you raise his home run total due to the era, you must lower his stolen base total considerably as well. I certainly do not see him posting a 150 OPS+ in the modern game. He did not walk a lot, and being around a lot of other hitters at his level would bring down his relative rates. It is hard for me to believe that he was SO good, that, over 100 years later, there is hardly anyone at his position that has half the career value. I do not see him being that good now, except if maybe he juiced.

The walks might matter. That was a concern I had in the past, though he was in the top 10 in walks 4 times. You had league leaders in the 70s from time to time. Lajoie's walks clearly would have kept him from benefitting fully (and I suspect he would have been a first baseman). Wagner was at least willing to draw walks, and I think he would walk around 75-90 times a year.

[Bill Burgess]

Both Wagner and Lajoie were known as free swingers. They did not necessarily understand the value of taking their bases. Nap in particular was loathe to let a hittable ball pass unchallenged. He had a saying, "Never let the soft one get by."

Both he and Wagner were notorious for swinging at balls outside the strike zone. And that is not good. I get that. But in a later era, I don't think they were so dumb or stubborn that we can assume they were incapable of learning. Once they understood the value of a walk, and it was explained to them sabremetrically, I don't believe that they would be stubborn about it.

I do see your points, but don't see why they couldn't correct their mistaken beliefs in a more educated time-period.

[brett]

Both Wagner and Lajoie were known as free swingers. They did not necessarily understand the value of taking their bases. Nap in particular was loathe to let a hittable ball pass unchallenged. He had a saying, "Never let the soft one get by."

Both he and Wagner were notorious for swinging at balls outside the strike zone. And that is not good. I get that. But in a later era, I don't think they were so dumb or stubborn that we can assume they were incapable of learning. Once they understood the value of a walk, and it was explained to them sabremetrically, I don't believe that they would be stubborn about it.

I do see your points, but don't see why they couldn't correct their mistaken beliefs in a more educated time-period.

There are a lot of great "hitters" today who don't do it. Wagner still drew decent walk totals though. He must have been pretty scary to get walked as much as he did if he was a free swinger.

[willshad]

Keep in mind, I do not have him being 'bad' in the modern game. I still have him as accumulating over 100 WAR for his career, and being the best shortstop ever by a comfortable margin.

[willshad]

Both Wagner and Lajoie were known as free swingers. They did not necessarily understand the value of taking their bases. Nap in particular was loathe to let a hittable ball pass unchallenged. He had a saying, "Never let the soft one get by."

Both he and Wagner were notorious for swinging at balls outside the strike zone. And that is not good. I get that. But in a later era, I don't think they were so dumb or stubborn that we can assume they were incapable of learning. Once they understood the value of a walk, and it was explained to them sabremetrically, I don't believe that they would be stubborn about it.

I do see your points, but don't see why they couldn't correct their mistaken beliefs in a more educated time-period.

Of course they could have learned to be more patient. But, why should we ASSUME that Wagner would, and not everyone else? If we assume Wagner would have adopted the more 'intelligent' method of being selective, then we would have to assume the same for Mays as well.

[brett]

Of course they could have learned to be more patient. But, why should we ASSUME that Wagner would, and not everyone else? If we assume Wagner would have adopted the more 'intelligent' method of being selective, then we would have to assume the same for Mays as well.

Walks rose immediately with the live ball, primarily among the top 5% in slugging percentage. By the time baseball was integrated, sluggers weren't getting a disproportionate share of value from walks. Better sluggers did not on average draw more walks than average. This was true prior to 1920, and from about 1950 (NL) and 1960 (AL) on until the late 90s when sluggers started getting more walks again. From 1920-1950 a slugger who had hypothetically say 50% better slugging percentages got MORE than 50% more walks. Wagner drew more walks than average anyway. His walks were in line with his total productivity. Same with Speaker and Cobb.

So I guess the real question is whether we want to speculate about Wagner had he been an early live ball player, 1920-1950 range, or if he had been a post integration player.

[Beady]

...If I couldn't land Willie but had to "settle" for some guy named Cobb, Mantle, or Speaker, I think I'd still find a way to be satisfied with my pick.

It's like what Yogi Berra said when he was asked whether he liked Mantle, Snider or Mays: "I'll take that outfield."

Concerning the big park dimensions and their effect on Wagner's hitting: He played in three home parks during his major league career, so I'm not sure a blanket statement has any validity. The best years of his career were spent at Exposition Park in Pittsburgh, about which I know nothing except that it shows up in bb-ref as generally favorable for run scoring.

I can't speak as confidently about the dead ball era, but the same conditions probably prevailed as in the 1880's, when large ball parks were considered favorable, not detrimental, to offense and to long ball hitters. Except in a few cases where distances to the fences were very short indeed, it was understood the ball would not leave the park often. It's something of a cliche in 19th century baseball writing to describe a hard drive as "the longest hit ever made on the home grounds," and these are nearly always balls that stay in the park. Deep fences allowed the ball to roll a long way as the runners circled the bases; at short distances the fences corralled the ball for the outfielders to gather and return to the infield. A player like Wagner, who could not only hit the ball a long way but could motorvate something considerable once he became a base runner, would probably have benefited greatly from a big park.

Speaking of players who could drive the ball and run well -- we're always demanding that premodern players justify themselves as real players by submitting to thought experiments to consider how they would have performed under modern conditions, which I guess must be seen in some strange way as more "legitimate" than pre-1920 baseball. But since turnabout is fair play, it's only just to say that Willie Mays would have been one monstrous dead ball player indeed.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

It's like what Yogi Berra said when he was asked whether he liked Mantle, Snider or Mays: "I'll take that outfield."

Concerning the big park dimensions and their effect on Wagner's hitting: He played in three home parks during his major league career, so I'm not sure a blanket statement has any validity. The best years of his career were spent at Exposition Park in Pittsburgh, about which I know nothing except that it shows up in bb-ref as generally favorable for run scoring.

I can't speak as confidently about the dead ball era, but the same conditions probably prevailed as in the 1880's, when large ball parks were considered favorable, not detrimental, to offense and to long ball hitters. Except in a few cases where distances to the fences were very short indeed, it was understood the ball would not leave the park often. It's something of a cliche in 19th century baseball writing to describe a hard drive as "the longest hit ever made on the home grounds," and these are nearly always balls that stay in the park. Deep fences allowed the ball to roll a long way as the runners circled the bases; at short distances the fences corralled the ball for the outfielders to gather and return to the infield. A player like Wagner, who could not only hit the ball a long way but could motorvate something considerable once he became a base runner, would probably have benefited greatly from a big park.
Speaking of players who could drive the ball and run well -- we're always demanding that premodern players justify themselves as real players by submitting to thought experiments to consider how they would have performed under modern conditions, which I guess must be seen in some strange way as more "legitimate" than pre-1920 baseball. But since turnabout is fair play, it's only just to say that Willie Mays would have been one monstrous dead ball player indeed.

That is true Beady but on the other hand, some long drives in the big parks, were just long fly outs..
This came up on another thread with some claiming Dimaggio had a favorable condition with that deep LCF at Yankee Stadium, more room for balls to fall in. To that I say the same, if true I wonder how many 400+ drives Joe hit that were just long outs. No way to measure which had the more telling effect, what was gained and what was lost.

Just took a second look your post, I did see you did point out..."once he became a base runner."

[Beady]

DiMaggio was playing in an entirely different environment than Wagner, I would think. A majority of HR's were inside the park until the mid '20's, but by DiMag's day probably a large majority left the park.

I haven't made a statistical study of it but it's certainly true that, just as we assume a large field will benefit pitchers and handicap power hitters, so people in the 1880's made just the opposite assumption, and that would in all probablity have applied in Wagner's day as well. Thus, the wikipedia entry on Braves Field, which became a notably pitcher-friendly big ball park in the lively ball era, says, "The owner of the team at the time the stadium was built, James Gaffney, wanted to see the game played in a wide open field conducive to allowing numerous inside-the-park home runs." He built the park big to encourage home run hitting, but then the conditions of the game changed, producing precisely the opposite effect.

At the public library in Cincinnati I once ran into a fellow named Lauren Something-Or-Other, since deceased, who was a semiretired social worker who was going around the country making a sophisticated study of home runs. He had ball park plans and had calculated the distance from home plate at which home runs over the fence became a major factor in a nineteenth century ball park. I can't remember the exact distance, but there were not many parks with dimensions that small, although there were some. (the most famous example is Chicago, where right field was so short that a ball over the fence was a double, until they took the ground rule off in 1884, producing an astonishing proliferation of home runs by the standard of the day).