Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Best Season By A Cleveland Indian

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by blackout805 View Post
    i know for a FACt that when Cobb came into the league the AL was much weaker, because Cobb said it himself
    Technically, that statement would be Cobb's opinion, not a fact. It is a fact that Cobb did not play in the NL, as it would be a fact that ESPN was not yet in existance. Thus players in one league did not see much (or any) of the other league.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by rsuriyop View Post
      I agree with the above poster. People keep down-playing the early AL years as being very weak compared to the NL when it could not have been that much more inferior at all. And on a side note, it boggles the mind that people keep rating Wagner at least 15+ slots ahead of his contemporary, Lajoie, in all-time rankings when he really could not have been that much better overall.
      As one of those that does rank Wagner well above Lajoie, I'd explain it this way. While they are fairly close as hitters, I think there is ample reason to believe that Honus was the better hitter. Wagner's EqA of .311 slightly edges Lajoie's .309. But Wagner has a big advantage in WARP-3 (203 to 163.8). Lajoie had 6 seasons with a WARP-3 of 10.0 or higher, while Wagner posted 11 such seasons. Wagner's BRAA of 735 tops Lajoie's 630. In EqR, Wagner's 2024 far surpasses Lajoie's 1786.

      Defensively, Wagner enjoys a positional advantage as a SS over a 2B such as Lajoie. Also remember that a 2B had less defensive importance in Lajoie's era than it gained in later years. This is the opposite of 3B, which was a more important defensive position in Lajoie's era than in later year. And by the way, Lajoie only played 21 games as a 3B compared to Wagner's 209, so Honus gains a slight defensive advantage here as well. I give Wagner a decided defensive advantage as one of the greatest defensive SS ever (James gives Wagner a fielding grade of A+) compared to a very good 2B (James gives Lajoie a fielding grade of A-).

      There is a big difference on the bases. Lajoie was not blessed with blazing speed. Indeed, he only finished in the top ten in stolen bases once in his entire career (he finished sixth in 1904). Wagner was one of the most celebrated base stealers in history, with 10 top ten finishes, 9 of which were in the top five and 5 times leading the league. Playing in an era where stolen bases were highly emphasized, Wagner finished with 722 stolen bases to just over half that amount (380 to be exact) for Nap.

      In the end, Wagner has 655 career Win Shares while Lajoie has 496. I'd say that a difference of 15 or so in player rankings is consistent with that difference.

      Comment


      • #18
        Well, I would certainly agree with you that Wagner was still better as I'm sure most others around here would as well. But even with all your arguments (and they really are solid points of contention, by the way), I still can't see the justification for that kind of margin of greatness separating the two. 15+ slots is vast. Then how about this for an argument: you could use everything you have just said in Wagner's favor (i.e. defensive advantage, baserunning, etc.) and apply that to Willie Mays versus Hank Aaron who also have about the same career OPS+. Just like Wagner, Mays has a defensive advantage playing CF to Aaron's RF, and was also a better baserunner as well. But nobody this side of ElHalo would rank Mays fifteen slots ahead of Aaron. Maybe 7-8 at most, but certainly not 15+.
        Last edited by rsuriyop; 05-03-2008, 11:17 PM.
        "Age is a question of mind over matter--if you don't mind, it doesn't matter."
        -Satchel Paige

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by rsuriyop View Post
          Well, I would certainly agree with you that Wagner was still better as I'm sure most others around here would as well. But even with all your arguments (and they really are solid points of contention, by the way), I still can't see the justification for that kind of margin of greatness separating the two. 15+ slots is vast. Then how about this for an argument: you could use everything you have just said in Wagner's favor (i.e. defensive advantage, baserunning, etc.) and apply that to Willie Mays versus Hank Aaron who also have about the same career OPS+. Just like Wagner, Mays has a defensive advantage playing CF to Aaron's RF, and was also a better baserunner as well. But nobody this side of ElHalo would rank Mays fifteen slots ahead of Aaron. Maybe 7-8 at most, but certainly not 15+.
          The difference, in my view, is that Aaron is closer to Mays than Lajoie is to Wagner. Was Aaron as good a baserunner as Mays? No, I'd give Mays the edge. But unlike Lajoie with his single top ten base stealing finish, Aaron finished in the top ten 7 times. Similar to Wagner, Mays had 11 top ten finishes and led the league 4 times. Better than Aaron, but the difference between them is not as great as the difference between Wagner and Lajoie.

          While Wagner enjoyed a 39 point edge over Lajoie in WARP-3, Mays' edge over Aaron in WARP-3 is only 2.5 points. While Wagner had 5 more seasons than Lajoie did with a WARP-3 over 10, both Mays and Aaron had exactly the same number of 10+ WARP-3 seasons.

          So because the difference between Mays and Aaron is not nearly as great as the difference between Wagner and Lajoie, it would seem logical that they would be ranked closer together than Wagner and Lajoie would be.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by CTaka View Post
            The difference, in my view, is that Aaron is closer to Mays than Lajoie is to Wagner. Was Aaron as good a baserunner as Mays? No, I'd give Mays the edge. But unlike Lajoie with his single top ten base stealing finish, Aaron finished in the top ten 7 times. Similar to Wagner, Mays had 11 top ten finishes and led the league 4 times. Better than Aaron, but the difference between them is not as great as the difference between Wagner and Lajoie.

            While Wagner enjoyed a 39 point edge over Lajoie in WARP-3, Mays' edge over Aaron in WARP-3 is only 2.5 points. While Wagner had 5 more seasons than Lajoie did with a WARP-3 over 10, both Mays and Aaron had exactly the same number of 10+ WARP-3 seasons.

            So because the difference between Mays and Aaron is not nearly as great as the difference between Wagner and Lajoie, it would seem logical that they would be ranked closer together than Wagner and Lajoie would be.
            Interesting. Well, since you brought it up, I'd like to know a bit more about this WARP-3. I know what it is and what it stands for, but just how is it calculated--what are the prime factors involved which gives someone like Wagner such a huge advantage over Lajoie (someone who was virtually similar as a hitter, excelled at a position almost as important as SS, played during the same era, and for exactly the same amount of years). As much as stat heads seem to favor it, I cannot give WARP-3 much if any consideration unless I know everything there is to know about it.
            Last edited by rsuriyop; 05-04-2008, 08:50 AM.
            "Age is a question of mind over matter--if you don't mind, it doesn't matter."
            -Satchel Paige

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by rsuriyop View Post
              Interesting. Well, since you brought it up, I'd like to know a bit more about this WARP-3. I know what it is and what it stands for, but just how is it calculated--what are the prime factors involved which gives someone like Wagner such a huge advantage over Lajoie (someone who was virtually similar as a hitter, excelled at a position almost as important as SS, played during the same era, and for exactly the same amount of years). As much as stat heads seem to favor it, I cannot give WARP-3 much if any consideration unless I know everything there is to know about it.
              WARP-1 is Wins Above Replacement Player. WARP-2 is WARP-1 with league difficulty factored in. WARP-3 is WARP-2 expanded to a 162 game schedule to compensate for shorter seasons. Baseball Prospectus defines the terms as follows:

              "WARP-1 Wins Above Replacement Player, level 1. The number of wins this player contributed, above what a replacement level hitter, fielder, and pitcher would have done, with adjustments only for within the season. It should be noted that a team which is at replacement level in all three of batting, pitching, and fielding will be an extraordinarily bad team, on the order of 20-25 wins in a 162-game season.

              WARP is also listed on a player's PECOTA card. The PECOTA WARP listing is designed to correspond to WARP-1, not WARP-2 or WARP-3.
              WARP-2 [ Details ] [ Return To Top ]


              Wins Above Replacement Player, with difficulty added into the mix. One of the factors that goes into league difficulty is whether or not the league uses a DH, which is why recent AL players tend to get a larger boost than their NL counterparts.

              WARP-3 [ Details ] [ Return To Top ]


              WARP-2, expanded to 162 games to compensate for shortened seasons. Initially, I was just going to use (162/season length) as the multiplier, but this seemed to overexpand the very short seasons of the 19th century. I settled on using (162/scheduled games) ** (2/3). So Ross Barnes' 6.2 wins in 1873, a 55 game season, only gets extended to 12.8 WARP, instead of a straight-line adjustment of 18.3.

              For most hitters, at least, it is just that simple. Pitchers are treated differently, as we not only look at season length, but the typical number of innings thrown by a top starting pitcher that year (defined by the average IP of the top five in IP). We find it hard to argue that pitchers throwing 300 or more innings a year are suffering some sort of discrimination in the standings due to having shortened seasons. This why Walter Johnson has almost no adjustment between WARP-2 and WARP-3, while his contemporaries Cobb, Speaker, and Collins all gain around 7 or 8 wins."

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by rsuriyop View Post
                Wagner such a huge advantage over Lajoie (someone who was virtually similar as a hitter, excelled at a position almost as important as SS, played during the same era, and for exactly the same amount of years).
                I agree that they were similar as a hitter and played during the same era.

                I'm not sure I would consider 2B, particularly during that era to be almost as important as a SS. Sure, it is closer than say a 1B or LF. But a 2B in the deadball era had less defensive value than it did say after the 1930's or 40's. An argument could be made that a 3B in that era, with the constant emphasis on bunting, was about as important defensively as a 2B, whereas in today's game a 2B would be much more valuable. It is important to consider the relative value of a position by the nature of the era they played in rather than using today's game as a gauge.

                One key distinction between Wagner and Lajoie is that even though they both played 21 years, Wagner played in 312 more games than Lajoie. That is a significant fact, coming to a little over two full years worth. It is important to remember that actually playing and providing value on the field is more important to winning games (and most statistical measures) than playing the same number of years. Even having Superman on your team does not contribute to winning more games if he is sitting on the bench with a kryptonite splinter. You have to play to contribute; if you are not playing, you are not adding value to your team (or your historical ranking!). If Lajoie had played as often as Wagner, and was able to maintain the same level of play during those extra 300+ games, my guess is that the difference between the two would be smaller, as would the gap in methodologies such as WARP, Win Shares, etc.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Tito Francona in 1959?:cap: Just kidding, but Tito sure broke out with the Indians that season after three lackluster seasons with the Orioles, ChiSox and Tigers. He had only 399 at-bats, but hit .363, with 20 HR's and 79 RBI's. He had a OBP of .414 and .566 slugging. Unfortunately for Tito, though he was decent (and a heck of a part-timer late in his career), he never came close to anything like that again.

                  Another Indian that could be considered is Hal Trosky, who had a monster season in 1936 (and a lot of good ones before and after). Hal had 216 hits, a .343 batting average, 124 runs, 42 HR's, 162 RBI's, 45 doubles, nine triples, 405 total bases, and a .644 slugging average (he swiped six bases too - a career high for Hal who was a beefy type.

                  Of course, we could also consider a guy who could hit and pitch. In 1931, Wes Ferrell had 9 HR's, 30 RBI's, a .319 average and posted a 22-12 record on the mound.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by CTaka View Post

                    You have to play to contribute; if you are not playing, you are not adding value to your team (or your historical ranking!).
                    That depends. I've seen some guys more valuable to the team on the bench than they were in the game.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by CTaka View Post
                      I agree that they were similar as a hitter and played during the same era.

                      I'm not sure I would consider 2B, particularly during that era to be almost as important as a SS. Sure, it is closer than say a 1B or LF. But a 2B in the deadball era had less defensive value than it did say after the 1930's or 40's. An argument could be made that a 3B in that era, with the constant emphasis on bunting, was about as important defensively as a 2B, whereas in today's game a 2B would be much more valuable. It is important to consider the relative value of a position by the nature of the era they played in rather than using today's game as a gauge.

                      One key distinction between Wagner and Lajoie is that even though they both played 21 years, Wagner played in 312 more games than Lajoie. That is a significant fact, coming to a little over two full years worth. It is important to remember that actually playing and providing value on the field is more important to winning games (and most statistical measures) than playing the same number of years. Even having Superman on your team does not contribute to winning more games if he is sitting on the bench with a kryptonite splinter. You have to play to contribute; if you are not playing, you are not adding value to your team (or your historical ranking!). If Lajoie had played as often as Wagner, and was able to maintain the same level of play during those extra 300+ games, my guess is that the difference between the two would be smaller, as would the gap in methodologies such as WARP, Win Shares, etc.
                      Well, as I have already said, I am familiar with what WARP-3 is. It's just how one calculates it and what key variables are involved to help produce the end results of a player's total WARP-3 worth is what I still do not get.

                      And as far as 2B not being as nearly as important way back then than it is today would suggest to me a completely different style of play at hand in which early second basemen for some reason or another did not contribute as nearly as much on the field as today's second basemen. Now, unless you can explain this discrepancy, I'd have to travel back in time to see for myself how early second basemen defended their position in order for me to have any kind of say in this area of discussion.

                      In the end however, you do make a valid point that Wagner had indeed played some 300+ games more than Lajoie (or, two full seasons worth of playing time), which I must admit further separates their level of greatness from each other in Wagner's favor. As of now though, I have Wagner ranked 6th all-time and Lajoie at 14th respectively. But that may be prone to change depending on how much weight I see your arguments having in regards to this discussion. That being said, would you at least agree though, that Wagner and Lajoie were closer in value during their prime years than they were in career?
                      Last edited by rsuriyop; 05-04-2008, 08:51 PM.
                      "Age is a question of mind over matter--if you don't mind, it doesn't matter."
                      -Satchel Paige

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by rsuriyop View Post
                        Well, as I have already said, I am familiar with what WARP-3 is. It's just how one calculates it and what key variables are involved to help produce the end results of a player's total WARP-3 worth is what I still do not get.

                        And as far as 2B not being as nearly as important way back then than it is today would suggest to me a completely different style of play at hand in which early second basemen for some reason or another did not contribute as nearly as much on the field as today's second basemen. Now, unless you can explain this discrepancy, I'd have to travel back in time to see for myself how early second basemen defended their position in order for me to have any kind of say in this area of discussion.

                        In the end however, you do make a valid point that Wagner had indeed played some 300+ games more than Lajoie (or, two full seasons worth of playing time), which I must admit further separates their level of greatness from each other in Wagner's favor. As of now though, I have Wagner ranked 6th all-time and Lajoie at 14th respectively. But that may be prone to change depending on how much weight I see your arguments having in regards to this discussion. That being said, would you at least agree though, that Wagner and Lajoie were closer in value during their prime years than they were in career?
                        During the deadball era, 2B was considered a position that emphasized offense. In modern baseball, second base is generally considered a defense-first position. As I said, essentially the opposite of 3B, which today is considered a position expected to produce offense but in the deadball erawas a defense-first position. This was due to the constant emphasis on bunting.

                        In the New Historical abstract, Bill James points this out in much detail on page 488 how the defensive spectrum changed for 2B and 3B. In the deadball era, a 2B might turn 40 or 50 double plays a season. That is very different from modern 2B's who hit much less than 3B's but are expected to turn 100 or more double plays in a full season.

                        A SS was considered a defense-first position in both the deadball era and modern baseball.

                        In terms of peak value, Lajoie's top 5 seasons total 171 Win Shares, while Wagner's top five total 237. Of course, that includes Wagner's historic 1908 season in which he amassed the all-time record of 59 Win Shares. But even if you exclude that season, Wagner's next five best seasons total 221 Win Shares, still a comfortable distance ahead of Lajoie. If you are looking at peak being somewhat consecutive seasons, then the gap between them widens a bit more. Lajoie had an impressive 42 WS in the expansion year of 1901. But the following year he only had 22. He had 41 WS in 1904, but then did not record another 40+ season until 1911. That is three seasons with 40+ WS in 11 seasons. On the other hand, from 1904 to 1909, Wagner's WS totals were 43, 46, 46, 44, 59, and 42. That is an impressive string of outstanding play over 6 consecutive seasons. Wagner had 13 consecutive seasons with 30 or more WS. Lajoie never had more than 3 consecutive seasons with 30+ WS. I think that is a very clear advantage for Wagner over Lajoie in terms of peak value.

                        Comment

                        Ad Widget

                        Collapse
                        Working...
                        X