PSASAP, I was going to reply to you and educate you a little more, but I fear all would be lost on you. Peak years are laid out above in great detail that include everything you have listed, plus the things you forgot. It is Peak, not career BTW. So when you want to expand upon your first grade level analysis, the info is higher up in the thread all laid out for you
But again, you are a hypocrite, and I(as you should be) am more concerned about that. On one hand, when Brock comes up for evaluation, you state a couple of times that it is what you do in the post season that separates the players, and that rings are the only goal. Now you need to apply that to Mays as well so you can have at least a shred of consistency in your methods. At least a shred.
So by YOUR methodology, here is where Mays and Mantle rank in the area where you said is where it counts, their World Series performance:
PSASAP, I'm not letting you off the hook. You are a fool, and hypocrite. You simply aren't worth anymore thought on(since you have never had an original thought of your own)...any and all responses to you will continue to be this:
PSASAP, I was going to reply to you and educate you a little more, but I fear all would be lost on you. Peak years are laid out above in great detail that include everything you have listed, plus the things you forgot. It is Peak, not career BTW. So when you want to expand upon your first grade level analysis, the info is higher up in the thread all laid out for you
But again, you are a hypocrite, and I(as you should be) am more concerned about that. On one hand, when Brock comes up for evaluation, you state a couple of times that it is what you do in the post season that separates the players, and that rings are the only goal. Now you need to apply that to Mays as well so you can have at least a shred of consistency in your methods. At least a shred.
So by YOUR methodology, here is where Mays and Mantle rank in the area where you said is where it counts, their World Series performance:
PSASAP, I'm not letting you off the hook. You are a fool, and hypocrite. You simply aren't worth anymore thought on(since you have never had an original thought of your own)...any and all responses to you will continue to be this:
PSASAP, I was going to reply to you and educate you a little more, but I fear all would be lost on you. Peak years are laid out above in great detail that include everything you have listed, plus the things you forgot. It is Peak, not career BTW. So when you want to expand upon your first grade level analysis, the info is higher up in the thread all laid out for you
But again, you are a hypocrite, and I(as you should be) am more concerned about that. On one hand, when Brock comes up for evaluation, you state a couple of times that it is what you do in the post season that separates the players, and that rings are the only goal. Now you need to apply that to Mays as well so you can have at least a shred of consistency in your methods. At least a shred.
So by YOUR methodology, here is where Mays and Mantle rank in the area where you said is where it counts, their World Series performance:
<< <i>While true we can't accurately predict how Ruth would have done had he continued pitching when he was in his hitting prime, there are good indicators that are pretty accurate, mainly his SO/BB ratio. He slipped at an alarming rate his last two years on the hill, and that is a very strong indication that he was no longer a mystery to batters(and most likely he lost some velocity, and that is often enough to do the trick). >>
I don't want to make too big a deal out of this, since it involves so much guess work, but you kind of blipped over what I thought was my main point. Ruth's pitching declined in 1918 because he was playing in the outfield half the time he wasn't pitching, and then declined more in 1919 because he was playing the outfield EVERY time he wasn't pitching. Well, I don't KNOW that's why his pitching declined, but if I had to guess that's the guess I'd make. Wouldn't you? In a comparison of Ruth to his peers you run into an insolvable conundrum in 1918 and 1919 - Ruth is peerless - in the history of baseball - in those years. How well would Mantle have hit if every fourth day they told him he was pitching, and how well would he have pitched on those days? If you're comparing Ruth to his pitching peers, how well would Christy Mathewson have pitched if he had to play the outfield every day he wasn't pitching instead of resting? I'll say it again - you are comparing Mantle and Ruth at their hitting peaks, and Mantle looks close, and even might pass him depending on the era guess that is made, but 1918 and 1919 ARE part of Ruth's peak as a baseball player. That they are incomparable to Mantle, or any other baseball player ever, can't just be brushed aside and ignored. They are a significant part (10% of Ruth's career) of the reason that Ruth was a better baseball player than Mantle. (All of the above, IMO).
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
I would have to think that if Ruth were focused on pitching every turn and not playing the field most of the time, that his performance as a pitcher would have been better. Can you imagine if Clayton Kershaw were also playing 1B every other day and how that might affect his stat line as a pitcher?
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
I would give Mays a pretty big edge defensively. Mantle's right shoulder was injured in the '57 World Series and his arm was never the same. Mays may not have had the straight line speed Mantle had but most of the players of their era seem to say Willie was a better outfielder.
When it comes to offense it's really not close........Mantle was superior.
Similar to the Dimaggio/Williams debate, one a better "all-around" player one a better hitter.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
<< <i>Kaline never won a MVP award and you think he was better than Clemente? Clemente had a better career and its not even close. Kaline did win an award in Clemente's name lol. >>
They look pretty close to me.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
<< <i>I don't want to make too big a deal out of this, since it involves so much guess work, but you kind of blipped over what I thought was my main point. Ruth's pitching declined in 1918 because he was playing in the outfield half the time he wasn't pitching, and then declined more in 1919 because he was playing the outfield EVERY time he wasn't pitching. Well, I don't KNOW that's why his pitching declined, but if I had to guess that's the guess I'd make. Wouldn't you? >>
Yes, but one cannot speculate when attempting to make statistical comparison. Numbers talk, not educated guesses.
<< <i>I don't want to make too big a deal out of this, since it involves so much guess work, but you kind of blipped over what I thought was my main point. Ruth's pitching declined in 1918 because he was playing in the outfield half the time he wasn't pitching, and then declined more in 1919 because he was playing the outfield EVERY time he wasn't pitching. Well, I don't KNOW that's why his pitching declined, but if I had to guess that's the guess I'd make. Wouldn't you? >>
Yes, but one cannot speculate when attempting to make statistical comparison. Numbers talk, not educated guesses. >>
Fair enough, how does Mantle's pitching compare to Ruth's? And no fair speculating.
My point was not that it mattered, for statistical purposes, why Ruth's pitching declined; I made that point solely because skin was implying that Ruth was losing it as a pitcher when I don't think that's the most likely reason his pitching stats declined. For statistical purposes, my point is that dismissing 1918-1919 from Ruth's peak because his hitting wasn't up to his later standard, is to assign no value at all to his pitching. Ruth's "replacement player" wasn't a great hitter, and it wasn't a very good (1918) / above average (1919) pitcher - it was both of them. Treating Mantle and Ruth in those two years as if they had the same replacement player / peer is to grossly undervalue Ruth. Ruth defies statistical comparisons to most every player because he was so good. But within the small circle of players who deserve to be mentioned in the same breath - like Mantle - a straight up comparison of hitting stats alone takes a big enough chunk of Ruth's value away that it matters. I'm not going to tell skin how to take Ruth's pitching into account in his Mantle comparison because I don't know if there is a single correct way to do it. What I am saying is that it needs to be taken into account in some fashion, and it probably involves speculation because the data base of players who were both All-Star level pitchers and MVP-level hitters only has one entry.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
<< <i>Kaline never won a MVP award and you think he was better than Clemente? Clemente had a better career and its not even close. Kaline did win an award in Clemente's name lol. >>
They look pretty close to me. >>
Kaline had a higher career OPS+, and Clemente did not play out the downward end of his career.
<< <i>But to the degree that you are adamant that Mantle ought to be towering over Yaz in a HOF-merit system, you also ought to be adamant that Jim Rice has no business poking his head out of Tier VI. >>
In my case, at least, I don't think Rice belongs in the HOF. Away from Fenway, he was far too average to be a true HOF'er. Kinda like the HOF'er he replaced in LF:
.306/.402/.503 at Fenway .264/.357/.422 away from Fenway
On the road - 73 fewer walks, 282 fewer RBI, 111 more K, 118 fewer doubles, 22 fewer homers - in the exact same number of PAs.
Contrast that with Mickey Mantle, whose numbers are very close for home and away.
Taken further, we have Yaz's Triple Crown season of 1967. He was outstanding on the road - .321/17/47. At home, though, he was a different animal entirely - .332/27/74. In 1968, that trend was reversed, with Yaz having better numbers on the road vs home. 1969 was back to normal though, with Yaz putting up .232/19/56 on the road (fine power numbers but nothing else) vs .279/21/55 at home. In 1970, we get another excellent year on the road from Yaz with .306/18/41 but home again a whole different animal - .353/22/61.
<< <i>I'm actually more bothered by Joe Morgan dropping out than I am by Mantle; I think the greatest second baseman in history has a better claim to the HOF than the fifth or sixth best outfielder. >>
There's probably no bigger fan of Joe Morgan than Joe himself and even *HE* would tell you that Mantle was a LOT better than him and doesn't deserve to be in the same tier. And I think Rogers Hornsby, with his 6-year stretch of leading the NL in everything every single year from 1920-25, has a better claim as "greatest second baseman".
<< <i>There's probably no bigger fan of Joe Morgan than Joe himself and even *HE* would tell you that Mantle was a LOT better than him and doesn't deserve to be in the same tier. And I think Rogers Hornsby, with his 6-year stretch of leading the NL in everything every single year from 1920-25, has a better claim as "greatest second baseman". >>
I can see this from either perspective. Yes, it's true that Mickey Mantle was better - contributed more towards winning games - than Joe Morgan, although probably not by as great a margin as you think. But, if I'm picking an all-time team to play in the intergalactic fight for survival, I think I'd fill my outfield without picking Mantle, and I sure as hell wouldn't put Mantle at second base. In a perfect world - at least in my perfect world, Tier I would have at least one player at each position, because you need one player at each position to play baseball. I'm not trying to say anything deeper than that - it does bother me that Mantle isn't in Tier I any more - it was just an expression of preference for the form of the Tiers. As for Hornsby, the comparison to Morgan gets complicated because of the era difference, and because they were great at different things. I certainly wouldn't cry if I got Hornsby instead of Morgan for my intergalactic team, but I do think Morgan was probably a very little bit better.
And more generally, this "doesn't deserve to be in the same Tier" business needs to stop. I went out of my way very purposefully to avoid identifying who was #1, #2, ...., #150, and instead put people into broad Tiers. Unless the argument is that I should create 47 different Tiers, there is always going to be a pretty substantial difference between the top and bottom players in any Tier, and a microscopic difference between the players at the bottom of one Tier and at the top of the next Tier. Get over it. Look at the overall level of all the players in a given Tier and there will be a marked difference between each Tier. And either don't look deeper than that or make your own Tiers.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
<< <i>And more generally, this "doesn't deserve to be in the same Tier" business needs to stop. I went out of my way very purposefully to avoid identifying who was #1, #2, ...., #150, and instead put people into broad Tiers. Unless the argument is that I should create 47 different Tiers, there is always going to be a pretty substantial difference between the top and bottom players in any Tier, and a microscopic difference between the players at the bottom of one Tier and at the top of the next Tier. Get over it. Look at the overall level of all the players in a given Tier and there will be a marked difference between each Tier. And either don't look deeper than that or make your own Tiers. >>
You can't really think you can make a list like this and not get a ton of arguments do you? 47 seems like a bit much, but a few more tiers might have been better.
Without showing us how you determined the rankings, and some seem really, really off, you are bound to get tons of feedback, both positive and negative. Don't take it personally.
This is a great thread and a lot of fun. Thanks for your effort!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Look at Jim Bunning's numbers, he got A LOT better when he went from Detroit to Philly. Look at his WHIP, quite a big drop!
A lot of big name players in the NL, but maybe overall the AL was better? To be fair Ryan, Seaver and Carlton came in at the very end of the '60's.
Clemente also took awhile to get going, he played full time in '55 but didn't excel until 1960, Kaline's first full year was '54 and he was a STUD the very next year!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
<< <i>I don't want to make too big a deal out of this, since it involves so much guess work, but you kind of blipped over what I thought was my main point. Ruth's pitching declined in 1918 because he was playing in the outfield half the time he wasn't pitching, and then declined more in 1919 because he was playing the outfield EVERY time he wasn't pitching. Well, I don't KNOW that's why his pitching declined, but if I had to guess that's the guess I'd make. Wouldn't you? >>
Yes, but one cannot speculate when attempting to make statistical comparison. Numbers talk, not educated guesses. >>
Fair enough, how does Mantle's pitching compare to Ruth's? And no fair speculating.
My point was not that it mattered, for statistical purposes, why Ruth's pitching declined; I made that point solely because skin was implying that Ruth was losing it as a pitcher when I don't think that's the most likely reason his pitching stats declined. For statistical purposes, my point is that dismissing 1918-1919 from Ruth's peak because his hitting wasn't up to his later standard, is to assign no value at all to his pitching. Ruth's "replacement player" wasn't a great hitter, and it wasn't a very good (1918) / above average (1919) pitcher - it was both of them. Treating Mantle and Ruth in those two years as if they had the same replacement player / peer is to grossly undervalue Ruth. Ruth defies statistical comparisons to most every player because he was so good. But within the small circle of players who deserve to be mentioned in the same breath - like Mantle - a straight up comparison of hitting stats alone takes a big enough chunk of Ruth's value away that it matters. I'm not going to tell skin how to take Ruth's pitching into account in his Mantle comparison because I don't know if there is a single correct way to do it. What I am saying is that it needs to be taken into account in some fashion, and it probably involves speculation because the data base of players who were both All-Star level pitchers and MVP-level hitters only has one entry. >>
I am looking at it from a purely educated statistical guess...and the indicators point to Ruth losing it as a pitcher, and the SO/BB indicator is pretty strong.
I see what you are saying though if you changed Ruth's peak to 1918-1921, as one would have to account for his pitching contributions. So if we add his pitching value and change his peak to include those last two pitching years:
In 1919 he was a league average pitcher, contributing appx 1 run above average. In 1918, he was a little better contributing appx 12 runs above average.
HOWEVER, he didn't hit full time those years, and even though his percentages were good, his batter runs suffered, and in total he actually contributed less as a hitter, compared to his 'hitting only' peak when he was only hitting.
From 1918-1921 he had 342 Batter Runs, compared to his 'hitting only' peak of 361. Go ahead and give him his 13 extra runs above average, and he is still below 361, and it doesn't change the conclusion of the outline above between the two.
You are giving him 'credit' if he had pitched full-time(at elite level) while he was hitting full time. If he did that, then I would be on board with you. Unfortunately, during his pitching peak, he didn't hit much, so his value stems only from his pitching. During his transition where he did both, the combined contributions of his pitching and hitting still don't change his run contribution(compared to the peak I outlined above where I just used his hitting peak).
So you can't give Ruth full time pitching credit, as well as full time hitting credit for his peak...because he never did those two together.
So in the end, at their four year peak, Mantle still comes out ahead...and comfortably ahead of I assigned a more stringent era adjustment.
IF you are saying, "Could Mantle have pitched as good as Ruth?" Probably not, but we don't know for sure if Mantle was pitching in the weak era Ruth pitched in.
But if you want to go that way, then I would ask, "Which player would be more viable for a team as a Shortstop? Third baseman? Second Baseman?" The answer is Mantle, if not for anything else, because of which arms they throw with...and of course speed, agility as well in Mantles favor.
I have a dilemma that I have never been able to adequately qualify or articulate.
It is something like this, though it will be admittedly oversimplified in the interest of time and laziness.
” Aren't the vast majority of the really great second baseman not-quite-good-enough-shortstops?”
And ” If the above is reasonably true, how do you account for that when ranking players?”
.
I am buying and trading for RC's of Wilt Chamberlain, George Mikan, Bill Russell, Oscar Robertson, Jerry West, and Bob Cousy! Don't waste your time and fees listing on ebay before getting in touch me by PM or at gregmo32@aol.com !
Christy Mathewson being in Tier II never even caught my eye; it was where I expected him to end up. Now, please note that Tier I and Tier VI are smaller than the other Tiers; if I made it bigger, he might make it. But as it is, which pitchers in Tier I (Alexander, Grove, R. Johnson, W. Johnson, Maddux, Nichols, Seaver, Young) do you think should be bumped for Mathewson? I think each of those was clearly better than Mathewson,
I didnt even check the other ones, but I compared Mathewson to Alexander since they were from similar eras. Mathewson had the same wins while losing 20 less games. His era was much better 2.13 compared to 2.56, much better strikeout to walk ratio and he had 13 straight sub 3.00 era seasons along with 12 seasons in a row of 22+ wins. i really think you need to rethink Mathewson's tier. And that is not even comparing him to the likes of Seaver or Maddux . And as far as Nichols, on what grounds does he surpass Mathewson (less wins, more losses, considerable higher era, less shutouts, ) I really do not get the positioning. I think if you look closely you'll realize why Mathewson was one of only 2 pitchers elected on the inaugural Hall ballot covering almost 60 years of organized baseball.
<< <i>I didnt even check the other ones, but I compared Mathewson to Alexander since they were from similar eras. Mathewson had the same wins while losing 20 less games. His era was much better 2.13 compared to 2.56, much better strikeout to walk ratio and he had 13 straight sub 3.00 era seasons along with 12 seasons in a row of 22+ wins. i really think you need to rethink Mathewson's tier. And that is not even comparing him to the likes of Seaver or Maddux . And as far as Nichols, on what grounds does he surpass Mathewson (less wins, more losses, considerable higher era, less shutouts, ) I really do not get the positioning. I think if you look closely you'll realize why Mathewson was one of only 2 pitchers elected on the inaugural Hall ballot covering almost 60 years of organized baseball. >>
First, throw out wins and losses - those are team stats not player stats. Second - look at when they pitched. You say they pitched in "similar" eras, but that's simply not true. 100% of Mathewson's career was in the deadball era; Alexander pitched half his career in the deadball era, and then kept pitching through the 1920's. Finally, you ignored the length of their careers. Add it all up, and Mathewson allowed about 400 earned runs less than an average pitcher over the course of his career - which is phenomenal. Alexander allowed more than 500 fewer earned runs, and Nichols allowed more than 650 fewer earned runs - which is better. Nichols pitched most of his career in the 1890's, when runs scored were significantly higher than in the 1900's-1910's. And since you mentioned Seaver and Maddux, they allowed about 410 and 560 fewer earned runs than average.
If you analyze all the relevant, and important, stats and conclude that Mathewson was better than one or more of these pitchers then I won't say that you're necessarily wrong. But if you say that he's better than all of them, and by so much that you don't even think they belong in the same tier then I will say that you're wrong. I think a careful and complete comparison shows that Mathewson was just a little bit worse than some of these pitchers, and a fair amount worse than a few of them.
It might help to look at the other side of the coin. When you compare Honus Wagner to Ed Delahanty or Al Simmons, what do you see? Wagner was a better hitter than either, and by a margin that's really quite substantial. If you see that, then apply whatever you did there to the pitchers (but in reverse) and you've properly accounted for the deadball era. If you don't see it, then you need to keep looking until you do.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
IMHO, Kid Nichols doesn't really belong in the same discussion with Mathewson & Alexander. He was a great pitcher, just not on their level, despite the better ERA+ number. Pete & Christy both led their leagues in ERA, ERA+, WHIP, and FIP far more often that Nichols.
I think if push came to shove, I'd take Mathewson over Alexander but you're not going wrong with either guy.
<< <i>I didnt even check the other ones, but I compared Mathewson to Alexander since they were from similar eras. Mathewson had the same wins while losing 20 less games. His era was much better 2.13 compared to 2.56, much better strikeout to walk ratio and he had 13 straight sub 3.00 era seasons along with 12 seasons in a row of 22+ wins. i really think you need to rethink Mathewson's tier. And that is not even comparing him to the likes of Seaver or Maddux . And as far as Nichols, on what grounds does he surpass Mathewson (less wins, more losses, considerable higher era, less shutouts, ) I really do not get the positioning. I think if you look closely you'll realize why Mathewson was one of only 2 pitchers elected on the inaugural Hall ballot covering almost 60 years of organized baseball. >>
First, throw out wins and losses - those are team stats not player stats. Second - look at when they pitched. You say they pitched in "similar" eras, but that's simply not true. 100% of Mathewson's career was in the deadball era; Alexander pitched half his career in the deadball era, and then kept pitching through the 1920's. Finally, you ignored the length of their careers. Add it all up, and Mathewson allowed about 400 earned runs less than an average pitcher over the course of his career - which is phenomenal. Alexander allowed more than 500 fewer earned runs, and Nichols allowed more than 650 fewer earned runs - which is better. Nichols pitched most of his career in the 1890's, when runs scored were significantly higher than in the 1900's-1910's. And since you mentioned Seaver and Maddux, they allowed about 410 and 560 fewer earned runs than average.
If you analyze all the relevant, and important, stats and conclude that Mathewson was better than one or more of these pitchers then I won't say that you're necessarily wrong. But if you say that he's better than all of them, and by so much that you don't even think they belong in the same tier then I will say that you're wrong. I think a careful and complete comparison shows that Mathewson was just a little bit worse than some of these pitchers, and a fair amount worse than a few of them.
It might help to look at the other side of the coin. When you compare Honus Wagner to Ed Delahanty or Al Simmons, what do you see? Wagner was a better hitter than either, and by a margin that's really quite substantial. If you see that, then apply whatever you did there to the pitchers (but in reverse) and you've properly accounted for the deadball era. If you don't see it, then you need to keep looking until you do. >>
As always, dallas, you provide opinion backed by insightful analysis. Always great reading your posts.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
But if you say that he's better than all of them, and by so much that you don't even think they belong in the same tier then I will say that you're wrong
I never said that they did not belong in the same tier as Mathewson, I said Mathewson belongs in the highest tier available, regardless of which other pitchers are present.
<< <i>I never said that they did not belong in the same tier as Mathewson, I said Mathewson belongs in the highest tier available, regardless of which other pitchers are present. >>
Fair enough, but now you're just arguing a point of construction. The highest tier has to end somewhere, and it ended above Mathewson but included the others. I could make the first tier bigger so that Mathewson got in, but that wouldn't change the underlying point that Mathewson was not as good a pitcher as the others in the smaller Tier I.
And Tabe, your points are well taken but none of the things you're looking at take into account how many innings each pitcher pitched, and counting league leaders implies that being second in a category is an equal sign of greatness as being 102nd, which is simply incorrect. If we look at a comprehensive measurement like WAR, Nichols is 5th on the all-time list, Alexander is 4th, Seaver and Maddux are 7th and 8th, and Mathewson is 12th. WAR, like any other single stat, isn't a perfect way to judge these things, but most any comprehensive analysis is going to show Mathewson coming in behind those four pitchers, as well as Johnson and the true Titans. Another thing to consider is that, at least with regard to Nichols, is that leading the league when there is only one league is approximately twice as hard as leading a league when there are two leagues. Mathewson had the luxury of pitching in a different league than Walter Johnson. Put the two of them in the same league and Mathewson's league leaders would go way down, which would say precisely nothing about how good he was.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
<< <i>And Tabe, your points are well taken but none of the things you're looking at take into account how many innings each pitcher pitched, and counting league leaders implies that being second in a category is an equal sign of greatness as being 102nd, which is simply incorrect. If we look at a comprehensive measurement like WAR, Nichols is 5th on the all-time list, Alexander is 4th, Seaver and Maddux are 7th and 8th, and Mathewson is 12th. WAR, like any other single stat, isn't a perfect way to judge these things, but most any comprehensive analysis is going to show Mathewson coming in behind those four pitchers, as well as Johnson and the true Titans. Another thing to consider is that, at least with regard to Nichols, is that leading the league when there is only one league is approximately twice as hard as leading a league when there are two leagues. Mathewson had the luxury of pitching in a different league than Walter Johnson. Put the two of them in the same league and Mathewson's league leaders would go way down, which would say precisely nothing about how good he was. >>
Fair points, all of them, and soundly reasoned. Thanks for the reply.
This topic got a lot of interest the first time around, so maybe everyone has had enough and will move on, or maybe everyone will be just as interested the second time around. Only one way to find out.
I threw out everything I did the first time and started over. The biggest change is that I threw out everything that I could that involved judgment (adjustments for catchers, time lost due to war, etc.) except for one thing (more on that later), and just focused on actual contributions made. I also threw out pitchers, as well as anyone for whom games played in the 19th or 21st century meaningfully affects their value. So, the universe is position players from the 20th century who are in the HOF (129 people).
As before, I'm not going to go into any detail about the methods I used, except to point out the one area where judgment could not be eliminated. I split each player's career into 4 buckets to try to capture how good they were at their peak, for their entire career, and for a couple of periods along the way. This is an assumption, I'm disclosing it here, and I don't think anyone will disagree: a player's greatness is some combination of his peak greatness, his average greatness, and his career greatness. Dave Winfield contributed more - a lot more - over the course of his long career than Joe DiMaggio did, but Joe DiMaggio was better - a lot better - than Dave Winfield. If you strongly disagree with that statement, and you think Rusty Staub was better than Duke Snider, then you'll have lots of problems with this and should probably stop here.
The rest of you should know that I have used different weights for different career periods and combined them all into a single greatness factor and ranked everyone from 1 to 129. I like the weights I used, but I won't pretend they are "correct" and that any other weighting is "wrong". I am interested, though, in what people see as serious problems with the order of the final list. If you think DiMaggio is too high, then I'll interpret that as meaning you think I haven't given enough weight to length of career. If you think Henderson is too high, then you think I've given too much weight to length of career or not enough to peak. The thing I see that bothers me the most is how far down the catchers fall, but there's no way to avoid that without a judgment factor and that's a completely separate topic so I let them fall. Also, there is no adjustment for years lost to war or segregation, so Campanella falls below Pie Traynor; painful, but unavoidable unless we through out everything except peak.
So, please do look over the list and let me know if you someone that you think is way out of place. I suspect that in many cases it will just be because I don't see that a player was as good as you think he was, but I'll look at any objections and see if I think an adjustment to the weights is warranted. And please don't get hung up on player X being ranked 1 or 2 spots higher or lower than player Y. I divided the list up into 10 "tiers" of roughly 13 players each, and you will see a very clear and significant difference between the average level of greatness of each tier; if you get more granular than that, we'll just end up debating judgment calls, not stats.
With regard to the tiers, what I see is that the people in tiers 8-10 either simply don't belong in the HOF, or are in the HOF for reasons different than their overall greatness; lots of catchers and middle infielders down there along with a bunch of vastly overrated hitters. Tiers 1-5 seem to me to be completely uncontroversial HOFers; they stood so far above their fellow players that I don't think anything approaching a reasonable case could be made for excluding them. Which leaves tiers 6 and 7. There is nobody in Tier 6 that I would exclude from the HOF, but there are a few in Tier 7. Others will no doubt draw the HOF line somewhere different than I do, but I think most people will agree that the line is somewhere below Tier 5 and above Tier 8. Let me know if you disagree.
When/if everyone/anyone has thrown in their two cents and I've made any adjustments to the weights, I'll add on some non-HOFers and show where they would rank.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Don't know how Reggie is so much higher than Harmon, saw both careers and looked at numbers. Even if I was to concede Reggie was a slightly better "all around ballplayer" NO WAY he's 18 spots higher.
Right handed batters have it tougher than lefties. Killebrew is already ahead in numbers but when you factor in lefthanded advantage it gets significant IMO. OPS+ likes Reggie much better than Harmon, but Killer is still rated a bit higher. Not sure how OPS+ looks at right handed batters as opposed to left or if it does. Jackson had a big advantage being a lefty when he played in NY, Harmon's home park for most of his career was average to left field. Not sure how Oakland was to Right field but usually shorter than to most stadium's Left.
Killebrew 8 seasons with more than 40 hrs averaging 45.5 in those years. Reg did it twice and averaged 44. When I am comparing "sluggers" this is the kind thing I look for. Killer had .900 or better ops every year he was healthy from 1960 to 1970. 9 years out of 11 and came close in 1965 with an .885 mark, so 10/11. Reggie was over .885 only 7 times in his entire career.
Killebrew grounded into 5 more dps a year and didn't steal any bases, Reggie stole 13 bases and got caught 7 times a year so I see 6 bases for Reggie there plus some extra outs for the Killer. Harm led in obp, slg ops. Harmon also walked more and more rbi. Reg did hit more doubles. Neither guy was great on defense although Killer was able to play both infield and outfield when asked.
Since your formula is a secret, I can't dispute it, but it looks like Killebrew is regarded as a firstbaseman in the fancy new stat departments while Reggie is a rightfielder, I can only imagine that this influences the "value". Killebrew played well at third base almost as much as he played first. He was regarded a poor leftfielder, no denying that, however it helped the team, I am sure that isn't taken into account anywhere. In World Series play Reggie is a legend with an incredible 1.212 ops, but you're not using that are you?
I really would like to hear in what areas Reggie is so much better in the values I am not seeing.
Yes, Harmon was my favorite player and I couldn't stand Reggie.
Finally, it was so hard to hit in the 1960's they ended up lowering the mound, so the 1970's should have been easier, right?
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Reggie's peak - which is valued the highest - was in Oakland, not NY. Oakland was to the AL what the Astrodome was to the NL; it was where offense went to die. So counting HR or .900 OPS seasons isn't at all fair to Jackson. Jackson's 1969 season was the best season either player ever had although, ironically, Killebrew won the MVP that year.
Neither Jackson nor Killebrew was a great fielder, but in his prime, Jackson was pretty good. Killebrew was never good.
The era in which Jackson played was more competitive than Killebrew's era.
Jakson played nearly 400 more games than Killebrew.
Jackson was an above average baserunner, Killebrew was below average.
None of these factors mean much by themselves, but they all work in Jackson's favor, and they do add up. The single largest factor is the 400 extra games, and even that isn't worth that much; while that represents about 16% more games, it adds about 3% to Jackson's score.
Mostly, you're noting a difference of 18 slots in the ranking, but that's within the most competitive section of the rankings. The relative difference looks large, but the absolute difference between them is less than half the difference between the top and bottom of Tier 10, and less than the difference between Ruth at #1 and Cobb at #2.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
These are really two great players to compare. Both sluggers, too bad Killebrew had a bad knee and missed some early time when he could run a little better.
Thanks for the info on difficulty of parks. I did not know Oakland was that tough of a park to hit in. I do remember hearing it had lots of foul territory, how deep was right field? With a vast majority of hitters being right handed, wouldn't the "park factor" favor lefties? To be fair, park size didn't matter much when either of these guys connected, NO park could contain these two!
Agree that Reggie's peak as a player was in Oakland, but his NY years certainly worked in his favor (.519 SLG in NY .506 in Oak) when comparing careers.
1969 is a very interesting year, both players produced tremendous numbers. You can make a strong case Reggie deserved the MVP, It may NOT have even been Harmon's best year (see 1961 I know.......everyone hit in 1961). Harmon obliterated Oakland pitching in 1969, probably why despite (slightly) less impressive numbers, got and deserved, the MVP.
Reggie's numbers sure went up and down a lot during his Oakland "peak", He followed up his best season with a .200 drop in OPS. Look at Killebrew's consistency during his 11 year peak. He was seriously injured in both 1965 and 1968 other than those two years his OPS varied by at most .104 he TOTALLY dominated the entire decade, year in and year out. Reggie was up and down.
I value a consistent producer over an up and down guy even if the averages are similar. I am sure the "stat" guys will laugh at this.
As an aside, how does Reggies OPS+ go UP in 1972 from 1971? He played in less games and BA, OBP, SLG and OPS all went down, SLG and OPS significantly. I am not seeing that as a better year for him. Not a fan of the +.
Neither was a great fielder. Killebrew played well enough at third base, above average at first and poorly in the outfield.
Reggie was a good fielder and Right field is (IMO) a tough position. Slight advantage to Reggie, but very slight. Career WAR favors Reggie while Offensive WAR much closer. It has been said here that defensive numbers are hard to measure and I agree.
When taking into consideration Harm moved around the field willingly to help the team, something I am sure doesn't get considered in any comparison, I would rate Killebrew higher defensively because of versatility. Had he been a more selfish player, Killebrew would have better fielding numbers and possibly even avoided both serious injuries.
I don't know how the 1970's were more "competitive" than the 1960's, maybe it was because there were less "dominant" hitters like Harmon? ;-) As I mentioned in my earlier post, the pitchers mound had to be lowered at the end of the 1960's to help the batters, so hitting in the 1970's should have been easier in one regard.
Jackson played more games, but Killebrew hit more home runs in less games. Well, no way I can dispute that Reggie played more games, Killebrew got screwed by the "bonus rule" but that's the way it goes. He loses 300 (?) games in his early career because a last place team is afraid his defense will hurt them!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!????????? How can you be worse than last? LOL
Jackson was a better baserunner, no doubt. Not much advantage as cleanup hitters are often not needed to run well, but I totally agree Reggie ran better.
I am sure your list bothers me mostly because Reggie was a jerk and Harmon was a fantastic person and team mate, I'll take Killebrew as my clean-up hitter EVERY time because of ability and value to the team!
Good conversation!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@JoeBanzai said:
I do remember hearing it had lots of foul territory, how deep was right field?
Because the stadium was also used for football, there was indeed a ton of foul territory. Left and right field were 330 down the lines, 410 to center. The Oakland dynasty in the early 70's was built on hitting, and everyone on those teams (Jackson, Bando, Campaneris, Tenace, Rudi, etc. was better than they are usually given credit for. Their pitchers, on the flip side of that coin, are usually given way more credit than they deserve.
Reggie's numbers sure went up and down a lot during his Oakland "peak", He followed up his best season with a .200 drop in OPS. Look at Killebrew's consistency during his 11 year peak. He was seriously injured in both 1965 and 1968 other than those two years his OPS varied by at most .104 he TOTALLY dominated the entire decade, year in and year out. Reggie was up and down.
I value a consistent producer over an up and down guy even if the averages are similar. I am sure the "stat" guys will laugh at this.
Killebrew was certainly more consistent than Reggie, but that doesn't have any actual value so I didn't give it any. One of the factors that I did look at in evaluating "peak" was the best 3-year consecutive period, and Killebrew does beat Jackson at that by a little. But if you throw out the requirement that seasons be consecutive, Reggie has a better top 5 (by just a little), and the gap grows as you look at longer periods.
As an aside, how does Reggies OPS+ go UP in 1972 from 1971? He played in less games and BA, OBP, SLG and OPS all went down, SLG and OPS significantly. I am not seeing that as a better year for him. Not a fan of the +.
I don't know, but 1972 was MLB's first strike year, and the season got started a little late and teams all lost 5-7 games. I'm guessing that spring training was abbreviated and the players weren't as prepared as they otherwise would have been. In any event, league OPS dropped significantly from '71 to '72, and Reggie's drop was less than the average drop, so his OPS+ increased.
Neither was a great fielder. Killebrew played well enough at third base, above average at first and poorly in the outfield.
Reggie was a good fielder and Right field is (IMO) a tough position. Slight advantage to Reggie, but very slight. Career WAR favors Reggie while Offensive WAR much closer. It has been said here that defensive numbers are hard to measure and I agree.
When taking into consideration Harm moved around the field willingly to help the team, something I am sure doesn't get considered in any comparison, I would rate Killebrew higher defensively because of versatility. Had he been a more selfish player, Killebrew would have better fielding numbers and possibly even avoided both serious injuries.
Killebrew does get points for playing third base, but he'd get a lot more if he had played it well. But rest assured that the defensive gap didn't amount to much. Reggie played 400 more games, Oakland was a tough place to hit, and the rest is little more than noise.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
There is nobody in Tier 6 that I would exclude from the HOF, but there are a few in Tier 7. Others will no doubt draw the HOF line somewhere different than I do, but I think most people will agree that the line is somewhere below Tier 5 and above Tier 8. Let me know if you disagree.
The greats define the laggards and vice versa. If you favor raising the unwritten criteria bat by 50% to knock out a third of new inductees (yeah I know that PEDs have messed all of that up) good enough.
Third baseman George Kell was a career .306 hitter and a top level fielder (led the league in fielding percentage 7 seasons). Tier 10 though. I think he belongs in the Hall but if it is only for GOATS....I understand.
As an aside, how does Reggies OPS+ go UP in 1972 from 1971? He played in less games and BA, OBP, SLG and OPS all went down, SLG and OPS significantly. I am not seeing that as a better year for him. Not a fan of the +.
I don't know, but 1972 was MLB's first strike year, and the season got started a little late and teams all lost 5-7 games. I'm guessing that spring training was abbreviated and the players weren't as prepared as they otherwise would have been. In any event, league OPS dropped significantly from '71 to '72, and Reggie's drop was less than the average drop, so his OPS+ increased.
I think I get it.
So everyone else got a lot worse and Reggie only got a little worse so Reggie actually got better.
No thanks if that's one way OPS+ works.
I figured you wouldn't put any (or much) stock in Killebrew's 11 year consistent production.
You haven't addressed my theory that Reggie had an advantage being left handed, any room for agreement in that respect?
We are talking about a couple of guys REALLY close.
Nice discussion.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
You haven't addressed my theory that Reggie had an advantage being left handed, any room for agreement in that respect?
In general, sure, left-handed hitters have an advantage over right-handed hitters, and switch-hitters have an advantage over both. But whether it's fair or not, that makes left-handed hitters (and right-handed pitchers) more valuable. In other words, it is not something that there is any need to adjust for in determining which of two players was better than the other.
@Coinstartled said:
Third baseman George Kell was a career .306 hitter and a top level fielder (led the league in fielding percentage 7 seasons). Tier 10 though. I think he belongs in the Hall but if it is only for GOATS....I understand.
As official defender of Bill Mazeroski, I understand that there may be reasons to put a player in the HOF other than the objective contributions he made to winning games. But I don't see that George Kell is anywhere close. Kell was a good fielder, but he wasn't great. And to be clear, offensively he's nowhere close to HOF-level so whatever case he's got would have to be based on his defense. Darrell Evans was a much, much better hitter than Kell, and a better fielder; Nettles and Boyer weren't as good as Evans, but they were both better hitters and fielders than Kell. Kell got in before people figured out that a .300 average made up of mostly singles just isn't that impressive; he'd have no chance today.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
You haven't addressed my theory that Reggie had an advantage being left handed, any room for agreement in that respect?
In general, sure, left-handed hitters have an advantage over right-handed hitters, and switch-hitters have an advantage over both. But whether it's fair or not, that makes left-handed hitters (and right-handed pitchers) more valuable. In other words, it is not something that there is any need to adjust for in determining which of two players was better than the other.
In the book "Ted Williams' Hit List" Mr. Ballgame says that righties have it tougher. You seem to agree. I had always realized right field is almost always shorter, but he points out that since most pitchers are right handed, lefties are also getting a favorable matchup.
With all these new stats being invented to "equalize" everyone in an attempt to compare, why on earth wouldn't we compensate in this area? And why wouldn't this be one of the first and most obvious adjustments?
I wouldn't bother worrying about switch hitters. Too few of them. They do have an even bigger advantage IF they can hit from both sides.
Oh well, time to get off the computer and be productive.
Have a great week!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@JoeBanzai said:
With all these new stats being invented to "equalize" everyone in an attempt to compare, why on earth wouldn't we compensate in this area? And why wouldn't this be one of the first and most obvious adjustments?
What the stats are designed to do is show how much a player actually contributed to his team's run production, and the one who contributes more is "better" than the one who contributes less. If you are drafting a team and it comes down to a choice between two equally talented players, one who bats right and one who bats left, which one would you take? If your goal is to win baseball games then the choice should be obvious; the lefty is more likely to produce more runs, and therefore to win more games. All the adjustments that are made are to account for factors outside of the player's own ability like ballparks; you don't adjust for factors inherent to a player that help him produce more runs than other players.
If a team played a lefty at shortstop, that player would probably make fewer assists than average. We could "adjust" for that and create a stat that showed him to be better than all the right-handed shortstops, but the stat would be meaningless. In an actual game, we'd want the "worse" right-handed shortstop on the field, not the "better" left-handed shortstop. In baseball, as in any sport, "better" means "will win more games"; an adjustment for handedness would work the opposite way. It would be similar to adjusting for height when evaluating basketball players.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
In the case of Jackson/Killebrew, with both players having very similar stats, Killebrew ALWAYS had to hit the ball a little farther and 66% (?) of the time was facing a tougher pitching matchup. He had to be a better hitter to produce the same/similar numbers.
In looking back, I factor this in and judge Killebrew to be a "better" hitter by a fairly significant margin.
Their value to a hypothetical team or situation depends on a lot of factors, and with these two being so close you might opt for Jackson even if Killebrew is a "better" hitter.
These new stats all seem to have in common looking for a comparison to the league or "replacement" players. If it's on average farther to left field and agreed that there's more righthanded pitching, righthanded hitters should get a "+" of some kind like OPS+ does for era and park factors etc. It could be factored right in to OPS+.
Getting into Basketball..........lots of people diminish Mikan and Chamberlin's accomplishments because of their height advantage, but I'm sticking with the original sport.
In the end, I'll NEVER rate Jackson above Killebrew, but I can understand someone who might.
Gotta go. Good talking to you!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@JoeBanzai said:
These new stats all seem to have in common looking for a comparison to the league or "replacement" players. If it's on average farther to left field and agreed that there's more righthanded pitching, righthanded hitters should get a "+" of some kind like OPS+ does for era and park factors etc. It could be factored right in to OPS+.
As long as you understand that you are separating "better" from "who will win more games for his team" then I get your point. I'm ranking players by how many games they won for their teams. A list that threw that consideration out, and attempted to isolate innate baseball talent, could theoretically be made, and adjusting for handedness would be one of the hundred or so adjustments required. But adjusting my list for handedness is mixing apples and oranges; I'm not trying to measure how many games they coulda woulda shoulda won, but how many games they won. It may not be fair that lefties have an advantage, but "fair" is a concept for the coulda woulda shoulda list, not for the what actually happened list or the who do I want on my team list. You could adjust OPS+ for handedness, but if you did you'd have a statistic wouldn't measure actual accomplishment (apples) or innate baseball talent (oranges); it would be meaningless.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Comments
But again, you are a hypocrite, and I(as you should be) am more concerned about that. On one hand, when Brock comes up for evaluation, you state a couple of times that it is what you do in the post season that separates the players, and that rings are the only goal. Now you need to apply that to Mays as well so you can have at least a shred of consistency in your methods. At least a shred.
So by YOUR methodology, here is where Mays and Mantle rank in the area where you said is where it counts, their World Series performance:
Name.....Runs...AVG...HR....RBI....OB....SLG....OPS....Rings
Mays......9........239....0.......6......308....282....589........1
Mantle....42......257....18....40.....374.....535...908.........7
Again, just a shred of consistency. A shred.
PSASAP, I was going to reply to you and educate you a little more, but I fear all would be lost on you. Peak years are laid out above in great detail that include everything you have listed, plus the things you forgot. It is Peak, not career BTW. So when you want to expand upon your first grade level analysis, the info is higher up in the thread all laid out for you
But again, you are a hypocrite, and I(as you should be) am more concerned about that. On one hand, when Brock comes up for evaluation, you state a couple of times that it is what you do in the post season that separates the players, and that rings are the only goal. Now you need to apply that to Mays as well so you can have at least a shred of consistency in your methods. At least a shred.
So by YOUR methodology, here is where Mays and Mantle rank in the area where you said is where it counts, their World Series performance:
Name.....Runs...AVG...HR....RBI....OB....SLG....OPS....Rings
Mays......9........239....0.......6......308....282....589........1
Mantle....42......257....18....40.....374.....535...908.........7
Again, just a shred of consistency. A shred.
PSASAP, I was going to reply to you and educate you a little more, but I fear all would be lost on you. Peak years are laid out above in great detail that include everything you have listed, plus the things you forgot. It is Peak, not career BTW. So when you want to expand upon your first grade level analysis, the info is higher up in the thread all laid out for you
But again, you are a hypocrite, and I(as you should be) am more concerned about that. On one hand, when Brock comes up for evaluation, you state a couple of times that it is what you do in the post season that separates the players, and that rings are the only goal. Now you need to apply that to Mays as well so you can have at least a shred of consistency in your methods. At least a shred.
So by YOUR methodology, here is where Mays and Mantle rank in the area where you said is where it counts, their World Series performance:
Name.....Runs...AVG...HR....RBI....OB....SLG....OPS....Rings
Mays......9........239....0.......6......308....282....589........1
Mantle....42......257....18....40.....374.....535...908.........7
Again, just a shred of consistency. A shred.
<< <i>While true we can't accurately predict how Ruth would have done had he continued pitching when he was in his hitting prime, there are good indicators that are pretty accurate, mainly his SO/BB ratio. He slipped at an alarming rate his last two years on the hill, and that is a very strong indication that he was no longer a mystery to batters(and most likely he lost some velocity, and that is often enough to do the trick). >>
I don't want to make too big a deal out of this, since it involves so much guess work, but you kind of blipped over what I thought was my main point. Ruth's pitching declined in 1918 because he was playing in the outfield half the time he wasn't pitching, and then declined more in 1919 because he was playing the outfield EVERY time he wasn't pitching. Well, I don't KNOW that's why his pitching declined, but if I had to guess that's the guess I'd make. Wouldn't you? In a comparison of Ruth to his peers you run into an insolvable conundrum in 1918 and 1919 - Ruth is peerless - in the history of baseball - in those years. How well would Mantle have hit if every fourth day they told him he was pitching, and how well would he have pitched on those days? If you're comparing Ruth to his pitching peers, how well would Christy Mathewson have pitched if he had to play the outfield every day he wasn't pitching instead of resting? I'll say it again - you are comparing Mantle and Ruth at their hitting peaks, and Mantle looks close, and even might pass him depending on the era guess that is made, but 1918 and 1919 ARE part of Ruth's peak as a baseball player. That they are incomparable to Mantle, or any other baseball player ever, can't just be brushed aside and ignored. They are a significant part (10% of Ruth's career) of the reason that Ruth was a better baseball player than Mantle. (All of the above, IMO).
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
When it comes to offense it's really not close........Mantle was superior.
Similar to the Dimaggio/Williams debate, one a better "all-around" player one a better hitter.
<< <i>Kaline never won a MVP award and you think he was better than Clemente? Clemente had a better career and its not even close. Kaline did win an award in Clemente's name lol. >>
They look pretty close to me.
<< <i>I don't want to make too big a deal out of this, since it involves so much guess work, but you kind of blipped over what I thought was my main point. Ruth's pitching declined in 1918 because he was playing in the outfield half the time he wasn't pitching, and then declined more in 1919 because he was playing the outfield EVERY time he wasn't pitching. Well, I don't KNOW that's why his pitching declined, but if I had to guess that's the guess I'd make. Wouldn't you? >>
Yes, but one cannot speculate when attempting to make statistical comparison. Numbers talk, not educated guesses.
<< <i>
<< <i>I don't want to make too big a deal out of this, since it involves so much guess work, but you kind of blipped over what I thought was my main point. Ruth's pitching declined in 1918 because he was playing in the outfield half the time he wasn't pitching, and then declined more in 1919 because he was playing the outfield EVERY time he wasn't pitching. Well, I don't KNOW that's why his pitching declined, but if I had to guess that's the guess I'd make. Wouldn't you? >>
Yes, but one cannot speculate when attempting to make statistical comparison. Numbers talk, not educated guesses. >>
Fair enough, how does Mantle's pitching compare to Ruth's? And no fair speculating.
My point was not that it mattered, for statistical purposes, why Ruth's pitching declined; I made that point solely because skin was implying that Ruth was losing it as a pitcher when I don't think that's the most likely reason his pitching stats declined. For statistical purposes, my point is that dismissing 1918-1919 from Ruth's peak because his hitting wasn't up to his later standard, is to assign no value at all to his pitching. Ruth's "replacement player" wasn't a great hitter, and it wasn't a very good (1918) / above average (1919) pitcher - it was both of them. Treating Mantle and Ruth in those two years as if they had the same replacement player / peer is to grossly undervalue Ruth. Ruth defies statistical comparisons to most every player because he was so good. But within the small circle of players who deserve to be mentioned in the same breath - like Mantle - a straight up comparison of hitting stats alone takes a big enough chunk of Ruth's value away that it matters. I'm not going to tell skin how to take Ruth's pitching into account in his Mantle comparison because I don't know if there is a single correct way to do it. What I am saying is that it needs to be taken into account in some fashion, and it probably involves speculation because the data base of players who were both All-Star level pitchers and MVP-level hitters only has one entry.
<< <i>
<< <i>Kaline never won a MVP award and you think he was better than Clemente? Clemente had a better career and its not even close. Kaline did win an award in Clemente's name lol. >>
They look pretty close to me. >>
Kaline had a higher career OPS+, and Clemente did not play out the downward end of his career.
<< <i>Kaline had a higher career OPS+, and Clemente did not play out the downward end of his career. >>
Cryptic but logical observation. Problem is we can never fill in the blanks with the unknown.
(Dallasactuary)
<< <i>Clemente also faced better pitching... >>
Didn't everyone in the NL face better pitching through 50s-60s?
The NL was stacked: Koufax, Drysdale, Spahn, Gibson, Marichal, Perry, Carlton, Seaver, Ryan. Some of the most intimidating pitchers ever.
The WS path in the NL seemed much tougher too. So by the time you get to the WS you're done, and Yanks grab another title.
<< <i>But to the degree that you are adamant that Mantle ought to be towering over Yaz in a HOF-merit system, you also ought to be adamant that Jim Rice has no business poking his head out of Tier VI. >>
In my case, at least, I don't think Rice belongs in the HOF. Away from Fenway, he was far too average to be a true HOF'er. Kinda like the HOF'er he replaced in LF:
.306/.402/.503 at Fenway
.264/.357/.422 away from Fenway
On the road - 73 fewer walks, 282 fewer RBI, 111 more K, 118 fewer doubles, 22 fewer homers - in the exact same number of PAs.
Contrast that with Mickey Mantle, whose numbers are very close for home and away.
Taken further, we have Yaz's Triple Crown season of 1967. He was outstanding on the road - .321/17/47. At home, though, he was a different animal entirely - .332/27/74. In 1968, that trend was reversed, with Yaz having better numbers on the road vs home. 1969 was back to normal though, with Yaz putting up .232/19/56 on the road (fine power numbers but nothing else) vs .279/21/55 at home. In 1970, we get another excellent year on the road from Yaz with .306/18/41 but home again a whole different animal - .353/22/61.
Take all this as you will.
<< <i>I'm actually more bothered by Joe Morgan dropping out than I am by Mantle; I think the greatest second baseman in history has a better claim to the HOF than the fifth or sixth best outfielder. >>
There's probably no bigger fan of Joe Morgan than Joe himself and even *HE* would tell you that Mantle was a LOT better than him and doesn't deserve to be in the same tier. And I think Rogers Hornsby, with his 6-year stretch of leading the NL in everything every single year from 1920-25, has a better claim as "greatest second baseman".
<< <i>There's probably no bigger fan of Joe Morgan than Joe himself and even *HE* would tell you that Mantle was a LOT better than him and doesn't deserve to be in the same tier. And I think Rogers Hornsby, with his 6-year stretch of leading the NL in everything every single year from 1920-25, has a better claim as "greatest second baseman". >>
I can see this from either perspective. Yes, it's true that Mickey Mantle was better - contributed more towards winning games - than Joe Morgan, although probably not by as great a margin as you think. But, if I'm picking an all-time team to play in the intergalactic fight for survival, I think I'd fill my outfield without picking Mantle, and I sure as hell wouldn't put Mantle at second base. In a perfect world - at least in my perfect world, Tier I would have at least one player at each position, because you need one player at each position to play baseball. I'm not trying to say anything deeper than that - it does bother me that Mantle isn't in Tier I any more - it was just an expression of preference for the form of the Tiers. As for Hornsby, the comparison to Morgan gets complicated because of the era difference, and because they were great at different things. I certainly wouldn't cry if I got Hornsby instead of Morgan for my intergalactic team, but I do think Morgan was probably a very little bit better.
And more generally, this "doesn't deserve to be in the same Tier" business needs to stop. I went out of my way very purposefully to avoid identifying who was #1, #2, ...., #150, and instead put people into broad Tiers. Unless the argument is that I should create 47 different Tiers, there is always going to be a pretty substantial difference between the top and bottom players in any Tier, and a microscopic difference between the players at the bottom of one Tier and at the top of the next Tier. Get over it. Look at the overall level of all the players in a given Tier and there will be a marked difference between each Tier. And either don't look deeper than that or make your own Tiers.
<< <i>Great seeing Steve La Plant back....
(Dallasactuary) >>
And hey to you, too, Steve. Great to be back!
<< <i>Didn't everyone in the NL face better pitching through 50s-60s? >>
Ummmm, yeah. My comment was directed at the one that compared Kaline to Clemente...
<< <i>
<< <i>Clemente also faced better pitching... >>
Didn't everyone in the NL face better pitching through 50s-60s?. >>
Outside of '56 & '63, nope
Year - AL/NL League Average ERA
1955 - 3.96/4.04
1956 - 4.16/3.77
1957 - 3.79/3.88
1958 - 3.77/3.95
1959 - 3.86/3.95
1960 - 3.87/3.76
1961 - 4.02/4.03
1962 - 3.97/3.94
1963 - 3.63/3.29
1964 - 3.63/3.54
1965 - 3.46/3.54
1966 - 3.44/3.61
1967 - 3.23/3.38
1968 - 2.98/2.99
1969 - 3.63/3.60
1970 - 3.72/4.05
1971 - 3.47/3.47
1972 - 3.07/3.46
<< <i>Didn't everyone in the NL face better pitching through 50s-60s? >>
Average runs per game:
AL, 1950s: 4.436
NL, 1950s: 4.456
AL, 1960s: 4.053
NL, 1960s: 4.050
Total for period:
AL: 4.244
NL: 4.252
If NL pitching was better, then NL hitting was also exactly the same amount better, but my money says it was a tie.
<< <i>If NL pitching was better, then NL hitting was also exactly the same amount better, but my money says it was a tie. >>
Remarkably close correlation in the pre DH era.
<< <i>And more generally, this "doesn't deserve to be in the same Tier" business needs to stop. I went out of my way very purposefully to avoid identifying who was #1, #2, ...., #150, and instead put people into broad Tiers. Unless the argument is that I should create 47 different Tiers, there is always going to be a pretty substantial difference between the top and bottom players in any Tier, and a microscopic difference between the players at the bottom of one Tier and at the top of the next Tier. Get over it. Look at the overall level of all the players in a given Tier and there will be a marked difference between each Tier. And either don't look deeper than that or make your own Tiers. >>
You can't really think you can make a list like this and not get a ton of arguments do you? 47 seems like a bit much, but a few more tiers might have been better.
Without showing us how you determined the rankings, and some seem really, really off, you are bound to get tons of feedback, both positive and negative. Don't take it personally.
This is a great thread and a lot of fun. Thanks for your effort!
<< <i>Clemente also faced better pitching... >>
Perhaps the hitting was better in the AL?
Look at Jim Bunning's numbers, he got A LOT better when he went from Detroit to Philly. Look at his WHIP, quite a big drop!
A lot of big name players in the NL, but maybe overall the AL was better? To be fair Ryan, Seaver and Carlton came in at the very end of the '60's.
Clemente also took awhile to get going, he played full time in '55 but didn't excel until 1960, Kaline's first full year was '54 and he was a STUD the very next year!
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I don't want to make too big a deal out of this, since it involves so much guess work, but you kind of blipped over what I thought was my main point. Ruth's pitching declined in 1918 because he was playing in the outfield half the time he wasn't pitching, and then declined more in 1919 because he was playing the outfield EVERY time he wasn't pitching. Well, I don't KNOW that's why his pitching declined, but if I had to guess that's the guess I'd make. Wouldn't you? >>
Yes, but one cannot speculate when attempting to make statistical comparison. Numbers talk, not educated guesses. >>
Fair enough, how does Mantle's pitching compare to Ruth's? And no fair speculating.
My point was not that it mattered, for statistical purposes, why Ruth's pitching declined; I made that point solely because skin was implying that Ruth was losing it as a pitcher when I don't think that's the most likely reason his pitching stats declined. For statistical purposes, my point is that dismissing 1918-1919 from Ruth's peak because his hitting wasn't up to his later standard, is to assign no value at all to his pitching. Ruth's "replacement player" wasn't a great hitter, and it wasn't a very good (1918) / above average (1919) pitcher - it was both of them. Treating Mantle and Ruth in those two years as if they had the same replacement player / peer is to grossly undervalue Ruth. Ruth defies statistical comparisons to most every player because he was so good. But within the small circle of players who deserve to be mentioned in the same breath - like Mantle - a straight up comparison of hitting stats alone takes a big enough chunk of Ruth's value away that it matters. I'm not going to tell skin how to take Ruth's pitching into account in his Mantle comparison because I don't know if there is a single correct way to do it. What I am saying is that it needs to be taken into account in some fashion, and it probably involves speculation because the data base of players who were both All-Star level pitchers and MVP-level hitters only has one entry. >>
I am looking at it from a purely educated statistical guess...and the indicators point to Ruth losing it as a pitcher, and the SO/BB indicator is pretty strong.
I see what you are saying though if you changed Ruth's peak to 1918-1921, as one would have to account for his pitching contributions. So if we add his pitching value and change his peak to include those last two pitching years:
In 1919 he was a league average pitcher, contributing appx 1 run above average. In 1918, he was a little better contributing appx 12 runs above average.
HOWEVER, he didn't hit full time those years, and even though his percentages were good, his batter runs suffered, and in total he actually contributed less as a hitter, compared to his 'hitting only' peak when he was only hitting.
From 1918-1921 he had 342 Batter Runs, compared to his 'hitting only' peak of 361. Go ahead and give him his 13 extra runs above average, and he is still below 361, and it doesn't change the conclusion of the outline above between the two.
You are giving him 'credit' if he had pitched full-time(at elite level) while he was hitting full time. If he did that, then I would be on board with you. Unfortunately, during his pitching peak, he didn't hit much, so his value stems only from his pitching. During his transition where he did both, the combined contributions of his pitching and hitting still don't change his run contribution(compared to the peak I outlined above where I just used his hitting peak).
So you can't give Ruth full time pitching credit, as well as full time hitting credit for his peak...because he never did those two together.
So in the end, at their four year peak, Mantle still comes out ahead...and comfortably ahead of I assigned a more stringent era adjustment.
IF you are saying, "Could Mantle have pitched as good as Ruth?" Probably not, but we don't know for sure if Mantle was pitching in the weak era Ruth pitched in.
But if you want to go that way, then I would ask, "Which player would be more viable for a team as a Shortstop? Third baseman? Second Baseman?" The answer is Mantle, if not for anything else, because of which arms they throw with...and of course speed, agility as well in Mantles favor.
I have a dilemma that I have never been able to adequately qualify or articulate.
It is something like this, though it will be admittedly oversimplified in the interest of time and laziness.
” Aren't the vast majority of the really great second baseman not-quite-good-enough-shortstops?”
And ” If the above is reasonably true, how do you account for that when ranking players?”
.
Don't waste your time and fees listing on ebay before getting in touch me by PM or at gregmo32@aol.com !
I didnt even check the other ones, but I compared Mathewson to Alexander since they were from similar eras. Mathewson had the same wins while losing 20 less games. His era was much better 2.13 compared to 2.56, much better strikeout to walk ratio and he had 13 straight sub 3.00 era seasons along with 12 seasons in a row of 22+ wins. i really think you need to rethink Mathewson's tier. And that is not even comparing him to the likes of Seaver or Maddux . And as far as Nichols, on what grounds does he surpass Mathewson (less wins, more losses, considerable higher era, less shutouts, ) I really do not get the positioning. I think if you look closely you'll realize why Mathewson was one of only 2 pitchers elected on the inaugural Hall ballot covering almost 60 years of organized baseball.
<< <i>I didnt even check the other ones, but I compared Mathewson to Alexander since they were from similar eras. Mathewson had the same wins while losing 20 less games. His era was much better 2.13 compared to 2.56, much better strikeout to walk ratio and he had 13 straight sub 3.00 era seasons along with 12 seasons in a row of 22+ wins. i really think you need to rethink Mathewson's tier. And that is not even comparing him to the likes of Seaver or Maddux . And as far as Nichols, on what grounds does he surpass Mathewson (less wins, more losses, considerable higher era, less shutouts, ) I really do not get the positioning. I think if you look closely you'll realize why Mathewson was one of only 2 pitchers elected on the inaugural Hall ballot covering almost 60 years of organized baseball. >>
First, throw out wins and losses - those are team stats not player stats. Second - look at when they pitched. You say they pitched in "similar" eras, but that's simply not true. 100% of Mathewson's career was in the deadball era; Alexander pitched half his career in the deadball era, and then kept pitching through the 1920's. Finally, you ignored the length of their careers. Add it all up, and Mathewson allowed about 400 earned runs less than an average pitcher over the course of his career - which is phenomenal. Alexander allowed more than 500 fewer earned runs, and Nichols allowed more than 650 fewer earned runs - which is better. Nichols pitched most of his career in the 1890's, when runs scored were significantly higher than in the 1900's-1910's. And since you mentioned Seaver and Maddux, they allowed about 410 and 560 fewer earned runs than average.
If you analyze all the relevant, and important, stats and conclude that Mathewson was better than one or more of these pitchers then I won't say that you're necessarily wrong. But if you say that he's better than all of them, and by so much that you don't even think they belong in the same tier then I will say that you're wrong. I think a careful and complete comparison shows that Mathewson was just a little bit worse than some of these pitchers, and a fair amount worse than a few of them.
It might help to look at the other side of the coin. When you compare Honus Wagner to Ed Delahanty or Al Simmons, what do you see? Wagner was a better hitter than either, and by a margin that's really quite substantial. If you see that, then apply whatever you did there to the pitchers (but in reverse) and you've properly accounted for the deadball era. If you don't see it, then you need to keep looking until you do.
I think if push came to shove, I'd take Mathewson over Alexander but you're not going wrong with either guy.
<< <i>
<< <i>I didnt even check the other ones, but I compared Mathewson to Alexander since they were from similar eras. Mathewson had the same wins while losing 20 less games. His era was much better 2.13 compared to 2.56, much better strikeout to walk ratio and he had 13 straight sub 3.00 era seasons along with 12 seasons in a row of 22+ wins. i really think you need to rethink Mathewson's tier. And that is not even comparing him to the likes of Seaver or Maddux . And as far as Nichols, on what grounds does he surpass Mathewson (less wins, more losses, considerable higher era, less shutouts, ) I really do not get the positioning. I think if you look closely you'll realize why Mathewson was one of only 2 pitchers elected on the inaugural Hall ballot covering almost 60 years of organized baseball. >>
First, throw out wins and losses - those are team stats not player stats. Second - look at when they pitched. You say they pitched in "similar" eras, but that's simply not true. 100% of Mathewson's career was in the deadball era; Alexander pitched half his career in the deadball era, and then kept pitching through the 1920's. Finally, you ignored the length of their careers. Add it all up, and Mathewson allowed about 400 earned runs less than an average pitcher over the course of his career - which is phenomenal. Alexander allowed more than 500 fewer earned runs, and Nichols allowed more than 650 fewer earned runs - which is better. Nichols pitched most of his career in the 1890's, when runs scored were significantly higher than in the 1900's-1910's. And since you mentioned Seaver and Maddux, they allowed about 410 and 560 fewer earned runs than average.
If you analyze all the relevant, and important, stats and conclude that Mathewson was better than one or more of these pitchers then I won't say that you're necessarily wrong. But if you say that he's better than all of them, and by so much that you don't even think they belong in the same tier then I will say that you're wrong. I think a careful and complete comparison shows that Mathewson was just a little bit worse than some of these pitchers, and a fair amount worse than a few of them.
It might help to look at the other side of the coin. When you compare Honus Wagner to Ed Delahanty or Al Simmons, what do you see? Wagner was a better hitter than either, and by a margin that's really quite substantial. If you see that, then apply whatever you did there to the pitchers (but in reverse) and you've properly accounted for the deadball era. If you don't see it, then you need to keep looking until you do. >>
As always, dallas, you provide opinion backed by insightful analysis. Always great reading your posts.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
I never said that they did not belong in the same tier as Mathewson, I said Mathewson belongs in the highest tier available, regardless of which other pitchers are present.
<< <i>I never said that they did not belong in the same tier as Mathewson, I said Mathewson belongs in the highest tier available, regardless of which other pitchers are present. >>
Fair enough, but now you're just arguing a point of construction. The highest tier has to end somewhere, and it ended above Mathewson but included the others. I could make the first tier bigger so that Mathewson got in, but that wouldn't change the underlying point that Mathewson was not as good a pitcher as the others in the smaller Tier I.
And Tabe, your points are well taken but none of the things you're looking at take into account how many innings each pitcher pitched, and counting league leaders implies that being second in a category is an equal sign of greatness as being 102nd, which is simply incorrect. If we look at a comprehensive measurement like WAR, Nichols is 5th on the all-time list, Alexander is 4th, Seaver and Maddux are 7th and 8th, and Mathewson is 12th. WAR, like any other single stat, isn't a perfect way to judge these things, but most any comprehensive analysis is going to show Mathewson coming in behind those four pitchers, as well as Johnson and the true Titans. Another thing to consider is that, at least with regard to Nichols, is that leading the league when there is only one league is approximately twice as hard as leading a league when there are two leagues. Mathewson had the luxury of pitching in a different league than Walter Johnson. Put the two of them in the same league and Mathewson's league leaders would go way down, which would say precisely nothing about how good he was.
<< <i>And Tabe, your points are well taken but none of the things you're looking at take into account how many innings each pitcher pitched, and counting league leaders implies that being second in a category is an equal sign of greatness as being 102nd, which is simply incorrect. If we look at a comprehensive measurement like WAR, Nichols is 5th on the all-time list, Alexander is 4th, Seaver and Maddux are 7th and 8th, and Mathewson is 12th. WAR, like any other single stat, isn't a perfect way to judge these things, but most any comprehensive analysis is going to show Mathewson coming in behind those four pitchers, as well as Johnson and the true Titans. Another thing to consider is that, at least with regard to Nichols, is that leading the league when there is only one league is approximately twice as hard as leading a league when there are two leagues. Mathewson had the luxury of pitching in a different league than Walter Johnson. Put the two of them in the same league and Mathewson's league leaders would go way down, which would say precisely nothing about how good he was. >>
Fair points, all of them, and soundly reasoned. Thanks for the reply.
This topic got a lot of interest the first time around, so maybe everyone has had enough and will move on, or maybe everyone will be just as interested the second time around. Only one way to find out.
I threw out everything I did the first time and started over. The biggest change is that I threw out everything that I could that involved judgment (adjustments for catchers, time lost due to war, etc.) except for one thing (more on that later), and just focused on actual contributions made. I also threw out pitchers, as well as anyone for whom games played in the 19th or 21st century meaningfully affects their value. So, the universe is position players from the 20th century who are in the HOF (129 people).
As before, I'm not going to go into any detail about the methods I used, except to point out the one area where judgment could not be eliminated. I split each player's career into 4 buckets to try to capture how good they were at their peak, for their entire career, and for a couple of periods along the way. This is an assumption, I'm disclosing it here, and I don't think anyone will disagree: a player's greatness is some combination of his peak greatness, his average greatness, and his career greatness. Dave Winfield contributed more - a lot more - over the course of his long career than Joe DiMaggio did, but Joe DiMaggio was better - a lot better - than Dave Winfield. If you strongly disagree with that statement, and you think Rusty Staub was better than Duke Snider, then you'll have lots of problems with this and should probably stop here.
The rest of you should know that I have used different weights for different career periods and combined them all into a single greatness factor and ranked everyone from 1 to 129. I like the weights I used, but I won't pretend they are "correct" and that any other weighting is "wrong". I am interested, though, in what people see as serious problems with the order of the final list. If you think DiMaggio is too high, then I'll interpret that as meaning you think I haven't given enough weight to length of career. If you think Henderson is too high, then you think I've given too much weight to length of career or not enough to peak. The thing I see that bothers me the most is how far down the catchers fall, but there's no way to avoid that without a judgment factor and that's a completely separate topic so I let them fall. Also, there is no adjustment for years lost to war or segregation, so Campanella falls below Pie Traynor; painful, but unavoidable unless we through out everything except peak.
So, please do look over the list and let me know if you someone that you think is way out of place. I suspect that in many cases it will just be because I don't see that a player was as good as you think he was, but I'll look at any objections and see if I think an adjustment to the weights is warranted. And please don't get hung up on player X being ranked 1 or 2 spots higher or lower than player Y. I divided the list up into 10 "tiers" of roughly 13 players each, and you will see a very clear and significant difference between the average level of greatness of each tier; if you get more granular than that, we'll just end up debating judgment calls, not stats.
The List:
1 Ruth (1)
2 Cobb (1)
3 Wagner (1)
4 Speaker (1)
5 Mantle (1)
6 Mays (1)
7 T. Williams (1)
8 Musial (1)
9 E. Collins (1)
10 Aaron (1)
11 Hornsby (1)
12 Gehrig (1)
13 Morgan (1)
14 Ott (2)
15 Lajoie (2)
16 F. Robinson (2)
17 Schmidt (2)
18 Mathews (2)
19 R. Henderson (2)
20 Foxx (2)
21 Yastrzemski (2)
22 DiMaggio (2)
23 Crawford (2)
24 P. Waner (2)
25 R. Jackson (2)
26 Brett (2)
27 Vaughan (3)
28 McCovey (3)
29 Yount (3)
30 Boggs (3)
31 Ripken (3)
32 Snider (3)
33 Gehringer (3)
34 A. Simmons (3)
35 Murray (3)
36 Biggio (3)
37 Raines (3)
38 Kaline (3)
39 Bagwell (4)
40 Sandberg (4)
41 Mize (4)
42 Gwynn (4)
43 Killebrew (4)
44 Thomas (4)
45 Molitor (4)
46 Berra (4)
47 Clarke (4)
48 Bench (4)
49 B. Williams (4)
50 Alomar (4)
51 Appling (4)
52 HR Baker (5)
53 Carew (5)
54 Cronin (5)
55 Winfield (5)
56 Clemente (5)
57 Heilmann (5)
58 Santo (5)
59 Stargell (5)
60 Wheat (5)
61 Medwick (5)
62 Goslin (5)
63 Flick (5)
64 Frisch (5)
65 G. Carter (6)
66 Brock (6)
67 Banks (6)
68 Perez (6)
69 Larkin (6)
70 Fisk (6)
71 Greenberg (6)
72 Ashburn (6)
73 B. Robinson (6)
74 J. Robinson (6)
75 Averill (6)
76 Roush (6)
77 Carey (7)
78 Cepeda (7)
79 Terry (7)
80 Slaughter (7)
81 Doby (7)
82 Boudreau (7)
83 Reese (7)
84 Billy Herman (7)
85 Puckett (7)
86 Dawson (7)
87 Dickey (7)
88 Cochrane (7)
89 Sisler (8)
90 Cuyler (8)
91 Fox (8)
92 Kiner (8)
93 J. Collins (8)
94 J. Rice (8)
95 Manush (8)
96 Hartnett (8)
97 Wallace (8)
98 O. Smith (8)
99 S. Rice (8)
100 Doerr (8)
101 Hooper (9)
102 Sewell (9)
103 H. Wilson (9)
104 J. Gordon (9)
105 Evers (9)
106 Traynor (9)
107 Bancroft (9)
108 Chance (9)
109 Klein (9)
110 Bottomley (9)
111 Maranville (9)
112 Rizzuto (9)
113 Combs (9)
114 Tinker (10)
115 Campanella (10)
116 L. Waner (10)
117 Shoendienst (10)
118 Youngs (10)
119 Bresnahan (10)
120 Aparicio (10)
121 Kell (10)
122 T. Jackson (10)
123 Lindstrom (10)
124 Kelly (10)
125 Hafey (10)
126 Mazeroski (10)
127 Lombardi (10)
128 Schalk (10)
129 R. Ferrell (10)
With regard to the tiers, what I see is that the people in tiers 8-10 either simply don't belong in the HOF, or are in the HOF for reasons different than their overall greatness; lots of catchers and middle infielders down there along with a bunch of vastly overrated hitters. Tiers 1-5 seem to me to be completely uncontroversial HOFers; they stood so far above their fellow players that I don't think anything approaching a reasonable case could be made for excluding them. Which leaves tiers 6 and 7. There is nobody in Tier 6 that I would exclude from the HOF, but there are a few in Tier 7. Others will no doubt draw the HOF line somewhere different than I do, but I think most people will agree that the line is somewhere below Tier 5 and above Tier 8. Let me know if you disagree.
When/if everyone/anyone has thrown in their two cents and I've made any adjustments to the weights, I'll add on some non-HOFers and show where they would rank.
I like that list.
Rabbit Maranville should be last on the list, but other than that no complaints.
Of course Brett isn't the worst of the tier two players. Definitely should be ahead of Reggie.
Don't know how Reggie is so much higher than Harmon, saw both careers and looked at numbers. Even if I was to concede Reggie was a slightly better "all around ballplayer" NO WAY he's 18 spots higher.
Right handed batters have it tougher than lefties. Killebrew is already ahead in numbers but when you factor in lefthanded advantage it gets significant IMO. OPS+ likes Reggie much better than Harmon, but Killer is still rated a bit higher. Not sure how OPS+ looks at right handed batters as opposed to left or if it does. Jackson had a big advantage being a lefty when he played in NY, Harmon's home park for most of his career was average to left field. Not sure how Oakland was to Right field but usually shorter than to most stadium's Left.
Killebrew 8 seasons with more than 40 hrs averaging 45.5 in those years. Reg did it twice and averaged 44. When I am comparing "sluggers" this is the kind thing I look for. Killer had .900 or better ops every year he was healthy from 1960 to 1970. 9 years out of 11 and came close in 1965 with an .885 mark, so 10/11. Reggie was over .885 only 7 times in his entire career.
Killebrew grounded into 5 more dps a year and didn't steal any bases, Reggie stole 13 bases and got caught 7 times a year so I see 6 bases for Reggie there plus some extra outs for the Killer. Harm led in obp, slg ops. Harmon also walked more and more rbi. Reg did hit more doubles. Neither guy was great on defense although Killer was able to play both infield and outfield when asked.
Since your formula is a secret, I can't dispute it, but it looks like Killebrew is regarded as a firstbaseman in the fancy new stat departments while Reggie is a rightfielder, I can only imagine that this influences the "value". Killebrew played well at third base almost as much as he played first. He was regarded a poor leftfielder, no denying that, however it helped the team, I am sure that isn't taken into account anywhere. In World Series play Reggie is a legend with an incredible 1.212 ops, but you're not using that are you?
I really would like to hear in what areas Reggie is so much better in the values I am not seeing.
Yes, Harmon was my favorite player and I couldn't stand Reggie.
Finally, it was so hard to hit in the 1960's they ended up lowering the mound, so the 1970's should have been easier, right?
A few things:
Reggie's peak - which is valued the highest - was in Oakland, not NY. Oakland was to the AL what the Astrodome was to the NL; it was where offense went to die. So counting HR or .900 OPS seasons isn't at all fair to Jackson. Jackson's 1969 season was the best season either player ever had although, ironically, Killebrew won the MVP that year.
Neither Jackson nor Killebrew was a great fielder, but in his prime, Jackson was pretty good. Killebrew was never good.
The era in which Jackson played was more competitive than Killebrew's era.
Jakson played nearly 400 more games than Killebrew.
Jackson was an above average baserunner, Killebrew was below average.
None of these factors mean much by themselves, but they all work in Jackson's favor, and they do add up. The single largest factor is the 400 extra games, and even that isn't worth that much; while that represents about 16% more games, it adds about 3% to Jackson's score.
Mostly, you're noting a difference of 18 slots in the ranking, but that's within the most competitive section of the rankings. The relative difference looks large, but the absolute difference between them is less than half the difference between the top and bottom of Tier 10, and less than the difference between Ruth at #1 and Cobb at #2.
These are really two great players to compare. Both sluggers, too bad Killebrew had a bad knee and missed some early time when he could run a little better.
Agree that Reggie's peak as a player was in Oakland, but his NY years certainly worked in his favor (.519 SLG in NY .506 in Oak) when comparing careers.
1969 is a very interesting year, both players produced tremendous numbers. You can make a strong case Reggie deserved the MVP, It may NOT have even been Harmon's best year (see 1961 I know.......everyone hit in 1961). Harmon obliterated Oakland pitching in 1969, probably why despite (slightly) less impressive numbers, got and deserved, the MVP.
Reggie's numbers sure went up and down a lot during his Oakland "peak", He followed up his best season with a .200 drop in OPS. Look at Killebrew's consistency during his 11 year peak. He was seriously injured in both 1965 and 1968 other than those two years his OPS varied by at most .104 he TOTALLY dominated the entire decade, year in and year out. Reggie was up and down.
I value a consistent producer over an up and down guy even if the averages are similar. I am sure the "stat" guys will laugh at this.
As an aside, how does Reggies OPS+ go UP in 1972 from 1971? He played in less games and BA, OBP, SLG and OPS all went down, SLG and OPS significantly. I am not seeing that as a better year for him. Not a fan of the +.
Reggie was a good fielder and Right field is (IMO) a tough position. Slight advantage to Reggie, but very slight. Career WAR favors Reggie while Offensive WAR much closer. It has been said here that defensive numbers are hard to measure and I agree.
When taking into consideration Harm moved around the field willingly to help the team, something I am sure doesn't get considered in any comparison, I would rate Killebrew higher defensively because of versatility. Had he been a more selfish player, Killebrew would have better fielding numbers and possibly even avoided both serious injuries.
I don't know how the 1970's were more "competitive" than the 1960's, maybe it was because there were less "dominant" hitters like Harmon? ;-) As I mentioned in my earlier post, the pitchers mound had to be lowered at the end of the 1960's to help the batters, so hitting in the 1970's should have been easier in one regard.
Jackson played more games, but Killebrew hit more home runs in less games. Well, no way I can dispute that Reggie played more games, Killebrew got screwed by the "bonus rule" but that's the way it goes. He loses 300 (?) games in his early career because a last place team is afraid his defense will hurt them!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!????????? How can you be worse than last? LOL
Jackson was a better baserunner, no doubt. Not much advantage as cleanup hitters are often not needed to run well, but I totally agree Reggie ran better.
I am sure your list bothers me mostly because Reggie was a jerk and Harmon was a fantastic person and team mate, I'll take Killebrew as my clean-up hitter EVERY time because of ability and value to the team!
Good conversation!
Because the stadium was also used for football, there was indeed a ton of foul territory. Left and right field were 330 down the lines, 410 to center. The Oakland dynasty in the early 70's was built on hitting, and everyone on those teams (Jackson, Bando, Campaneris, Tenace, Rudi, etc. was better than they are usually given credit for. Their pitchers, on the flip side of that coin, are usually given way more credit than they deserve.
Killebrew was certainly more consistent than Reggie, but that doesn't have any actual value so I didn't give it any. One of the factors that I did look at in evaluating "peak" was the best 3-year consecutive period, and Killebrew does beat Jackson at that by a little. But if you throw out the requirement that seasons be consecutive, Reggie has a better top 5 (by just a little), and the gap grows as you look at longer periods.
I don't know, but 1972 was MLB's first strike year, and the season got started a little late and teams all lost 5-7 games. I'm guessing that spring training was abbreviated and the players weren't as prepared as they otherwise would have been. In any event, league OPS dropped significantly from '71 to '72, and Reggie's drop was less than the average drop, so his OPS+ increased.
Killebrew does get points for playing third base, but he'd get a lot more if he had played it well. But rest assured that the defensive gap didn't amount to much. Reggie played 400 more games, Oakland was a tough place to hit, and the rest is little more than noise.
The greats define the laggards and vice versa. If you favor raising the unwritten criteria bat by 50% to knock out a third of new inductees (yeah I know that PEDs have messed all of that up) good enough.
Third baseman George Kell was a career .306 hitter and a top level fielder (led the league in fielding percentage 7 seasons). Tier 10 though. I think he belongs in the Hall but if it is only for GOATS....I understand.
I think I get it.
So everyone else got a lot worse and Reggie only got a little worse so Reggie actually got better.
No thanks if that's one way OPS+ works.
I figured you wouldn't put any (or much) stock in Killebrew's 11 year consistent production.
You haven't addressed my theory that Reggie had an advantage being left handed, any room for agreement in that respect?
We are talking about a couple of guys REALLY close.
Nice discussion.
In general, sure, left-handed hitters have an advantage over right-handed hitters, and switch-hitters have an advantage over both. But whether it's fair or not, that makes left-handed hitters (and right-handed pitchers) more valuable. In other words, it is not something that there is any need to adjust for in determining which of two players was better than the other.
As official defender of Bill Mazeroski, I understand that there may be reasons to put a player in the HOF other than the objective contributions he made to winning games. But I don't see that George Kell is anywhere close. Kell was a good fielder, but he wasn't great. And to be clear, offensively he's nowhere close to HOF-level so whatever case he's got would have to be based on his defense. Darrell Evans was a much, much better hitter than Kell, and a better fielder; Nettles and Boyer weren't as good as Evans, but they were both better hitters and fielders than Kell. Kell got in before people figured out that a .300 average made up of mostly singles just isn't that impressive; he'd have no chance today.
In the book "Ted Williams' Hit List" Mr. Ballgame says that righties have it tougher. You seem to agree. I had always realized right field is almost always shorter, but he points out that since most pitchers are right handed, lefties are also getting a favorable matchup.
With all these new stats being invented to "equalize" everyone in an attempt to compare, why on earth wouldn't we compensate in this area? And why wouldn't this be one of the first and most obvious adjustments?
I wouldn't bother worrying about switch hitters. Too few of them. They do have an even bigger advantage IF they can hit from both sides.
Oh well, time to get off the computer and be productive.
Have a great week!
What the stats are designed to do is show how much a player actually contributed to his team's run production, and the one who contributes more is "better" than the one who contributes less. If you are drafting a team and it comes down to a choice between two equally talented players, one who bats right and one who bats left, which one would you take? If your goal is to win baseball games then the choice should be obvious; the lefty is more likely to produce more runs, and therefore to win more games. All the adjustments that are made are to account for factors outside of the player's own ability like ballparks; you don't adjust for factors inherent to a player that help him produce more runs than other players.
If a team played a lefty at shortstop, that player would probably make fewer assists than average. We could "adjust" for that and create a stat that showed him to be better than all the right-handed shortstops, but the stat would be meaningless. In an actual game, we'd want the "worse" right-handed shortstop on the field, not the "better" left-handed shortstop. In baseball, as in any sport, "better" means "will win more games"; an adjustment for handedness would work the opposite way. It would be similar to adjusting for height when evaluating basketball players.
In the case of Jackson/Killebrew, with both players having very similar stats, Killebrew ALWAYS had to hit the ball a little farther and 66% (?) of the time was facing a tougher pitching matchup. He had to be a better hitter to produce the same/similar numbers.
In looking back, I factor this in and judge Killebrew to be a "better" hitter by a fairly significant margin.
Their value to a hypothetical team or situation depends on a lot of factors, and with these two being so close you might opt for Jackson even if Killebrew is a "better" hitter.
These new stats all seem to have in common looking for a comparison to the league or "replacement" players. If it's on average farther to left field and agreed that there's more righthanded pitching, righthanded hitters should get a "+" of some kind like OPS+ does for era and park factors etc. It could be factored right in to OPS+.
Getting into Basketball..........lots of people diminish Mikan and Chamberlin's accomplishments because of their height advantage, but I'm sticking with the original sport.
In the end, I'll NEVER rate Jackson above Killebrew, but I can understand someone who might.
Gotta go. Good talking to you!
As long as you understand that you are separating "better" from "who will win more games for his team" then I get your point. I'm ranking players by how many games they won for their teams. A list that threw that consideration out, and attempted to isolate innate baseball talent, could theoretically be made, and adjusting for handedness would be one of the hundred or so adjustments required. But adjusting my list for handedness is mixing apples and oranges; I'm not trying to measure how many games they coulda woulda shoulda won, but how many games they won. It may not be fair that lefties have an advantage, but "fair" is a concept for the coulda woulda shoulda list, not for the what actually happened list or the who do I want on my team list. You could adjust OPS+ for handedness, but if you did you'd have a statistic wouldn't measure actual accomplishment (apples) or innate baseball talent (oranges); it would be meaningless.