PCA Request Line

[SABR Matt]

It looks like Niekro was significantly better at the Baserunners vs. Bases Empty split than the league average...that may be contributing to elevating his ERA+ by a couple of points (IOW DNRA may be underestimating him a bit). But the net park factor for Niekro was very...very high. The swing is going to be pretty darned big.

[brett]

Matt, on tuesday night, the Rockies were ahead 3-2 in the bottom of the 8th with Jimenez pitching well, there was a sequence that I am interested to know how it could get picked up in a defensive system.

LA batting:

Mathis drew a walk.

Aybar bunted to Ian Steward whe hesitated-looking at second and was late to first (no error recorded, runners now on first and second, although Aybar WAS given credit for a single, but I felt it was due to the hesitation).

Figgins sacrificed to third (Ian Stewart) who made a late throw to third allowing all runners to be safe.

Abreu singled to right and 2 runs scored.

Rockies down 4-3, could not score in the 9th and lost.

So we have 2 plays, one ruled as a hit (no error) and another as a FC (no error) which allowed possibly 2 runs, definitely 1, and lost the game.

Will play-by-play analysis ever be able to properly account for something like this?

[brett]

I forgot one additional question Matt. How did Tulo do defensively last year, and so far this year? Was '07 a defensive fluke, or a one time alignment of his skills?

[SABR Matt]

Matt, on tuesday night, the Rockies were ahead 3-2 in the bottom of the 8th with Jimenez pitching well, there was a sequence that I am interested to know how it could get picked up in a defensive system.

LA batting:

Mathis drew a walk.

Aybar bunted to Ian Steward whe hesitated-looking at second and was late to first (no error recorded, runners now on first and second, although Aybar WAS given credit for a single, but I felt it was due to the hesitation).

Figgins sacrificed to third (Ian Stewart) who made a late throw to third allowing all runners to be safe.

Abreu singled to right and 2 runs scored.

Rockies down 4-3, could not score in the 9th and lost.

So we have 2 plays, one ruled as a hit (no error) and another as a FC (no error) which allowed possibly 2 runs, definitely 1, and lost the game.

Will play-by-play analysis ever be able to properly account for something like this?

The walk would be the pitcher's fault, the bunt "hit"...despite being more like a hesitation error would get charged to the entire infield unit by PCA though if Stewart is losing plays like that a lot, he's going to feel the effect in the final analysis because not only will the infield have a lower rating for preventing baserunners, but Stewart will have a smaller chunk of that rating given to him because he won't be making the correct percentage of the plays made by the total infield. The sacrifice would be split-charged to the catcher and the infield by PCA...a PBP level metric would, however, note that the ball was fielded by the third baseman and charge him with the difference between the run-value of a sacrifice and the real run-value that followed (runner reached first safely). The final base hit would get charged to the infield if it was a grounder or the outfield if it was something deeper.

An important thing to keep in mind...the strength of a team top-down analysis of defense is that it recognizes that even if only one or two guys in a unit (infield, outfield, catcher) are touching the ball, everyone in the unit is in some way involved in the play a lot of the time. There's a reason Stewart threw to third for example...his catcher and his shortstop probably both yelled "THREE!" because they thought they could get the lead runner.

The unit always works together...that's something the zone-based metrics don't pick up on.

[josh24]

George Brett or Rod Carew? (as contact hitters)

I know Brett is slightly better because of his power, but is there any stat that can measure how good contact hitters they were?

If it is, Ichiro Suzuki or Pete Rose?

[josh24]

Can you compare a reliever and a starter?
Mariano Rivera or Jim Palmer?

[SABR Matt]

George Brett or Rod Carew? (as contact hitters)

I know Brett is slightly better because of his power, but is there any stat that can measure how good contact hitters they were?

If it is, Ichiro Suzuki or Pete Rose?

What are you looking to rate...their pure ability to put the bat on the ball and get a positive result? Because part of the contact hitting thing is also speed. A faster guy will have a higher batting average on balls in play than a guy who is just as talented at making solid contact but who is slower.

[SABR Matt]

Can you compare a reliever and a starter?
Mariano Rivera or Jim Palmer?

Here again...do you want to know who was more valuable in total or do you want to know who was more skilled (i.e. who was more valuable per inning pitched)? Are you talking about a results-based analysis (how did they actually do) or are you talking about how Palmer would have done as a closer vs. how Rivera would have done in the rotation?

[josh24]

Are you talking about a results-based analysis (how did they actually do) or are you talking about how Palmer would have done as a closer vs. how Rivera would have done in the rotation?

That one :nod:

[josh24]

What are you looking to rate...their pure ability to put the bat on the ball and get a positive result? Because part of the contact hitting thing is also speed. A faster guy will have a higher batting average on balls in play than a guy who is just as talented at making solid contact but who is slower.

:noidea
Well, i'm actually looking for a fair comparison between Ichiro and Pete Rose, no matter what.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Hi Matt,

Can you do a PCA comparison of Will Clark vs Don Mattingly. Thanks! :thumbsup:

[SABR Matt]

Don Mattingly's career:

Yr Lg Off Def O-M D-M Wins
1986 AL 12.68 2.17 20.7 2.7 14.85
1985 AL 13.09 1.53 21.6 1.5 14.62
1984 AL 12.52 1.40 20.8 1.4 13.92
1987 AL 9.96 2.09 15.9 2.8 12.05
1989 AL 8.07 1.67 11.8 2.0 9.74
1988 AL 7.42 1.50 10.7 1.6 8.92
1992 AL 5.18 1.92 6.0 2.5 7.10
1993 AL 5.09 1.87 6.4 2.5 6.96
1995 AL 2.31 2.79 1.4 4.4 5.10
1994 AL 3.52 1.56 4.3 2.2 5.08
1991 AL 3.78 0.70 3.5 0.2 4.48
1983 AL 2.00 0.73 2.1 0.7 2.73
1990 AL 0.88 1.76 -1.0 2.6 2.64

Will Clark's career:

Yr Lg Off Def O-M D-M Wins
1989 NL 13.70 3.86 23.1 6.2 17.56
1988 NL 12.85 2.02 21.3 2.5 14.87
1991 NL 10.74 1.90 17.5 2.4 12.64
1987 NL 9.09 1.51 14.5 1.7 10.6
1992 NL 8.73 1.86 13.7 2.4 10.59
1990 NL 7.61 1.62 10.9 1.8 9.23
1994 AL 7.82 0.36 12.7 -0.3 8.18
1998 AL 7.26 0.47 10.5 -0.3 7.73
1997 AL 6.41 0.87 10.0 0.8 7.28
1995 AL 6.04 0.65 8.7 0.1 6.69
1986 NL 5.04 1.52 7.2 2.1 6.56
1993 NL 4.92 0.35 6.2 -0.5 5.27
2000 AL 3.72 0.72 5.5 0.8 4.44
2000 NL 3.76 0.36 6.3 0.3 4.12
1996 AL 2.99 1.11 2.8 1.1 4.10
1999 AL 2.93 0.18 4.0 -0.3 3.11

They had similarly brief peaks...Clark having the best individual season, Mattingly having a more well rounded 4-year peak, Clark holding his established level of performance for a bit longer. Clark, of course, had a much longer career tail and held value as an above average overall player (albeit a below average first baseman) for longer. Neither player belongs anywhere near the HOF, but Clark is, IMHO a shade greater than Mattingly.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Thanks Matt! :thumbsup:

[brett]

Matt, was Tulowitski a one year wonder on defense? How does he look defensively in '08 and so far in '09?

[SABR Matt]

Not really a PCA-answerable question yet brett...but UZR seems to think Tulo has regressed on defense:

2006 (short sample): -4.2
2007: 14.9 (!)
2008: -0.2
2009: 1.2

Looks like a player who has the ABILITY to be a well-above-average fielding shortstop, but lacks the consistency. 2008 was marred both on offense and defense by some injury time and a bit of a sophomore slump. 2009 is getting better. The thing that separates the truly great fielders from the good ones, though, is the ability to lose a step and still be very good. Tulo doesn't appear to have that. He's more Omar Vizquel than Ozzie Smith.

[brett]

Can you give me offensive and defensive wins and marker scores for these guys:

Yaz, Kaline, Waner, Clemente, Crawford, Delahanty, Brouthers?

How do you rate them?

[SABR Matt]

Career totals for those players:

Yaz: 164.9 OW / 241.2 OM, 40.4 DW / 74.2 DM (5th among left fielders behind Bonds, Williams, Henderson and Musial)

Kaline: 147.2 OW / 221.0 OM, 49.3 DW / 98.5 DM (5th among right fielders behind Ruth, Aaron, Robinson and Ott and virtually tied with Yaz on the all time list at all positions)

P. Waner: 135.6 OW / 203.0 OM, 40.3 DW / 76.7 DM (7th among right fielders, just behind Reggie Jackson)

Clemente: 114.2 OW / 163.8 OM, 48.5 DW / 99.3 DM (8th among right fielders)

Crawford: 132.5 OW / 197.8 OM, 27.0 DW / 32.7 DM (10th among right fielders, just behind Tony Gwynn)

Delehanty: 135.9 OW / 218.7 OM, 25.6 DW / 40.6 DM (6th among left fielders, behind Yaz, just behind Clemente on the all time leaderboard).

Brouthers: 136.7 OW / 224.9 OM, 14.4 DW / 16.7 DM (8th among first basemen with proper war credit given to Mize and Greenberg, ahead of Crawford but behind everyone else on the all time leaderboard)

[Honus Wagner Rules]

One more request, Matt.

Can you do Mike Piazza vs Ivan Rodriguez. Thanks!

[SABR Matt]

Mike Piazza:

Yr Lg Off Def O-M D-M Wins
1997 NL 13.46 1.67 22.9 1.8 15.13
1998 NL 8.90 2.91 13.8 4.2 11.81
1996 NL 10.58 0.72 17.2 -0.2 11.30
1995 NL 8.62 1.23 14.2 1.2 9.85
1993 NL 7.38 2.20 11.0 2.8 9.58
2000 NL 7.94 0.58 12.4 -0.2 8.52
2001 NL 6.31 0.57 9.0 -0.3 6.88
1999 NL 5.60 0.89 7.4 0.3 6.49
2002 NL 6.00 0.43 8.6 -0.4 6.43
1994 NL 5.58 0.59 8.4 0.0 6.17
2004 NL 3.83 1.14 4.3 1.3 4.97
2003 NL 3.00 0.57 4.3 0.4 3.57
2005 NL 2.82 0.10 2.8 -0.6 2.92

Ivan Rodriguez

Yr Lg Off Def O-M D-M Wins
1998 AL 6.20 4.12 8.5 6.6 10.32
1997 AL 6.18 3.96 8.3 6.3 10.14
2004 AL 7.08 3.01 10.5 4.6 10.09
1999 AL 5.37 4.21 6.8 6.8 9.58
1996 AL 3.80 4.59 3.3 7.6 8.39
2001 AL 4.81 3.17 6.6 5.1 7.98
2000 AL 5.55 1.28 8.6 1.6 6.83
1995 AL 2.72 3.81 2.2 6.2 6.53
2003 NL 5.39 0.83 7.1 0.2 6.22
2002 AL 4.22 1.12 5.7 1.1 5.34
1994 AL 3.42 1.85 4.3 2.6 5.27
2005 AL 2.66 2.52 1.6 3.5 5.18
1993 AL 2.87 1.84 2.5 2.1 4.71
1992 AL 1.06 3.59 -0.8 5.8 4.65

Through 2005, their career totals look like:

Piazza: 90.3 OW / 136.3 OM, 13.6 DW / 11.3 DM (second all time among catchers, still way behind Cartlon Fisk for the lead even including his diminsihging returns in 2006-2007)

Rodriguez: 61.3 OW / 73.2 OM, 39.9 DW / 61.1 DM (seventh among catchers...but likely 6th passing Gabby Hartnett once you include his 2006-2008 seasons in which he still held some minor value)

[AstrosFan]

Matt, Brett and I were discussing your rankings of 1B on the 30th and 31st greatest player threads, and I realized I didn't know where they stood now. That said, I am curious about the latest update to the rankings at each position. Wins and Marker scores would be great, but I realize that takes time, and they aren't a necessity. Thanks.

[SABR Matt]

Give me a bit of time tonight to update with estimates for 2006-2008 production and give war credit to any player on the list of MLB veterans, negro league credit to any player who also starred in the Major Leagues and had productive years in the Negro Leagues, PCL credit to stars of the 20s and 30s who also starred in the PCL, and Nippon League credit for Japanese major leaguers who starred in Japan and I'll publish new rankings in a separate thread.

Note carefully...I will not rank any player who did not star in the major leagues in at least one season. You won't see Oscar Charleston, Satchel Paige, Josh Gibson, Sadaharu Oh, etc. All of the credit I give is based on extrapolations from existing statistics that I feel are trustworthy. War credit can be given by plugging the hole with interpolated seasons, PCL, NPB and NeL credit can be given by looking at what a player achieved in the big leagues and making an educated guess based on normal career arcs and fragmentary negro league statistics. I won't go further than that.

[brett]

Give me a bit of time tonight to update with estimates for 2006-2008 production and give war credit to any player on the list of MLB veterans, negro league credit to any player who also starred in the Major Leagues and had productive years in the Negro Leagues, PCL credit to stars of the 20s and 30s who also starred in the PCL, and Nippon League credit for Japanese major leaguers who starred in Japan and I'll publish new rankings in a separate thread.

Note carefully...I will not rank any player who did not star in the major leagues in at least one season. You won't see Oscar Charleston, Satchel Paige, Josh Gibson, Sadaharu Oh, etc. All of the credit I give is based on extrapolations from existing statistics that I feel are trustworthy. War credit can be given by plugging the hole with interpolated seasons, PCL, NPB and NeL credit can be given by looking at what a player achieved in the big leagues and making an educated guess based on normal career arcs and fragmentary negro league statistics. I won't go further than that.


Thanks. I hardly watch TV anymore.

[SABR Matt]

What does that TV comment have to do with anything? LOL Or are you just saying you want something to do tonight? :)

[AstrosFan]

What does that TV comment have to do with anything? LOL Or are you just saying you want something to do tonight? :)

Maybe he's saying he's grown so obsessed with this site that he has no time for anything else.

[AstrosFan]

Simple question. Dave Stieb, Hall of Fame. Yes or no?

[brett]

I'd rather read a page of PCA than watch an hour of ESPN, Law and Order reruns, just about anything.

I can tell my wife that I'm working on the computer. All she sees are names and stats. She thinks that PCA is the new state high school standards test and Clemente, Waner, and Kaline are some of my students:D.

I'm making popcorn tonight brotha!

(No pressure Matt if its not done tonight).

[SABR Matt]

Simple question. Dave Stieb, Hall of Fame. Yes or no?

Potentially.

Stieb's career DNRA+ is 120 (which is way higher than I expected, I must admit) and that's in 8650 defense independent outs (2883.1 DI IP), which is more than enough for the DNRA+ to mean something for his HOF candidacy. To give you an idea, his marker score ranks him 24th in the PBP era...just one point behind SANDY KOUFAX and 7 points behind Mariano Rivera and Dennis Eckersley. Granted I only have 1957-2005 analyzed, so Koufax is missing a couple of his earliest seasons, but those aren't going to be worth much...he was not very good early on.

[SABR Matt]

I'd rather read a page of PCA than watch an hour of ESPN, Law and Order reruns, just about anything.

I can tell my wife that I'm working on the computer. All she sees are names and stats. She thinks that PCA is the new state high school standards test and Clemente, Waner, and Kaline are some of my students:D.

I'm making popcorn tonight brotha!

(No pressure Matt if its not done tonight).

LOL!

Um...it's nice to have fans? :)

I'll have the top-25s done tonight if no major distractions pop up.

[AstrosFan]

LOL!

Um...it's nice to have fans? :)

I'll have the top-25s done tonight if no major distractions pop up.

Like Brett's undying love for you and your PCA?

[SABR Matt]

LOL

More like the girl I'm trying to date calling me. Sorry Brett, but ladies first. :)

Of course if she does not call tonight, then I shall be busily working on this little project.

[brett]

LOL

More like the girl I'm trying to date calling me. Sorry Brett, but ladies first. :)

Of course if she does not call tonight, then I shall be busily working on this little project.

If her name is Cecilia, send me a message to get off the computer.

[SABR Matt]

LOL!

Thankfully, no...for now your wife is safely yours (at least as far as I know...:D)...

The problem I have is that my active database only goes up to 2005 and a number of big name players have either just emerged or just hit the playing time threshold needed to be included in my rankings or just switched primary positions, etc. So I am having to assemble a list of current stars that I need to make estimates for...and some of those big name players are racking up Marker points 25 or 30 at a time in some of their biggest seasons so the standings are changing rapidly.

[Second Base Coach]

Simple question. Dave Stieb, Hall of Fame. Yes or no?

Er, no. He did not even get ten percent of the vote. There's not enough volume there. The one thing he WAS, was valuable to his team. During his ten year run of really good seasons, he only had ONE bad year. Very impressive. Too bad he was throwing 270 innings four years in a row up to his age 27 year. That is what did him in. His ERA then jumped two runs and his workload was down 60 innings for the year.

It's a shame. He deserved better management.

[STLCards2]

Er, no. He did not even get ten percent of the vote. .

So the reason he doesn't deserve the HOF is becasue he didn't get enough votes? Based on that logic, you must be a big Herb Pennock supporter!

[AstrosFan]

Er, no. He did not even get ten percent of the vote.

Meaning nothing. Lou Whitaker was one and done, and he belongs in the Hall.


There's not enough volume there. The one thing he WAS, was valuable to his team. During his ten year run of really good seasons, he only had ONE bad year. Very impressive. Too bad he was throwing 270 innings four years in a row up to his age 27 year. That is what did him in. His ERA then jumped two runs and his workload was down 60 innings for the year.

It's a shame. He deserved better management.

If I judged him just on volume, I might agree with you. But this is a guy who deserved two, three, maybe even four Cy Young Awards, depending on the analysis. A player with his career numbers isn't going to merit serious Hall consideration from me unless he had a great peak where he was the best pitcher in his league multiple times, and among the leaders several other years. Kind of like Dave Stieb.

[SABR Matt]

Stieb wasn't just the best pitcher in his league for a short while followed by blah...his year by year DNRA card:

Year Lg Team Outs DNRA+ Mk
1979 AL TOR 391 101 2.01
1980 AL TOR 715 119 7.64
1981 AL TOR 555 135 8.23
1982 AL TOR 872 123 10.65
1983 AL TOR 840 140 14.99
1984 AL TOR 792 134 12.29
1985 AL TOR 777 130 11.43
1986 AL TOR 616 79 -1.46
1987 AL TOR 551 117 6.01
1988 AL TOR 622 135 9.68
1989 AL TOR 602 130 8.32
1990 AL TOR 627 137 10.19
1991 AL TOR 180 130 2.58
1992 AL TOR 288 91 0.45
1993 AL CHA 68 87 0.02
1998 AL TOR 154 94 0.42

Other than 1986 (and I'm guessing he was pitching through a lot of pain that year), he was a top of the league CY contender just about every year from 1980-1990. He missed the 120 DNRA+ mark three times from 1980 and 1991 and twice were by less than 5 points. That's CONSISTENT greatness...that's not just a short blazing peak.

[brett]

Matt can you help out with the question in this post?

http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=1570378&postcount=92

It seems to me that if you spread out the same marginal run value over more games, you get a lot more wins.

Also, Frank Thomas versus Greenberg and Mize with war credit. Thanks.

[SABR Matt]

Thomas, Greenberg and Mize all end up in the top 5 first basemen of all time once you adjust for WW2.

Greenberg climbs all the way from 20th (where he currently resides) to 5th (!) in my rankings, Mize goes from 8th to 3rd, and Thomas drops to 4th behind Mize (he's currently 3rd)...making the new leaderboard:

Rk) Name (Marker score)
1) Gehrig (341.9)
2) Foxx (306.5)
3) Mize (298.0)
4) Thomas (276.1)
5) Greenberg (274.4)
6) Connor (255.2)
7) Palmeiro (249.1)
8) Brouthers (239.6)
9) Murray (238.6)
10) Bagwell (236.2)

[AstrosFan]

Thomas, Greenberg and Mize all end up in the top 5 first basemen of all time once you adjust for WW2.

Greenberg climbs all the way from 20th (where he currently resides) to 5th (!) in my rankings, Mize goes from 8th to 3rd, and Thomas drops to 4th behind Mize (he's currently 3rd)...making the new leaderboard:

Rk) Name (Marker score)
1) Gehrig (341.9)
2) Foxx (306.5)
3) Mize (298.0)
4) Thomas (276.1)
5) Greenberg (274.4)
6) Connor (255.2)
7) Palmeiro (249.1)
8) Brouthers (239.6)
9) Murray (238.6)
10) Bagwell (236.2)

How do the other positions look? Also, do you make strike adjustments?

[SABR Matt]

You know AF...I didn't even think of that. I should probably adjust 1981 and 1994 seasons at least, though I do not want to do that linearly because as I've been lecturing STLCards2 on...the longer you play, the harder it is to stay far above average. I'll have to think about the best way to make that adjustment.

I'll do the other positions ASAP. :)

[STLCards2]

You know AF...I didn't even think of that. I should probably adjust 1981 and 1994 seasons at least, though I do not want to do that linearly because as I've been lecturing STLCards2 on...the longer you play, the harder it is to stay far above average. I'll have to think about the best way to make that adjustment.

I'll do the other positions ASAP. :)

Discussion Matt, not a lecture!:D

[SABR Matt]

Sorry STLCards2...didn't mean to make it sound pejorative...LOL I was makig fun of myself there actually...saying I've been pontificating entirely too much.

[STLCards2]

Sorry STLCards2...didn't mean to make it sound pejorative...LOL I was makig fun of myself there actually...saying I've been pontificating entirely too much.

I know, hence the smiley face!

[AstrosFan]

You know AF...I didn't even think of that. I should probably adjust 1981 and 1994 seasons at least, though I do not want to do that linearly because as I've been lecturing STLCards2 on...the longer you play, the harder it is to stay far above average. I'll have to think about the best way to make that adjustment.

I'll do the other positions ASAP. :)

How heavily are these rankings weighted toward career value?

[SABR Matt]

Well to give you an idea, the typical Marker to Win exchange rate is 1.5 for offense and 1.3 for defense for the very good players that make up the top 40 or so at each position (though there's variability obviously)...but great seasons have the exchange rate go up to 1.8 or 1.9 or 1.95 (never higher than 2 of course...the system is designed to prevent that), so there's a decent sized premium placed on being great, not merely good. A player's total career win value might be 120 or 140 and if he did that in 20 years, he might be worth 170 marker points where a player who had 140 wins in 12 years (it has happened) have a marker score of 220 or 240.

[brett]

Well to give you an idea, the typical Marker to Win exchange rate is 1.5 for offense and 1.3 for defense for the very good players that make up the top 40 or so at each position (though there's variability obviously)...but great seasons have the exchange rate go up to 1.8 or 1.9 or 1.95 (never higher than 2 of course...the system is designed to prevent that), so there's a decent sized premium placed on being great, not merely good. A player's total career win value might be 120 or 140 and if he did that in 20 years, he might be worth 170 marker points where a player who had 140 wins in 12 years (it has happened) have a marker score of 220 or 240.

Since with the shorter season player we are trying to figure out what he would have done, can't we use a career curve to fill in the missing time? I tend to look at the seasons around that one, as well as that particular season to fill in.

Also, could you look at something like the chances of an average team winning 57% of their games (playoffs) in 116 versus 162 games. The chance of an average team making the playoffs in a 116 game season might be 12%, and it might be 10% in a 162 game season, so we might reduce the players value in through the missing games to match.

[SABR Matt]

I'd say filling in the missing games in strike-shortened seasons with prorated value for what they did in surrounding years would be the best approach.

[AstrosFan]

1) Lou Gehrig- 130 points
2) Jimmie Foxx- 116 points
3) Frank Thomas- >63 points
4) Hank Greenberg- 63 points
5) Jeff Bagell- 58 points
6) Willie McCovey- 54 points
7) Eddie Murray- 33 points
8) George Sisler- 30 points
9) Dan Brouthers- 26 points
10) Harmon Killebrew- 24 points

These were the results for 1B in the History Forum's ongoing Greatest by Position series. McCovey, Sisler, and Killebrew do not rank in your top ten. Where do you place them?

[SABR Matt]

The lack of Mize on that list disqualifies it as being even remotely close to respectable.

The presence of Sisler in the top ten makes it an utterly hopeless joke.

McCovey is 3.6 points behind Bagwell in 11th place on my list, and Killebrew is 13th, right behind Mark McGwire.

Sisler ranks 31st.

[AstrosFan]

Bill Burgess's Greatest Player Series has finished its latest round, and Buck Ewing claimed the title of the 33rd greatest position player of all time. Where do you rank him among catchers and overall as a player?

[SABR Matt]

Buck Ewing is a special case. The ugly conditions he faced when attempting to catch in the 19th century game directly led to his unfortunate injuries and shortened career. Numerically he ranks (without any adjustments) as the 18th greatest catcher of all time. I have him 12th on the list subjectively though.

He's nowhere NEAR my top 33 players though...he could have been, perhaps, if he'd played in a better time for catchers...but I am uncomfortable speculating him all the way up from 18th to 2nd or 3rd on the all-time catching list.

[AstrosFan]

That's why I asked about him, when I didn't for any of the other players voted so far. The opinions on Ewing are more varied than for any player listed previously, and the difficulty of ranking a 19th century catcher is a major contributor to that.

[SABR Matt]

Yes. The really good catchers lasted 800 or 900 games at the position. Tops. It is difficult to compare them to modern catchers who last twice as long.

I am still trying to figure out the fundamental difference between my evaluation of Carlton Fisk and the consensus. My data says he was (pretty clearly) the best catcher of all time. The fans here all choose Fisk somewhere down in the 6th to 10th place area and they're backed up by a number of sabermetricians too. Even switching to the HOF Marker from the potentially flawed Greatness Index didn't change my evaluation of Fisk...he's either a huge blind spot for me, or a case study worthy of a book of his own.

[Second Base Coach]

Here is possible reason why a number crunching system will rank Carlton Fisk higher than someone filling out a poll.

Fisk only had three poor seasons, and they used up less than ten percent of his total at-bats. His value goes up because there is no steep decline and no drag on his career rate stats.

But three of his top four and four of his top six seasons were cut short because of injuries. That is enough to create a few highlights and memories, but is a poor way to build counting stats.

He spaced out his really good seasons. He was always around to create memories for two generations of fans. Just looking at OPS+, here are his seven best seasons listed chronologically:

1972,..1974, 1975,..1977..........1983........1988, 1989, 1990

His ages range from 24 to 42 in that time. But 74 75 and 88 were half-seasons, cutting into his changes to put up one of those really big seasons.

The fact that he played so well for so long (his real value is that he never really stunk up the joint and he was a very good player for much longer than most catchers play for their entire career) should suggest that the casual fan will rank him very high. There is no reason not to. Perhaps it is because he changed teams or perhaps he spread out his good seasons too well or perhaps injury ruined his chances for historic seasons. A numbers system will pick up the excellent partial seasons, but perhaps fans discount them (or don't even remember).

There is also a subtle skill a system will recognize, but the fan may not.

He had eleven seasons with an on-base percentage north of .350

What a great way to build your resume without using a ton of outs to do so.

I may be wrong about this, because I am only giving this about a hour's worth of thought, but it is my belief that injuries suffered during three of Fisk's best seasons will cause him to be underrated in peak value.

Or is he? Consider the fact that he only had four seasons with more than 75 RBI. Read that back again and recall how many fans will track RBI a lot more than they will on-base percentage. He only had three seasons with more than 140 hits. Yeah, I know he was a catcher... but still. This may explain why some fans have him lower than expected.

But we should not knock anyone who has him somewhere in the top 20. That is still pretty good right?

[brett]

Buck Ewing is a special case. The ugly conditions he faced when attempting to catch in the 19th century game directly led to his unfortunate injuries and shortened career. Numerically he ranks (without any adjustments) as the 18th greatest catcher of all time. I have him 12th on the list subjectively though.

He's nowhere NEAR my top 33 players though...he could have been, perhaps, if he'd played in a better time for catchers...but I am uncomfortable speculating him all the way up from 18th to 2nd or 3rd on the all-time catching list.

Do you account for a shorter schedule (directly) for Ewing?

I figure 1600 games and 900 caught in a longer schedule, plus about 20% with modern protective devices, or 2000 and 1000.

How does he compare in his 5 best seasons PER GAME to say Ivan Rodriquez?

[brett]

I think people tend to rate Fisk lower than Carter because Carter had a decent stretch of full seasons. Carter had 10 straight seasons with 130+ games caught (or prorated) and he hit well in all of them. Fisks career gets chopped up in our minds because we don't see 4-5 in a row that were similar.

If you take Fisk '72, '73, '76, '77, '78, '80, '81 (prorated) '82, '85, '87, and '90 in a consecutive stretch like Carter, he looks clearly better, and has a lot more to offer outside of those 12 years.

[SABR Matt]

Do you account for a shorter schedule (directly) for Ewing?

I figure 1600 games and 900 caught in a longer schedule, plus about 20% with modern protective devices, or 2000 and 1000.

How does he compare in his 5 best seasons PER GAME to say Ivan Rodriquez?

No...I don't directly adjust my numbers to account for short 19th century schedules, because the 19th century leagues were weak and it is a bad assumption to guess that a player would have produced at exactly the same rate had his seasons been longer. Fact is, they played a very spread-out schedule back then...four games a week for 5 months gradually ramping up to 5 games a week for 6 months. They had a lot of days off that reduced wear and tear. It was not the same at all and modern assumptions should not apply.

And of course...I'll repeat that the less someone plays, the easier it is to be further above average.

[SABR Matt]

I think people tend to rate Fisk lower than Carter because Carter had a decent stretch of full seasons. Carter had 10 straight seasons with 130+ games caught (or prorated) and he hit well in all of them. Fisks career gets chopped up in our minds because we don't see 4-5 in a row that were similar.

If you take Fisk '72, '73, '76, '77, '78, '80, '81 (prorated) '82, '85, '87, and '90 in a consecutive stretch like Carter, he looks clearly better, and has a lot more to offer outside of those 12 years.

Again with the necessity of fans to see things in temporal alignment. I'll never understand this. Why is consecutivity important to the average fan of baseball history?

[brett]

Again with the necessity of fans to see things in temporal alignment. I'll never understand this. Why is consecutivity important to the average fan of baseball history?

It builds confidence I think.

[brett]

No...I don't directly adjust my numbers to account for short 19th century schedules, because the 19th century leagues were weak and it is a bad assumption to guess that a player would have produced at exactly the same rate had his seasons been longer. Fact is, they played a very spread-out schedule back then...four games a week for 5 months gradually ramping up to 5 games a week for 6 months. They had a lot of days off that reduced wear and tear. It was not the same at all and modern assumptions should not apply.

And of course...I'll repeat that the less someone plays, the easier it * is to be further above average.

tends to be. Do you mean pure statistical regression? If someone is a great athlete and can avoid wear and tear, they may also have some advantages in a longer season. Aren't there a lot of average pitchers who have good first halves? If in-season durability is a talent, skill or physical attribute then some guys may benefit.

[AstrosFan]

No...I don't directly adjust my numbers to account for short 19th century schedules, because the 19th century leagues were weak and it is a bad assumption to guess that a player would have produced at exactly the same rate had his seasons been longer.

...

And of course...I'll repeat that the less someone plays, the easier it is to be further above average.

Tell that to the Ross Barnes fans.

[SABR Matt]

Ross Barnes fans make me chuckle. Not only was he great for a very short time...but he was great by exploiting holes in the rulebook. What a joke.

[SABR Matt]

It builds confidence I think.

I'm not about building confidence...I'm about describing the past. I can't find any LOGICAL argument that makes me change my mind about Fisk...at least not yet.

[STLCards2]

Ross Barnes fans make me chuckle. Not only was he great for a very short time...but he was great by exploiting holes in the rulebook. What a joke.

I agree with your first reason - way too shot of a career vs. limited competition, but I don't have a problem with exploiting holes in the rulebook. If it helped his team win and if it was legal, more power too him. If it were so easy to effectively exploit these holes, why wasn't everybody doing it? If we smart enough to do so, and was able to execute (in which most others were not willing or able), why shouldn't he be given credit for it?

[SABR Matt]

He is given credit for it...I just don't feel inclined to pretend he would be a great player in other contexts...I find it dubious that he could adapt to modern rules...especially considering how fast his career imploded as the game evolved.

IOW, although he gets full credit from PCA for all of his bunt foul hits, he does not get any bonus points for his career being short (a lot of players from that era I might consider the hardships faced by 19th century ballplayers as a reason to move them up the rankings - it was tough to keep playing because not only were conditions bad and medicine worse, bu tthe pay was horrible and most had to have three jobs to stay on the field). His career stops when it stops...and I make no adjustment to his position on my leaderboard. He would be an average beer ball player today.

[STLCards2]

He is given credit for it...I just don't feel inclined to pretend he would be a great player in other contexts...I find it dubious that he could adapt to modern rules...especially considering how fast his career imploded as the game evolved.

IOW, although he gets full credit from PCA for all of his bunt foul hits, he does not get any bonus points for his career being short (a lot of players from that era I might consider the hardships faced by 19th century ballplayers as a reason to move them up the rankings - it was tough to keep playing because not only were conditions bad and medicine worse, bu the pay was horrible and most had to have three jobs to stay on the field). His career stops when it stops...and I make no adjustment to his position on my leader board. He would be an average beer ball player today.

Agreed.

Also, speaking of LQ, how much LQ increase do you think there was post-integration? How much do you think LQ was hurt from 1943-1945? And finally, how much did 1960's expansion hurt LQ? We always here about 1990's expansion...

[SABR Matt]

My first attempt at measuring the linear shift of league quality looked something like this (with 1986 AL being the 100% league and all other leagues worse to some degree):

AL:

1939 - 1941: .94
1942: .91
1943 - 1945: .86
1946 - 1952: .93
1953 - 1960: rising from .93 to .97
1961: .94
1962: .95
1963 - 1968: rising from .95 to .98
1969: .96
1970 - 1976: rising from .96 to .99
1977: .98
1978 - 1986: rising from .98 to 1.00
1987 - 1992: .99
1993: .97
1994 - 1997: .98
1998: .97
1999 - 2008: .98 or .99

NL

1939-1941: .90
1942: .88
1943-1945: .84
1946 - 1961: rising from .89 to .96
1962: .92
1963-1968: rising from .94 to .98
1969: .96
1970 - 1976: rising from .96 to .99
1977: .96
1978 - 1992: .97 or .98
1993: .97
1994 - 1997: 98
1998: .95
1999: .96
2000 - 2008: .97

[SavoyBG]

Fact is, they played a very spread-out schedule back then...four games a week for 5 months gradually ramping up to 5 games a week for 6 months. They had a lot of days off that reduced wear and tear. It was not the same at all and modern assumptions should not apply.



Those days off were usually spent on primitive train rides in sweltering heat with no air conditioning or any other modern conveniences. Hardly a chance to rest much. It's less taxing to play a game for two hours than to ride on a train in 1873 for 11 hours.

[SABR Matt]

Not less taxing to a person's wear and tear in the physical sense...less draining energy-wise, yes. In other words...fatigue was probably worse back then. But physical maladies like pulled hammies, back spasms etc...if you're not on the field, you're not making them worse.

[RuthMayBond]

Not less taxing to a person's wear and tear in the physical sense...less draining energy-wise, yes. In other words...fatigue was probably worse back then. But physical maladies like pulled hammies, back spasms etc...if you're not on the field, you're not making them worse.But without modern medicine (and supposedly they played through injuries more for fear of losing their jobs)

[SABR Matt]

Right...and I did mention that factor earlier. I just don't see how you can simply extrapolate a 19th century player's production rate to modern schedules and justify that as reasonable...that's a horrible oversimplification.

[AstrosFan]

Where does Barnes rank among second baseman by PCA? If it does not include NA numbers, is it possible to estimate them?

[SABR Matt]

It does not include the NA...however, we're talking about a guy who stopped being a good ballplayer after the 1876 season. Even if I made an attempt to estimate, he's going to finish outside my top 100 second basemen.

[SavoyBG]

It does not include the NA...however, we're talking about a guy who stopped being a good ballplayer after the 1876 season. Even if I made an attempt to estimate, he's going to finish outside my top 100 second basemen.


HE STOPPED BEING A GOOD PLAYER AFTER 1876 BECAUSE OF A CATOSTROPHIC ILLNESS:

In 1877, he fell ill with what was then only described as an "ague" (fever), played only 22 games, and did not play well when he was in the lineup. The illness robbed Barnes of much of his strength and agility, and shortened his career. While many baseball histories originally blamed the change in rules that outlawed the "fair-foul" hit, of which Barnes was an acknowledged master, his illness has become a more widely accepted explanation for his loss of productivity.

His career WARP3 is 51.0, which I'm sure would easily make him a top 100 secondbaseman. That figure may even make him a hall of famer. Bobby Lowe, for example, is at 34.1. Del Pratt is at 43.6. Larry Doyle is at 41.7.

[SABR Matt]

Savoy...WARP3 includes a playing time adjustment which, frankly, I believe to be utter BS. As I understand it, while they do not linearly extrapolate your win-scoring rate to a full schedule, there is a MAJOR upward shift for 19th century players caused by this. WARP3 attempts to include a league quality adjustment, but no sabermetrician takes it seriously aside from its' wayward and deeply outdated inventor. NONE. Especially not for the 19th century.

Also...Bobby Lowe is not a hall of famer...or shouldn't be at any rate.

[SavoyBG]

Bobby Lowe is not a hall of famer...or shouldn't be at any rate.

Nobody says he is.....but he is clearly a top 100 secondbaseman, and Barnes is clearly better than him. Barnes was the greatest player in baseball for at least a 6 year period. You need to stop disparaging Ross Barnes.

[SABR Matt]

Barnes was the greatest player in semi-pro Babe Ruth League softball. There was no baseball involved.

[SavoyBG]

Barnes was the greatest player in semi-pro Babe Ruth League softball. There was no baseball involved.


So Cap Anson, Deacon White, Al Spalding. George Wright, Paul Hines and Cal McVey were all softball players who were not as good as Ross Barnes?

Tell me, was Cap Anson, who was clearly not near as good as Barnes when they were both playing from 1871 to 1876, was Cap Anson a good baseball player?

Barnes was also a great player from 1868 to 1870.

Ross Barnes has the career NA records in Runs (459), Hits (530), Doubles (99), Walks (55), Steals (73),Total bases (695), Times on base (585), Runs produced (694), Batting avg, (.390) on base percentage (.413), and slugging percentage (.511).

No matter what YOU think the level of play was at that time, Barnes should be a hall of famer for being the greatest player of professional BASEBALL's first league.

[SABR Matt]

It's not what I think...it's what the preponderance of evidence suggests. And no...I don't think a qualification for the HOF is "dominated the equivalent of AA for six years by cheating a set of incomplete rules with scads of cheap foul bunts."

Have you READ the complete rules from that time? There are so many rules that would make it RIDONKULOUSLY easy for today's major leaguers to utterly CRUSH 1870s competition.

The difference between Barnes and Anson - and this is very important - Anson had skills that translated to a more complete, modern set of rules. Multiple times I might add. Barnes did not. You believing he did and excusing the lack of evidence because he got ill does not make it fact. You're purely speculating. I'm saying there is no evidence that Ross Barnes could play actual baseball.

[AstrosFan]

Where is your HOF cutoff among second basemen, Matt?

[SABR Matt]

As an addendum for them room...you can probably already tell that I hold 19th century (prior to 1893) baseball in utter CONTEMPT when compared with the game that followed. That was not baseball. I do not care that those players had no chance to play modern baseball...I car about what DID happen, not about a romantic idea of what COULD have happened.

Facts are facts...those leagues had inferior rules, inferior talent depth, inferior unbalanced schedules made essentially at random based on who accepted whose challenges, inferior field conditions, and interior stars. Only ONE player was able to rise from the NA and continue to adapt his game as it evolved into something resembling baseball and that is Cap Anson.

Spalding is a HOFer because he was a pioneering business man who helped evolve the equipment of the game, not because he was a star in A+/AA ball bearing only the distinction that it happened to be the first such minor league offer a meager salary. Cummings was a HOFer because he invented the curveball, not because he was an all-time great pitcher. What is Ross Barnes' contribution to the future of the game? He forced them to change the rules so that you couldn't bunt the ball foul and get a base hit. That is not greatness...that's not much better than steroid abuse...he was doing what he could to get an edge.

[AstrosFan]

Ross Barnes, at his best, was better than Charlie Gehringer.

Top three WARP3 seasons

Barnes: 10.5, 10.3, 9.2

Gehringer: 9.8, 8.9, 8.5


Signed,
Baseball Prospectus

[SABR Matt]

Where is your HOF cutoff among second basemen, Matt?

The list of guys who make my cut at second base:

1) Eddie Collins (386.9 Mk)
2) Rogers Hornsby (344.6)
3) Nap Lajoie (325.8)
4) Joe Morgan (317.9)
5) Jackie Robinson (285.0*)
6) Rod Carew (247.6)
7) Charlie Gehringer (233.2)
8) Frankie Frisch (223.5)
9) Bid McPhee (216.0)
10) Bobby Grich (206.0)
11) Lou Whitaker (205.5)
12) Roberto Alomar (194.7)
13) Craig Biggio (192.0**)
14) Ryne Sandberg (187.8)
15) Johnny Evers (173.4)
16) Billy Herman (173.1)
17) Joe Gordon (171.3***)
18) Willie Randolph (168.9)
19) Nellie Fox (163.3)

After that...the guys that follow do not make my cut...that includes:

Doyle, Childs, Doerr, Pratt, Knoblauch, Mazeroski, Phillips, Myer (in that order...all scoring between 153 for Doyal and 129 for Myer)

* Negro League estimates included
** 2006-2009 estimates included
*** War Credit included

[SABR Matt]

Ross Barnes, at his best, was better than Charlie Gehringer.

Top three WARP3 seasons

Barnes: 10.5, 10.3, 9.2

Gehringer: 9.8, 8.9, 8.5


Signed,
Baseball Prospectus

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand that would be why I stopped looking at, caring about, or giving any credence to anything BP says.

[SavoyBG]

It's not what I think...it's what the preponderance of evidence suggests. And no...I don't think a qualification for the HOF is "dominated the equivalent of AA for six years by cheating a set of incomplete rules with scads of cheap foul bunts."


Barnes never cheated.

He also did not lead his league in extra base hits several times because of foul bunts.




The difference between Barnes and Anson - and this is very important - Anson had skills that translated to a more complete, modern set of rules. Multiple times I might add. Barnes did not.

This is even more important.....Of course Barnes had the skills to be great in the 1880s. He lost them because of a serious illness in 1877.

[SavoyBG]

Ross Barnes, at his best, was better than Charlie Gehringer.

Top three WARP3 seasons

Barnes: 10.5, 10.3, 9.2

Gehringer: 9.8, 8.9, 8.5


Signed,
Baseball Prospectus

Of course he was. Barnes was easily the best player in the game for at least a 6 year period. Gehringer was never close to being the best player in the game.

[SABR Matt]

And you know he had those skills...how exactly? You're just blind flippin' guessing Savoy.

And actually, Barnes got many of his doubles by foul punch-bunting the ball foul.

[brett]

Could you rank the following second basemen when you get a chance:

Gehringer
Alomar
Biggio
Sandberg
Grich

And anyone who is in-between them? Thanks

[SavoyBG]

And you know he had those skills...how exactly? You're just blind flippin' guessing Savoy.

And actually, Barnes got many of his doubles by foul punch-bunting the ball foul.

I know he had the skills the same way that you know that he didn't.

Tell us, did Barnes get his league leading 14 triples in 1876 and his league leading 11 triples in 1873 (in 60 games) by bunting the ball ?

Does the fact that he led the league in walks twice with 20, at a time when there were very few walks, TELL YOU ANYTHING?

He was also likely the best fielding player of his day too.

[AstrosFan]

Of course he was. Barnes was easily the best player in the game for at least a 6 year period. Gehringer was never close to being the best player in the game.

You mean, Barnes was the best player in AA-quality baseball, while Gehringer was one of the best players in major league baseball.

[SavoyBG]

You mean, Barnes was the best player in AA-quality baseball, while Gehringer was one of the best players in major league baseball.

Please don't tell me what I mean.

Barnes was the best player in major league baseball from 1871 to 1876.

[AstrosFan]

Please don't tell me what I mean.

Barnes was the best player in major league baseball from 1871 to 1876.

You're doing a straightforward comparison though, which is wildly incorrect. Barnes dominated a league that wasn't close to major league caliber. Gehringer proved one of the best of his time in a league that was clearly major league caliber. By any reasonable view, the second player should be considered far greater.

[SavoyBG]

Only ONE player was able to rise from the NA and continue to adapt his game as it evolved into something resembling baseball and that is Cap Anson.


So you are saying that none of these NA players were good baseball players?

Pud Galvin
Jim O'Rourke
Pual Hines
Long Charley Jones
Ezra Sutton

[SavoyBG]

What is Ross Barnes' contribution to the future of the game? He forced them to change the rules so that you couldn't bunt the ball foul and get a base hit. That is not greatness...that's not much better than steroid abuse...he was doing what he could to get an edge.


Matt, you need to stop waffling on this issue. You just posted this the other day in that Bill James thread.


I agree with James as well. Baseball is about joy...entertainment...simulated warfare to keep men from killing each other in tribal feuds (speaking hyperbolously of course). It should not be taken so seriously by even its deepest admirers. So there are players who did the smart thing and took the drugs that would prolong their careers and give them a better chance in the majors. So what? They still had to go out and perform and their achievements were still very real. Most of the steroid users did so before any rules came out anyway, so...this being AMERICA (screw you, Toronto...LOL), we do not convict people for violating laws that entered the books after the offenses began.

An objective analyst looks at this situation and realizes that steroids probably DOMINATED clubhouses from coast to coast...and don't kid yourself...they were in the minor leagues, in the colleges, in the high school training rooms...EVERYWHERE...so if you could dominate over a drugged-up population, why shouldn't that be looked upon as a great achievement? An objective analyst views the steroid era with the same eye that he views the rabbit ball of 1930, the deadball era, the live-foot (late 1880s-early 1890s) era...you adjust for it...you try to factor out the steroids for the guys who've been "outed" by comparng them to similar players (before the unnatural steroid arc began) as best you can and you move on.

It's not the end of the game....those games were still played honestly...you still have to swing the bat, get your hits, make your pitches...it's not even like league average home run per at bat rates were that much higher than the 1950s...so a little perspective is required here.

[RuthMayBond]

So you are saying that none of these NA players were good baseball players?

Pud Galvin
Jim O'Rourke
Pual Hines
Long Charley Jones
Ezra SuttonWe're saying at least they were very good AFTER 1876.
Do you not see ANY league quality issues?

[SavoyBG]

We're saying at least they were very good AFTER 1876.
Do you not see ANY league quality issues?

Matt said that Anson was the only NA player who became a good baseball player in subsequent years. I say that there were several NA players who were good baseball players in the 1880s and even later (like O'Rourke).

Apparently you agree with me, based on what you said.


We're saying at least they were very good AFTER 1876.

[SABR Matt]

And I'm saying none of those five you listed are HOFers in my book. Good baseball players, perhaps, but not hall of famers.

[SavoyBG]

And I'm saying none of those five you listed are HOFers in my book. Good baseball players, perhaps, but not hall of famers.

So you've already changed your opinion from this?

Originally Posted by SABR Matt
Only ONE player was able to rise from the NA and continue to adapt his game as it evolved into something resembling baseball and that is Cap Anson.

[SABR Matt]

Matt said that Anson was the only NA player who became a good baseball player in subsequent years. I say that there were several NA players who were good baseball players in the 1880s and even later (like O'Rourke).

Apparently you agree with me, based on what you said.

No...what I said was that Anson was the only player to prove he could adapt his dominant game to modern rules...that's not just the early 1880s...that includes the early 1890s too and it requires you to maintain your level of dominance no matter how the rules change. Anson is the only player from the NA that is a HOFer in my book (at least in terms of being there based on his playing record) for the reasons I cited.

[SABR Matt]

So you've already changed your opinion from this?

Originally Posted by SABR Matt
Only ONE player was able to rise from the NA and continue to adapt his game as it evolved into something resembling baseball and that is Cap Anson.

No I haven't...and you're attempt to twist my words will not succeed. There is only one player - Anson - who continued to be dominant deep into the 19th century...the guys you listed all petered out by the mid to late 1880 (some aged, of course), and none of them are hall of famers.

[RuthMayBond]

Tell us, did Barnes get his league leading 11 triples in 1873

Does the fact that he led the league in walks twice with 20You might want to look at these again

[SavoyBG]

And I'm saying none of those five you listed are HOFers in my book. Good baseball players, perhaps, but not hall of famers.

O'Rourke not being a hall of famer is ludicrous IMO.

A career OPS+ of 133 in over 7400 ABs, not even counting his even better offense in over 1,000 NA at bats. He is clearly a hall of famer. At 43 years old he was still close to a league average player in 1893, with 95 RBIs.

[SavoyBG]

No...what I said was that Anson was the only player to prove he could adapt his dominant game to modern rules...that's not just the early 1880s...that includes the early 1890s too


So unless a player was still adapting his game and dominating while he was already in his forties, then he couldn't adapt?

Most stars of the NA were born in the 1840s. Pike and Meyerle were born in 1845. George Wright was born in 1847. Do you seriously think that they needed to be dominating in the early 1890s to prove that they could play?

[SABR Matt]

1) Barnes did not lead the league in triples in 1873...nor did he hit 13. He hit 14 in 1875 though and I was not arguing that Barnes had ZERO skill...but by 1875 the NA was in the process of folding and league quality was actually LOWER then than it was in 1871.

2) leading the league in walks back then might look sabermetrically good, and PCA would give credit for it, but that's not a skill in the NA...pitchers were required to put the ball where you requested and ball counts that led to a walk changed a couple of times if I recall...walks were essentially RANDOM in these leagues...you got walks if the pitcher was having trouble with his command that day...no one was trying to walk.

3) O'Rourke is the closest to being Hall worthy...and he did hang around as a productive player in the 1880s and to a lesser extent the early 1890s, but he is also fighting very stiff competition at his position. He goes in the books as a left fielder and there are entirely too many clearly superior left fielders in the annals of history.

[SABR Matt]

So unless a player was still adapting his game and dominating while he was already in his forties, then he couldn't adapt?

Most stars of the NA were born in the 1840s. Pike and Meyerle were born in 1845. George Wright was born in 1847. Do you seriously think that they needed to be dominating in the early 1890s to prove that they could play?

I seriously think they need to be continuously adapting and showing a completely natural aging pattern. It's not just the 1890s...I am looking for signs that they did not get significantly worse as league quality got significantly better and rules changed...and they need to play for more than a handful of seasons after 1876 as a top performer if I am going to take them seriously. I'm not sure you realize how BAD those leagues were.

[SavoyBG]

1) Barnes did not lead the league in triples in 1873...nor did he hit 13. He hit 14 in 1875 though and I was not arguing that Barnes had ZERO skill...but by 1875 the NA was in the process of folding and league quality was actually LOWER then than it was in 1871.

2) leading the league in walks back then might look sabermetrically good, and PCA would give credit for it, but that's not a skill in the NA...pitchers were required to put the ball where you requested and ball counts that led to a walk changed a couple of times if I recall...walks were essentially RANDOM in these leagues...you got walks if the pitcher was having trouble with his command that day...no one was trying to walk.

3) O'Rourke is the closest to being Hall worthy...and he did hang around as a productive player in the 1880s and to a lesser extent the early 1890s, but he is also fighting very stiff competition at his position. He goes in the books as a left fielder and there are entirely too many clearly superior left fielders in the annals of history.

1 - The Baseball Encyclopedia (Palmer & Gillette) lists Barnes as leading the NA in triples in 1873 with 11.

2 - Baloney. Barnes led in walks in 1873 and 1876 because obviously some of them were intentional walks. They were not just random. If they were random you wouldn't have such a wide disparity in walks drawn by various teams in 1873 and especially in 1876. Barnes tean drew 70 walks while other teamns only drew 24 walks, 18 walks, 27 walks. That's not random.

3 - O'Rourke is easily a hall of famer for many reasons, not the least of which is his playing career. I suggest you study up on his life:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_O'Rourke_(baseball)

James Henry O'Rourke (September 1, 1850 - January 8, 1919), nicknamed "Orator Jim", was an American professional baseball player in the National Association and Major League Baseball who played primarily as a left fielder. In the era before the establishment of the 60'6" distance between the batter and the pitcher in 1893, he ranked behind only Cap Anson in career games played (1644), hits (2146), at-bats (6884), doubles (392) and total bases (2936), and behind only Harry Stovey in runs scored (1370).

He was born in East Bridgeport, Connecticut. On April 22, 1876, he made the first base hit in National League history. After leaving the major leagues following the 1893 season, he continued to play in the minor leagues until he was over 50 years old; in 1904 he made a final appearance with the New York Giants under manager and friend John McGraw, becoming at age 54 the oldest player ever to appear in the National League and the oldest player to ever hit safely in a major league game. He returned to the minors as president of the Connecticut League, and in 1912 returned to the field to catch a complete minor league game at the age of 60.

O'Rourke died of pneumonia at age 68 in Bridgeport, Connecticut. He was elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame in 1945 as one of the earliest inductees from the 19th century. His older brother John O'Rourke and his son James "Queenie" O'Rourke also played in the majors.

"O'Rourke has made a brilliant record for himself as an outfielder, being an excellent judge of a ball, a swift runner, and making the most difficult running catches with the utmost ease and certainty. As a thrower, too, he stands pre-eminent, being credited with a throw of 365 feet, the next to the longest yet accomplished by any player." — The Sporting Life

[SABR Matt]

Being intentionally walked is not a skill either. And it carries less sabermetric value so you're undercutting your own argument. The fact that Barnes' team got walked a lot proved only that Barnes' team was a great hitting team for its' league. Of course Colorado Springs dominates AAA from time to time...should we make those guys HOFers?

[SavoyBG]

I seriously think they need to be continuously adapting and showing a completely natural aging pattern. It's not just the 1890s...I am looking for signs that they did not get significantly worse as league quality got significantly better and rules changed...and they need to play for more than a handful of seasons after 1876 as a top performer if I am going to take them seriously. I'm not sure you realize how BAD those leagues were.


So in your opinion it's not possible that any all time great player was born before 1852? Was there some kind of advance in the human race after that time that made these later players so much better?

Who is to say that the greatest athlete of all time wasn't born in 1415?

Obviously the league quality was low in the early 1870s. That's why the best players were posting such high batting averages as compared to the league.

[SavoyBG]

Being intentionally walked is not a skill either. And it carries less sabermetric value so you're undercutting your own argument. The fact that Barnes' team got walked a lot proved only that Barnes' team was a great hitting team for its' league. Of course Colorado Springs dominates AAA from time to time...should we make those guys HOFers?

Nobody said it was a skill. It's a great INDICATION of which were the best hitters of their day. So I see you are already off claiming that drawing walks was just random then?

No, we can't make Colorado Springs guys hall of famers because they are not playing at the highest level of the game during their day. But Barnes was, and he was DOMINATING at the highest level of the day.

[SABR Matt]

Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?

If there were a major league in 1873, Ross Barnes would probably not have been a superstar..but because there was none, he's a hall of famer. AAA today is a better league than the NA in 1873...SIGNIFICANTLY tougher baseball competition.

And you are quoting WARP3 as though I should take it seriously despite admitting that the numbers these guys were posting were inflated?

I am saying it was, more or less, impossible that a great baseball player on the caliber of the Charlie Gehringers and the Frankie Frisches of the world was born before 1855 BECAUSE PEOPLE DIDN'T GROW UP PLAYING SERIOUS BASEBALL back then. To be a great player in a sport, you need natural ability and athleticism and you need lots and lots and lots and lots of practice against other good/great players for your age bracket. There were no chances like that for guys who were turning 40 in 1880...that's one of the major reasons 1873 NA was a bad league, Savoy...that cannot see this boggles the mind.

[RuthMayBond]

1 - The Baseball Encyclopedia (Palmer & Gillette) lists Barnes as leading the NA in triples in 1873 with 11.

2 - Baloney. Barnes led in walks in 1873 and 1876 because obviously some of them were intentional walks. BTW, what year was this particular edition published?

[SavoyBG]

BTW, what year was this particular edition published?

It was 2004

[SABR Matt]

Clearly, that encyclopedia is wrong...Forman's database is considered the gold standard in record-keeping...it's error-checked by RETROSHEET...the group trusted by the hall of fame to maintain and process its official daily records.

[SavoyBG]

Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?

If there were a major league in 1873, Ross Barnes would probably not have been a superstar..but because there was none, he's a hall of famer. AAA today is a better league than the NA in 1873...SIGNIFICANTLY tougher baseball competition.

And you are quoting WARP3 as though I should take it seriously despite admitting that the numbers these guys were posting were inflated?

I am saying it was, more or less, impossible that a great baseball player on the caliber of the Charlie Gehringers and the Frankie Frisches of the world was born before 1855 BECAUSE PEOPLE DIDN'T GROW UP PLAYING SERIOUS BASEBALL back then. To be a great player in a sport, you need natural ability and athleticism and you need lots and lots and lots and lots of practice against other good/great players for your age bracket. There were no chances like that for guys who were turning 40 in 1880...that's one of the major reasons 1873 NA was a bad league, Savoy...that cannot see this boggles the mind.


Of course people grew up playing serious baseball in the 1860s. The people who played baseball were playing serious baseball. If you read up on the game before the NA, you will realize this. Also, a player does not have to play serious baseball at 9 years old to be a great player by the time he is in his 20s.

Barnes was the greatest player in the country for at least a 6 year period, maybe longer. No matter what league there was, he was the best player, until he got sick.

Do you realize how ridiculous it is that you think that all this guy did was go up and bunt the ball every time up ? Have you ever looked at his places on the leaderboards of the NA?

AAA is very likely better baseball now than the major leagues were in Cobb's day too. There are thousands of excellent Latin players in the world today. They were not around in Cobb's day.

But even if you are correct that Barnes would not be among the top 100 2Bmen of all time, the hall of fame is not about trying to figure out how good a player would have been in other eras. It's about honoring the greatest players of each era. Barnes was clearly pro baseball's first greatest player of his day. Saying he's not a hall of famer is like saying that Bob Cousy and George Mikan are not hall of famers because they wouldn't be able to be starters in the NBA today, if they could make the league at all.

Appearances on Leader Boards, Awards, and Honors
Stats are Year-Value-Rank, Glossary

Batting Average
1871 NA--.401--3rd
1872 NA--.432--1st
1873 NA--.425--1st
1874 NA--.340--8th
1875 NA--.364--2nd
1876 NL--.429--1st

On-Base%
1871 NA--.447--2nd
1872 NA--.454--2nd
1873 NA--.456--1st
1874 NA--.360--5th
1875 NA--.375--1st
1876 NL--.462--1st

Slugging %
1871 NA--.580--4th
1872 NA--.585--1st
1873 NA--.584--1st
1875 NA--.443--5th
1876 NL--.590--1st

On-Base Plus Slugging
1871 NA--1.027--3rd
1872 NA--1.039--1st
1873 NA--1.040--1st
1874 NA--.777--7th
1875 NA--.818--4th
1876 NL--1.052--1st

Games Played
1873 NA--60--1st
1875 NA--78--10th

At Bats
1871 NA--157--7th
1873 NA--322--2nd
1875 NA--393--3rd
1876 NL--322--3rd

Plate Appearances
1871 NA--170--2nd
1873 NA--340--1st
1875 NA--400--2nd
1876 NL--342--2nd

Runs Scored
1871 NA--66--1st
1872 NA--81--4th
1873 NA--125--1st
1874 NA--72--6th
1875 NA--115--1st
1876 NL--126--1st

Hits
1871 NA--63--3rd
1872 NA--99--1st
1873 NA--137--1st
1875 NA--143--1st
1876 NL--138--1st

Total Bases
1871 NA--91--1st
1872 NA--134--1st
1873 NA--188--1st
1875 NA--174--3rd
1876 NL--190--1st

Doubles
1871 NA--10--2nd
1872 NA--28--1st
1873 NA--29--1st
1875 NA--20--5th
1876 NL--21--1st

Triples
1871 NA--9--2nd
1873 NA--8--2nd
1876 NL--14--1st

Home Runs
1872 NA--1--9th
1873 NA--2--4th
1875 NA--1--10th

Runs Batted In
1871 NA--34--5th
1872 NA--44--8th
1873 NA--62--2nd
1875 NA--58--8th
1876 NL--59--2nd

Bases on Balls
1871 NA--13--2nd
1872 NA--9--4th
1873 NA--18--1st
1874 NA--8--2nd
1875 NA--7--6th
1876 NL--20--1st
1879 NL--16--4th

Stolen Bases
1871 NA--11--10th
1872 NA--12--5th
1873 NA--13--1st
1874 NA--8--6th
1875 NA--29--2nd

Singles
1871 NA--44--4th
1873 NA--98--2nd
1875 NA--118--1st
1876 NL--102--1st

Adjusted OPS+
1871 NA--187--3rd
1872 NA--210--1st
1873 NA--198--1st
1874 NA--142--9th
1875 NA--177--4th
1876 NL--231--1st

Runs Created
1871 NA--40--2nd
1872 NA--63--1st
1873 NA--87--1st
1875 NA--68--2nd
1876 NL--88--1st

Adj. Batting Runs
1871 NA--18--2nd
1872 NA--31--1st
1873 NA--41--1st
1874 NA--12--8th
1875 NA--31--2nd
1876 NL--47--1st

Adj. Batting Wins
1871 NA--1.6--2nd
1872 NA--3.0--1st
1873 NA--3.8--1st
1874 NA--1.3--7th
1875 NA--3.5--2nd
1876 NL--5.0--1st

Extra Base Hits
1871 NA--19--2nd
1872 NA--31--1st
1873 NA--39--1st
1875 NA--25--9th
1876 NL--36--1st

Times On Base
1871 NA--76--1st
1872 NA--108--1st
1873 NA--155--1st
1875 NA--150--1st
1876 NL--158--1st

Offensive Win %
1871 NA--.774--4th
1872 NA--.866--1st
1873 NA--.852--1st
1875 NA--.804--2nd
1876 NL--.913--1st

[SavoyBG]

Clearly, that encyclopedia is wrong...Forman's database is considered the gold standard in record-keeping...it's error-checked by RETROSHEET...the group trusted by the hall of fame to maintain and process its official daily records.

I don't think it's clear at all, but even if he didn't have 11 triples in 1873, your source has him second with 8 triples that season, and he was also second in 1871 with 9 triples. Were those bunts too?

[SavoyBG]

Some more info on Barnes:

Barnes, a second baseman and a shortstop, started his baseball career in Rockford, Ill., on a youth team, the Pioneers, which also included Al Spalding.

In 1866, Barnes and Spalding were invited to join the Forest Citys of Rockford, a team which went on to become one of the nation's best. An indication of the baseball skills displayed by Barnes as a youth is his age when he was asked to join the Forest City club. He was born May 8, 1850, which means he was only 16 through most of his first season with an adult team.

In 1871, Barnes joined Boston of the National Association. In five seasons with Boston, he compiled a .379 batting average, won league batting titles in 1873 (.402) and 1875 (.372) and led the league in both hits and runs in 1871, 1873 and 1875. (Some sources also credit Barnes with winning the National Association batting title in 1872.) Boston won the National Association title in each of his last four years with the Red Stockings (1872, 1873, 1874 and 1875).

The record books which show that Barnes won three (or four) batting titles and played on five pennant winners in nine major league seasons indicate he was a quality player. However the testimony of his contemporaries is even more impressive.

Al Spalding, a long-time teammate of Barnes, in his book, America's National Game, published in 1911, called Barnes "in my opinion one of the best all around players the game has produced."

Another former Barnes teammate and opponent, Adrian (Cap) Anson, wrote in his autobiography, A Ball Player's Career, published in 1900:

"Ross Barnes was one of the best ball players that ever wore a shoe,

and I would like to have nine men just like him right now under my

management. He was an all-around man, and I do not know of a single

man on the diamond at the present time that I regard as his superior."

Baseball writer Sam Crane, who saw Barnes play, wrote a series on the "Fifty Greatest Ball Players in History." In the story on Barnes in the series, in the New York Journal of December 26, 1911, he wrote:

"Ross Barnes, in the opinion of the players who played on the same clubs with him, and also those who were his opponents, was the best second baseman the game has produced, and there are, too, many old-time players and fans who have kept in touch with baseball for forty years or so, who still think that Baines has never been excelled as a guardian of the keystone sack, even by the many stars in the position who have been before the public since."

Crane's lengthy article on Barnes went on to praise the former second baseman with quotes from former players. It also had a reference to his speed on the bases:

"Harry Wright put Barnes to lead off in the batting order, both for his ability with the `wagon tongue' and his speed on the bases. Probably Barnes could get to first base oftener than any other player on the Boston team, not excepting the great George Wright."

In making note of Barnes' death in 1915, the 1916 edition of Spalding's Official Baseball Record said Barnes was "by many considered the best second baseman in the history of Base Ball."

In the two-page obituary of Barnes in the 1916 Spalding's Official Baseball Guide, Barnes was called "one of the greatest ball players who ever lived." The obituary also said:

"Old Base Ball players and old managers, who were expert in their judgment, considered Ross Barnes to be the most expert second baseman who had ever played the position.

"Barnes was not only a good fielder of wide range, but he was a sure fielder. He played the hardest hits with so much ease that they looked easy. Almost every second baseman, who, at some time, commands so much attention that he is esteemed to be a leader, excels in some one characteristic or another. Either he is a great thrower or fields a ball better on his right side than on his left. Such was not the case with Barnes. He was almost Base Ball perfect in everything and as expert with one arm as with the other. If a one-hand stop was to be made it seemed as if he could grasp a ball as easily with his left hand as with his right."

The History of Baseball by Allison Danzig and Joe Reichler quotes former Boston Globe sports editor Walter Barnes in 1936 as saying that George Wright, Ross Barnes, Cal McVey and Adrian Anson were most frequently mentioned as the best players of the pre-1900 era.

Walter Barnes was a fan in the National Association days, became a sports writer in the 1880's and was named to a committee to select the five greatest pre-1900 players for inclusion in the Baseball Hall of Fame.

Another item in The History of Baseball:

W. B. Hanna of the New York Tribune, in naming an all-time team in 1926, picked Eddie Collins at second base, but, he added, "Lajoie and Ross Barnes can be considered."

[SavoyBG]

1918

January 10 ... Acknowledging that Ty Cobb, Speaker, and Collins are all good ball players, Cap Anson picks his all-time team, leaving them off. In the current issue of The Sporting News, Anson selects, Buck Ewing and King Kelly (C); Amos Rusie, John Clarkson, Jim McCormick (P); himself (1B); Fred Pfeffer (2B); Ed Williamson (3B); Ross Barnes (SS); Bill Lange, George Gore, Jimmy Ryan, and Hugh Duffy (OF).

[SABR Matt]

Of course people grew up playing serious baseball in the 1860s. The people who played baseball were playing serious baseball. If you read up on the game before the NA, you will realize this. Also, a player does not have to play serious baseball at 9 years old to be a great player by the time he is in his 20s.

Barnes was the greatest player in the country for at least a 6 year period, maybe longer. No matter what league there was, he was the best player, until he got sick.

This way of choosing your hall is completely wrong. Sorry...it just is. The hall of fame should not be about celebrating who dominated the game at a given time while turning a blind eye to what it was they were dominating. It should be about celebrating the greatest players of all time and the trailblazers in the game's history. Barnes was neither an all-time great baseball player, nor a trailblazing history-maker. He was about as good a ballplayer as possible in 1871...that doesn't make him great in the historical context.

And no...the game that was played in the 1860s was not serious baseball. I have read about that game...quite a bit more than you seem to assume. Just because someone is unimpressed with what passed for baseball doesn't mean they are unstudied on the subject. The 1860s barnstorming teams and disorganized entertainment looked NOTHING like modern baseball. That was not serious baseball...that was the equivalent of modern adult community leagues except the style of play was more like softball. I'm sure the players took it seriously...but that doesn't mean I have to. That game was not baseball and I'm not going to pretend it was.


Do you realize how ridiculous it is that you think that all this guy did was go up and bunt the ball every time up ? Have you ever looked at his places on the leaderboards of the NA?

I don't think that and never implied it. You do understand, however, that a good chunk of his singles AND some of his doubles were gained this way. That his numbers were DEFINITELY inflated by that rule. More than many other players of that era.


AAA is very likely better baseball now than the major leagues were in Cobb's day too. There are thousands of excellent Latin players in the world today. They were not around in Cobb's day.

No it's not. Our current AAA is about the equivalent of 1890s baseball...but 1910, the modern game was a good half-step better than AAA. Weaker than today's game by enough to matter for average players. Not so much for Cobb.



*clip long list of meaningless numbers that don't have any value when in the context of a league that was not major*

Flinging meaningless statistics garnered in a league that simply cannot compare with the game I celebrate will do nothing to convince me.

[SABR Matt]

I don't think it's clear at all, but even if he didn't have 11 triples in 1873, your source has him second with 8 triples that season, and he was also second in 1871 with 9 triples. Were those bunts too?

Of course not. They were probably line drives...I'm not saying he was a bad hitter by the standards of the NA. He was just not a very good hitter by the standards of real baseball.

[SavoyBG]

This way of choosing your hall is completely wrong. Sorry...it just is. The hall of fame should not be about celebrating who dominated the game at a given time while turning a blind eye to what it was they were dominating. It should be about celebrating the greatest players of all time and the trailblazers in the game's history. Barnes was neither an all-time great baseball player, nor a trailblazing history-maker. He was about as good a ballplayer as possible in 1871...that doesn't make him great in the historical context.

Your take on this is completely wrong. Sorry...it just is. The hall of fame should celebrate the greatest players of each era in the game's evolution.




And no...the game that was played in the 1860s was not serious baseball. I have read about that game...quite a bit more than you seem to assume. Just because someone is unimpressed with what passed for baseball doesn't mean they are unstudied on the subject. The 1860s barnstorming teams and disorganized entertainment looked NOTHING like modern baseball. That was not serious baseball...that was the equivalent of modern adult community leagues except the style of play was more like softball. I'm sure the players took it seriously...but that doesn't mean I have to. That game was not baseball and I'm not going to pretend it was.

Why are you suffering under this mistaken idea that in order for it to be "serious" baseball that is has to be like the modern game? The game was certainly baseball. Just because it's not the same baseball that was around in later years does not make it not baseball. Before the forward pass, football was still football. When they had a center jump after each basket, it was still basketball.




No it's not. Our current AAA is about the equivalent of 1890s baseball...but 1910, the modern game was a good half-step better than AAA. Weaker than today's game by enough to matter for average players. Not so much for Cobb.

For you to state this as if it's a fact is about the stupidest thing I've ever seen posted in this section. You have no idea how good AAA from today is in relation to 100 years ago, and neither does anybody else. You may as well close your eyes and throw darts randomly against the wall.



Flinging meaningless statistics garnered in a league that simply cannot compare with the game I celebrate will do nothing to convince me.


What about the anecdotal evidence from Anson and from sportswriters and other observors of the day? Anybody who saw Barnes and who was still around in the teens acknowledged that he was among the greatest players of all time.

[brett]

O'Rourke not being a hall of famer is ludicrous IMO.

A career OPS+ of 133 in over 7400 ABs, not even counting his even better offense in over 1,000 NA at bats. He is clearly a hall of famer. At 43 years old he was still close to a league average player in 1893, with 95 RBIs.

It depends on how large a hall you want. If we go by the number of players from an era with say at least 5 full seasons worth of games, the 1800s would get something like 20 total spots in the hall of fame.

Plus, I think its pretty clear that a game that is just getting organized is going to be pulling from a relatively small portion of the population, and believe it or not, the US young male population was pretty decimated by the 1870s.

For the 1800s, I'd probably start with one player per position, or the best 8, and 4 pitchers. I MIGHT up that to 12 and 6 or maybe the 18 best guys.

O'Rourke has a good case in my book. He played 22 full seasons and was consistent across changing rules.

[SavoyBG]

For the 1800s, I'd probably start with one player per position, or the best 8, and 4 pitchers. I MIGHT up that to 12 and 6 or maybe the 18 best guys.



You can't put s number on how many inductees there shouuld be, or on a certain number per position. You could easily have three of the top ten players playing at the same position (Anson, Connor, Brouthers).

You need to evaluate each player's case as a separate entity.

It's also not about attempting to guage how good the real early players were in comparison to later years. It's about honoring the greatest players of each era....especially the trailblazing players, IMO. A player can only play (and excel) in his own day.

There's certainly plenty of anecdotal evidence from people in the game and from outside observers that says that the great early players were still considered great in the teens, at least by people who were old enough to have seen the early players.

[RuthMayBond]

1918

January 10 ... Acknowledging that Ty Cobb, Speaker, and Collins are all good ball players, Cap Anson picks his all-time team, leaving them off. In the current issue of The Sporting News, Anson selects, Buck Ewing and King Kelly (C); Amos Rusie, John Clarkson, Jim McCormick (P); himself (1B); Fred Pfeffer (2B); Ed Williamson (3B); Ross Barnes (SS); Bill Lange, George Gore, Jimmy Ryan, and Hugh Duffy (OF).We've all seen some of these questionable lists.
Does BG stand for Barnes Groupie?

[SABR Matt]

Considering that Barnes was not a particularly brilliant defensive second baseman...not even compared to peers at his own position from the 1870s (he was solid, numerically, but we're not talking about a Bill Mazeroski fielding whiz), Barnes playing short would likely have been highly amusing to watch.

And no...it's not a pure guess when I talk about league quality. I've done significant work in objectively quantifying the difference between leagues...it's still a work in progress, but I'm not pulling numbers out of the air...it's based on my research into this matter which, if you knew me at all, you'd realize. Long time members here at fever will recall some of the research I'm talking about.

[brett]

You can't put s number on how many inductees there shouuld be, or on a certain number per position. You could easily have three of the top ten players playing at the same position (Anson, Connor, Brouthers).

You need to evaluate each player's case as a separate entity.

It's also not about attempting to guage how good the real early players were in comparison to later years. It's about honoring the greatest players of each era....especially the trailblazing players, IMO. A player can only play (and excel) in his own day.

There's certainly plenty of anecdotal evidence from people in the game and from outside observers that says that the great early players were still considered great in the teens, at least by people who were old enough to have seen the early players.


I would not limit by position, but I tend to START with the 8 best position position players of each decade, or 16 of a 20 year generation. You are the one assuming that there had to be some number of top players from the 1870s, and that we honor guys relative to their time, so in a way, you seem to be calling for a kind of quota anyway. I'm just saying that even if we GIVE the 1800s a quota, you can't get more than about 12 position players out of it. If we rate them based on the development of the game, it would be lower.

[brett]

Considering that Barnes was not a particularly brilliant defensive second baseman...not even compared to peers at his own position from the 1870s (he was solid, numerically, but we're not talking about a Bill Mazeroski fielding whiz), Barnes playing short would likely have been highly amusing to watch.

And no...it's not a pure guess when I talk about league quality. I've done significant work in objectively quantifying the difference between leagues...it's still a work in progress, but I'm not pulling numbers out of the air...it's based on my research into this matter which, if you knew me at all, you'd realize. Long time members here at fever will recall some of the research I'm talking about.

With all the foul base hits, I don't think second base was as critical a position. It may have been a hiding place for a bat.

[SABR Matt]

Incidentally...the not-inconsiderable list of guys from the 19th century who are in my hall of fame include:

Roger Connor
Dan Brothers
Cap Anson
Bid McPhee
Jimmy Collins
Buck Ewing
Billy Hamilton
Hugh Duffy
Fielder Jones
Ed Delehanty
Fred Clarke
Jesse Burkett
Joe Kelley
Wee Willie Keeler
King Kelly
maaaaaaybe Jim O'Rourke...very borderline for me
Cy Young
Tim Keefe
Kid Nichols
Amos Rusie
John Clarkson
Charlie Buffinton
Candy Cummings (the curveball thing)
Jim Whitney
Old Hoss Radbourn
Bob Caruthers
Pud Galvin
Tony Mullane
Clark Griffith
Jim McCormick

Considering how small a group of players the 19th century game had to choose from to assemble the greatest talents available, I think that is more than enough.

[SABR Matt]

With all the foul base hits, I don't think second base was as critical a position. It may have been a hiding place for a bat.

That's actually true...the catcher was eating a HUGE chunk of the defensive value that would normally have gone to the infield...but second base was still as important relative to the other infield positions besides the catcher except third. Here's where James should have been putting his defensive spectrum shift. Third base (and a little bit first base) were picking up value in the 1870s that they did not get in other eras. 2B and SS were still pretty important, but not as much as they would become in the 80s.

[SavoyBG]

Considering that Barnes was not a particularly brilliant defensive second baseman...not even compared to peers at his own position from the 1870s (he was solid, numerically, but we're not talking about a Bill Mazeroski fielding whiz), Barnes playing short would likely have been highly amusing to watch.

And no...it's not a pure guess when I talk about league quality. I've done significant work in objectively quantifying the difference between leagues...it's still a work in progress, but I'm not pulling numbers out of the air...it's based on my research into this matter which, if you knew me at all, you'd realize. Long time members here at fever will recall some of the research I'm talking about.

You can't tell league quality by playing with numbers. I could give you stats from a league, and you're not gonna know for sure if it's a major league, or a high school league, just by the numbers. You could go analyze those stats, draw your conclusion, and then I could tell you that the stats are actually from a women's slow pitch softball league.

No amount of research is EVER going to definitively answer that question, and for you state your opinions on the matter as fact in not only beyond arrogant, it is downright asinine.

We are never gonna know just how much worse the quality of play was in the 1890s as opposed to now. It could be pretty close, and then again, it could be that 1890s baseball is not even as good as division 1 college baseball nowadays. Certainly the pro basketball of the 1930s and 1940s is nowhere near the level of play of division 1 college games now. Even in the past 40 years the level of play has progressed way beyond what it was. Pete Maravich avergaed 44 points a game in his college career......without 3 pointers even being around then. Nobody is ever gonna come close to doing that again. There are just too many real good players as opposed to what there were in the 1960s. It's rare now for a college player to even average 20 points a game.

You can speculate all you want, but you have no way of ever knowing, with any degree of certainty, how much better the level of play has gotten over the years.

[SavoyBG]

WARP3 for 2Bmen:

Eddie Collins - 137.8
Rogers Hornsby - 128.6
Joe Morgan - 127.4
Nap Lajoie - 125.9
Lou Whitaker - 103.3
Bobby Grich - 92.4
Craig Biggio - 90.0
Rod Carew - 85.8
Charlie Gehringer - 84.7
Frankie Frisch - 83.3
Roberto Alomar - 81.0
Jeff Kent - 80.0
Billy Herman - 77.8
Bid McPhee - 77.7
Ryne Sandberg - 75.8
Bobby Doerr - 72.7
Willie Randolph - 70.7
Jackie Robinson - 67.9
Joe Gordon - 67.4
Hardy Richardson - 65.2
Davey Lopes - 64.5
Nellie Fox - 63.4
Cupid Childs - 58.4
Tony Lazzeri - 57.9
Red Schoendienst - 57.9
Chuck Knoblauch - 57.4
Frank White - 52.4
Bill Mazeroski - 51.5
Ross Barnes - 51.0
Lonnie Frey - 50.0

I could have missed someone who would make this list.

[STLCards2]

Incidentally...the not-inconsiderable list of guys from the 19th century who are in my hall of fame include:

Roger Connor
Dan Brothers
Cap Anson
Bid McPhee
Jimmy Collins
Buck Ewing
Billy Hamilton
Hugh Duffy
Fielder Jones
Ed Delehanty
Fred Clarke
Jesse Burkett
Joe Kelley
Wee Willie Keeler
King Kelly
maaaaaaybe Jim O'Rourke...very borderline for me
Cy Young
Tim Keefe
Kid Nichols
Amos Rusie
John Clarkson
Charlie Buffinton
Candy Cummings (the curveball thing)
Jim Whitney
Old Hoss Radbourn
Bob Caruthers
Pud Galvin
Tony Mullane
Clark Griffith
Jim McCormick

Considering how small a group of players the 19th century game had to choose from to assemble the greatest talents available, I think that is more than enough.


I'd say so...that is more than I've seen most people have. Post 1870's, it seems you certainly do not have an anti-1800's bias.

[brett]

Incidentally...the not-inconsiderable list of guys from the 19th century who are in my hall of fame include:

Roger Connor
Dan Brothers
Cap Anson
Bid McPhee
Jimmy Collins
Buck Ewing
Billy Hamilton
Hugh Duffy
Fielder Jones
Ed Delehanty
Fred Clarke
Jesse Burkett
Joe Kelley
Wee Willie Keeler
King Kelly
maaaaaaybe Jim O'Rourke...very borderline for me
Cy Young
Tim Keefe
Kid Nichols
Amos Rusie
John Clarkson
Charlie Buffinton
Candy Cummings (the curveball thing)
Jim Whitney
Old Hoss Radbourn
Bob Caruthers
Pud Galvin
Tony Mullane
Clark Griffith
Jim McCormick

Considering how small a group of players the 19th century game had to choose from to assemble the greatest talents available, I think that is more than enough.

Do you include Bill Dahlen as a 19th century player? Also, I have no problem with Spalding being in, but what do the stats say about his pitching? I would think that his own fielding would be a determining factor. Also, what about Sam Thompson )sp?)

[Beady]

Ross Barnes' career simply was not ruined by the elimination of the fair-foul. Bob Schaefer wrote a good article on this in the 2000 issue of SABR's journal The National Pastime. I myself have followed coverage of Barnes in the 1877 Chicago Tribune, and while I saw a great deal about his illness, I don't believe there was a single mention of the fair-foul all year.

I haven't read a huge amount of 1870's newspaper coverage, but I've read more than most people and I've seen a lot about Barnes. His contemporaries don't mention the fair-foul in connection with him too often, and never emphasize it. A 1903 article by his former teammate Tim Murnane discusses him in detail, calling him "the king of second basemen, as well as the finest batsman and run getter of his time...He had no superior as a base runner" and so on. As for the fair-foul, Murnane says only that Barnes could make it work nine times out of ten, but it was so hard on his wrists that he never used it more than once a game, and then only if he was faced by a crucial situation.

A certain scepticism is indeed warranted when it comes to old fogeys reminiscing about how good Barnes was. But the point to be made heer is, I don't think you'll find any of them who stress the fair-foul very much in talking about him. None of them will say it's what made him as a player. After his death, people started believing that, because somebody assumed it must be true one time and wrote it down, then somebody else copied it, then Bill James read it somewhere and wrote the same thing, which made it gospel. But it just doesn't come up much when he is discussed by contemporaries who actually knew his playing style.

That's because they understood that while Barnes was good at the fair-foul, it was only one weapon in a well-stocked arsenal. He must have been a superb athlete and he certainly was an intelligent and resourceful man who could get the better of almost any challenge he put his mind to on a baseball field. I can't prove it, but I know as much about him as most people, and i believe he wasn't a great player because he mastered the fair-foul, he mastered the fair-foul because he was a great player.

Whenever I think about Barnes, I like to recall something he wrote Harry Wright in the fall of 1878, in reply to a letter feeling him out about the possibility of coming back to play in Boston.

“If you have no objection [I] would like to know how much money you will give me. Money, money, money; that is the article I am looking after now more than anything else. It is the only thing that will shape my course (‘religion is nowhere’).”

Now, tell me that's not a man who's every bit as up to date as anybody playing today. As to whether he belongs in the Hall of Kitschy Plaques, I suppose not, because his prime was pretty short and it's true he didn't have to prove himself very much against curve pitching. But let's give a talented and very interesting player his due and not impoverish our own historical understanding by patronizing him.

[SavoyBG]

Incidentally...the not-inconsiderable list of guys from the 19th century who are in my hall of fame include:

Roger Connor
Dan Brouthers
Cap Anson
Bid McPhee
Jimmy Collins
Buck Ewing
Billy Hamilton
Hugh Duffy
Fielder Jones
Ed Delahanty
Fred Clarke
Jesse Burkett
Joe Kelley
Wee Willie Keeler
King Kelly
maaaaaaybe Jim O'Rourke...very borderline for me
Cy Young
Tim Keefe
Kid Nichols
Amos Rusie
John Clarkson
Charlie Buffinton
Candy Cummings (the curveball thing)
Jim Whitney
Old Hoss Radbourn
Bob Caruthers
Pud Galvin
Tony Mullane
Clark Griffith
Jim McCormick


I corrected your misspelling on Brouthers and Delahanty.

Okay, there are a couple of guys that you list that I may not put in:

Buffington and Whitney and maybe not Fielder Jones, although he's more of a 20th century player.

and I'm not putting Cummings in, at least not as a player.

And you left off some guys (Dahlen, G. Davis,) who were more a part of the 19th century than some of the guys you did list (J. Collins, Jones).

Guys who you did not list who I would definitely put in....

Barnes
Beckley
Bond
Browning
Childs
Glasscock
Gore
Hines
Jennings
Ryan
Stovey
Sutton
Thompson
Van Haltren
Wallace
Monte Ward (for many reasons, not the least of which is his 409 win shares)
G. Wright

And there are others I would think about (McGraw, Lyons, Start).

[SABR Matt]

Do you include Bill Dahlen as a 19th century player? Also, I have no problem with Spalding being in, but what do the stats say about his pitching? I would think that his own fielding would be a determining factor. Also, what about Sam Thompson )sp?)

I actually forgot a more important candidate...and that is Monte Ward. He is on my Utility Player list not my position player lists now because he did two things about evenly (pitching and playing short and a few other positions from time to time).

So add Ward to the list as well as potentially Sam Thompson. Rawlings is more of an entrepeneur than a player. His resume is mostly weighted to the period before the leagues went pro, let alone became major league caliber. I don't have much info on his statistical record so I'd love to hear from those who've done that work.

[SABR Matt]

Do you include Bill Dahlen as a 19th century player? Also, I have no problem with Spalding being in, but what do the stats say about his pitching? I would think that his own fielding would be a determining factor. Also, what about Sam Thompson )sp?)

And yes...I should count Dahlen toward my list as well...my apologies...I was thinking of him as a 20th century guy, but some of his best seasons were in the 1890s.

[RuthMayBond]

I corrected your misspelling on Brouthers and Delahanty.

Okay, there are a couple of guys that you list that I may not put in:

Buffington and Whitney and maybe not Fielder Jones, although he's more of a 20th century player.
Matt was probably too nice to correct your misspelling on Buffinton

[SavoyBG]

Matt was probably too nice to correct your misspelling on Buffinton


I don't think that "nice" is one of Matt's strongest attributes.

[RuthMayBond]

I don't think that "nice" is one of Matt's strongest attributes.You may not be one to talk

[SavoyBG]

You may not be one to talk


It would be a close contest.

[RuthMayBond]

It would be a close contest.At least you're honest :thumbsup:

[SABR Matt]

You know NOTHINIG about me SavoyBG. NOTHING.

I am strident and aggressive in online chat...that does not mean I'm not nice. But we are getting a good idea about who YOU are when you start with the petty spelling corrections and then accuse me of not being nice because i disagree with you about Barnes and say so forcefully.

[SavoyBG]

You know NOTHINIG about me SavoyBG. NOTHING.

I am strident and aggressive in online chat...that does not mean I'm not nice. But we are getting a good idea about who YOU are when you start with the petty spelling corrections and then accuse me of not being nice because i disagree with you about Barnes and say so forcefully.


Matt, this thread has nothing to do with me saying that nice is not one of your attributes. That's an observation that comes from many of your posts with all kinds of people around here. If you insist on taking this further I will provide some examples.

[SABR Matt]

Again...how I deal with debate on an online forum does not deffine the type of person I am. And you have NO RIGHT to make judgments about me when you yourself are just as "not nice" here.

[SavoyBG]

Again...how I deal with debate on an online forum does not deffine the type of person I am. And you have NO RIGHT to make judgments about me when you yourself are just as "not nice" here.


I'm only judging how you are around here. I have no idea what you are like away from here. For all we know in real life you could be a 74 year old woman.

[RuthMayBond]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

[brett]

deleted post

[SavoyBG]

I have to be totally honest here, Matt had me spelling Delahanty with an e for a week around here. When I realized that not only he had posted it wrong, but I had as well 3 times on other threads, I decided to keep my mouth shut and hoped nobody would notice. I lived in fear, and at least now I know that if I view those threads, I can live with the worst case scenario.




Yes, it's a lot worse to spell Delahanty or Brouthers wrong than it is to spell Buffinton wrong.

[Ubiquitous]

The stated policy of this section is to debate the subject matter. Please stick to that so I don't have to resticky this obvious fact.

Thank you and have a nice day.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Hi, perhaps you don't know me. I'm SABR Matt.

:waving

Nice to meet you Matt.

:waving

[Sultan_1895-1948]

And of course...I'll repeat that the less someone plays, the easier it is to be further above average.

I agree. So looking at the flip side...if a guy plays exhibition games on supposed off-days during the regular season and plays many exhibition games in the off-season...should his numbers for the upcoming regular year get a slight boost. :ooo:

[AstrosFan]

Hey Matt, there is a discussion in the 37th greatest player thread on Roger Connor's fielding. As I recall, you have Connor as an all-time great fielder, but Beady says he can find nothing in the literature of the day that says people regarded him as a great fielder. What are your thoughts, and what do you think the reasons for the disconnect are?

[SABR Matt]

I don't trust any defensive evaluation from the 19th century...that includes my own. That's the first thing to lead off with right away. I do, however, tend to believe my analysis at least somewhat when it has a consistent quality (i.e. when my career figures aren't thrown off by individual great seasons):

Ps Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA
1B 1890 123 2.99 0.362
1B 1885 110 2.64 0.359
1B 1888 134 3.02 0.350
1B 1891 131 2.56 0.331
1B 1893 135 2.54 0.327
1B 1889 131 2.42 0.325
1B 1887 128 1.94 0.304
1B 1883 98 1.37 0.297
1B 1886 118 1.60 0.294
2B 1884 71 1.41 0.272
1B 1894 100 0.99 0.271
1B 1896 126 1.10 0.263
1B 1895 108 0.85 0.258
1B 1882 45 0.34 0.256
1B 1881 85 0.64 0.255
3B 1880 83 0.74 0.251
1B 1892 155 1.02 0.250
CF 1884 39 0.33 0.239
CF 1882 25 0.13 0.228
1B 1897 24 0.04 0.219

That's a pretty consistent career of achievement. Including the fact that Connor was tried a number of times at defensive skill positions (2B, CF and 3B), which is one finger on the scale toward believing he was an athletic fielder.

It also helps that every other defensive metric I can find backs up my impression on Connor at least somewhat.

As to why the fans of that time (and other players) didn't recognize his defensive prowess...it's darned hard to see great fielding at first visually. It's possible there was some aspect of his teams, his parks or a quirk of how he chose to play the position that made him look better in the statistical record than he actually was, but I would tend to believe he was simply making the position look easy when other players were making it look harder (and therefore flashier)...the only historical information I have on his fielding refers to him as possessing metronome-like consistency. Sort of the Charlie Gehringer of first base.

[AstrosFan]

As to why the fans of that time (and other players) didn't recognize his defensive prowess...it's darned hard to see great fielding at first visually. It's possible there was some aspect of his teams, his parks or a quirk of how he chose to play the position that made him look better in the statistical record than he actually was, but I would tend to believe he was simply making the position look easy when other players were making it look harder (and therefore flashier)...the only historical information I have on his fielding refers to him as possessing metronome-like consistency. Sort of the Charlie Gehringer of first base.

Thanks for the response. I'd agree with the difficulty of seeing great fielding at first base, and might add that players who are great hitters will often have their fielding overlooked.

[SABR Matt]

That's also true. And Connor was an outstanding hitter, as we all know.

[Beady]

I've read a lot more widely in 19th century sources than most people can claim to have done, but I certainly have not read everything. I'm often interested in entirely different sorts of issues than this and have rarely looked really closely at the Giants, so it's possible I'm mistaken about contemporary assessments of Connor. Since posting on the subject, it has occurred to me to go back to John Ward's 1888 book "Base Ball: How it is Played," and at the start of the chapter on first base, I find that Ward says Joe Start was the "king of the first basemen" during his long career, and that in recent years players such as Morrill, Comiskey and Connor have advanced the standard of play, especially by going more aggressively after ground balls.

The catch here, of course, is that Connor was Ward's teammate, as was the case with neither Morrill or Comiskey, so Ward is not exactly an unbiased source. But I'm sure Ward wouldn't have singled Connor out in this way had he not been a pretty good fielder at the very least.

I agree about the significance of Connor's early play at second, third and center field, and I'll add that even by the standards of a relatively tolerant and flexible era an oversized left-hander was an unlikely candidate to play the throwing infield positions, so it does seem he would not have been put there in the first place had he not been an exceptional athlete, somebody you would expect to handle first base quite well. There's a catch here, too, though, in that (except for the handedness) Anson fits pretty much the same profile, and nobody thought he was a particularly good first baseman.

I will say that Comiskey always dominates contemporary discussions of first base play, especially for his practice of playing the deepest first base in the game and insisting (as he could as player-manager) that his pitchers get over to cover the base when needed, not a universal practice at the time. This is the recent development in play Ward refers to, and Comiskey above everyone was the standard bearer for it. My sense is that he did not utterly revolutionize how first base was played but did influence significantly how others played the position. That fact alone would make Comiskey an important figure for contemporaries and also for somebody like me whose interests are essentially those of a historian. If you look at matters as a statistician and an analyst of player value, though, perhaps you might see other players who didn't get the same attention as style-setters yet were just as good.

[SABR Matt]

Comiskey rates on nearly the same level as Connor by my own analysis...

Ps Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA
1B 1891 138 3.02 0.346
1B 1888 132 2.67 0.336
1B 1884 107 1.99 0.326
1B 1887 115 2.12 0.325
1B 1883 97 1.71 0.320
1B 1889 132 2.13 0.310
1B 1882 79 1.26 0.309
1B 1885 81 1.18 0.300
1B 1886 123 1.77 0.299
1B 1890 90 0.68 0.256
1B 1894 55 0.35 0.248
1B 1893 63 0.40 0.248
1B 1892 141 0.72 0.240

At least in the 1880s, Comiskey rivaled Connor in terms of productivity at the position. And yes, I have read in a couple of different accounts of the game from this time that Comiskey is credited with changing first base for future generations such that the common spot to play it was not near the bag but 10 steps behind the bag and several big steps away from the foul line. The increase in fielding proficiency in the game's history is a combination of insights like this one and it fascinating to read about. The decision, for example, to start playing second base to the right of the bag, not behind the bag, and to plat shortstop deeper into the third base hole changed the middle infield forever.

As for Cap Anson...he played a number of positions, but his primary ones were left field, 3B, 1B and C...he didn't play the up the positions. Now playing catcher at that time was serious business physically, and Anson was a physical specimen, but the skills it takes to play C even then don't necessarily translate to being a good defensive first baseman...you needed to have a strong arm (much more so than even today's catchers), quick reflexes and a strong enough frame to handle the absolute beating you'd take back there. I think Anson was never well suited for first base...he was never a rangy fielder...his skills were more oriented to strength and power and less to reaction speed and flexibility.

[brett]

How close can you come to estimating Tulowitzki's PCA numbers this year? Again, RF is down, and so is whatever method BBPro uses, but his staff has more K's and a different makeup (Colorado has been willing to go to more flyball pitchers recently).

I'd expect a drop-off from '07, but can you tell if he's still a gold glove level guy.

Also, how good was Ozzie Smith defensively in '89? Was is the best defensive year by a SS? Was it his best?

Third, can you guess at Hanley Ramirez defense this year? Has he improved?

Fourth, how good is Greinke's season? BBPro shows that Felix Hernandez is helped a ton by his defense. Can you estimate their DNRA+?

Fifth, NL MVP. Pujols, Hanley, Utley, Tulo, Fielder how do you see these guys? Win Shares doesn't have Tulo in the top 10.

[brett]

I have a question about DNRA+.

Let's say we have a guy who produces a TRUE ERA+ of 200, allowing half as many runs as would be expected for his innings and for his defense.

Just say he has 225 innings and gives up 50 runs (2.00) in a league that has an era of 4.00.

Does that pitcher only get "credit" for 52% of those runs saved because pitching is only 26/24 of the value of fielding? He was the lone cause of those runs saved-we assume that an average pitcher with that defense would have given up 100 runs. How does that work?

Isn't the pitcher saving those 50 runs ALL BY HIMSELF?

[SABR Matt]

How close can you come to estimating Tulowitzki's PCA numbers this year? Again, RF is down, and so is whatever method BBPro uses, but his staff has more K's and a different makeup (Colorado has been willing to go to more flyball pitchers recently).

I'd expect a drop-off from '07, but can you tell if he's still a gold glove level guy.

The short-hand PCA defensive method seems slightly more optimistic about Tulo than UZR. I have a profile like: 2007 (6.2 wins - 3.6 above average), 2008 (1.6 wins - 0.4 above average), 2009 (3.0 wins - 0.9 above average). He's not the NL gold glover I don't think, but he's been evidently solid.


Also, how good was Ozzie Smith defensively in '89? Was is the best defensive year by a SS? Was it his best?

In 1989, Smith was very solid - posting 4.25 defensive wins and a .313 PCA-BA, but it was far FAR from his best season. His best year was was 1982, in which he posted 6.02 defensive wins and a .380 PCA-BA, and between 1982 and 1989 there are 8 seasons with higher total win counts and 14 with higher PCA-BA figures. If anything 1989 can be looked at as the bottom of Smith's productivity (other than injury and age induced struggles in 1990-1991 and 1994). The best defensive year ever by a shortstop was posted by Neifi Perez in 2000 (7.5 wins - .404 PCA-BA)


Third, can you guess at Hanley Ramirez defense this year? Has he improved?

Not really. Well OK, he's better than he was in 2007 (when he was actually worse than Derek Jeter), but I have him at roughly 0.9 (.189), 1.8 (.245), 2.4 (.260) the last three years.


Fourth, how good is Greinke's season? BBPro shows that Felix Hernandez is helped a ton by his defense. Can you estimate their DNRA+?

King Felix has indeed been helped some by his defense...the Mariners have far and away the best team defense in baseball...but Felix still manages to have posted a 169 DNRA+ (right around where Koufax was in his prime)...Greinke is just having an other-worldly 2009...DNRA+ of (wait for it) 205 (!!). Pedro Martinez would find that season fitting quite nicely in with his Boston peak.


Fifth, NL MVP. Pujols, Hanley, Utley, Tulo, Fielder how do you see these guys? Win Shares doesn't have Tulo in the top 10.

Fielder has zero defensive value. Hanley has minimal defensive value, Pujols had a bad year on defense this year (his physical problems are mounting and it's entirely possible he winds up missing time at some point to get some surgery to fix it...it's amazing he keeps on hitting!). Utley even had a down year defensively by his standards, though still above average. Tulo doesn't have enough on offense. I think Pujols is pretty clearly ahead of the pack with his .452 wOBA...Hanley Ramirez would be second on my ballot followed closely by Utley...Tulo and Fielder are much further back.

[SABR Matt]

I have a question about DNRA+.

Let's say we have a guy who produces a TRUE ERA+ of 200, allowing half as many runs as would be expected for his innings and for his defense.

Just say he has 225 innings and gives up 50 runs (2.00) in a league that has an era of 4.00.

Does that pitcher only get "credit" for 52% of those runs saved because pitching is only 26/24 of the value of fielding? He was the lone cause of those runs saved-we assume that an average pitcher with that defense would have given up 100 runs. How does that work?

Isn't the pitcher saving those 50 runs ALL BY HIMSELF?

You can't think a team-generated top-down statistic quite that linearly.

There is no simple way to break down exactly what happens to the 200 DNRA+ pitcher if he's inserted into a team that is exactly defensively average other than him without fully calculating PCA, but it's not 56% of the credit or whatever other linear way you are imagining it...it's a holistic approach and the great pitchers are most assuredly getting significantly more credit for the runs that get saved when they pitch (per run) than the average pitchers because the great pitchers are taking a larger piece of the pitching-credit-pie than the lesser ones.

[AstrosFan]

I still have the PCA-Awards database you put online a while back, which gave the top 25 for each season-league, and I wondered if it might be possible to do another based on DNRA+ and companion stats. It could make for handy reference. I realize this is a bigger undertaking than digging in for a table of a player's season by season numbers, and that you are busy with school, so if you'd rather not bother, that's fine.

[brett]

In 1989, Smith was very solid - posting 4.25 defensive wins and a .313 PCA-BA, but it was far FAR from his best season. His best year was was 1982, in which he posted 6.02 defensive wins and a .380 PCA-BA, and between 1982 and 1989 there are 8 seasons with higher total win counts and 14 with higher PCA-BA figures. If anything 1989 can be looked at as the bottom of Smith's productivity (other than injury and age induced struggles in 1990-1991 and 1994). The best defensive year ever by a shortstop was posted by Neifi Perez in 2000 (7.5 wins - .404 PCA-BA)

I ask because I think that the defensive rating used in BBPro has it as his best year for runs saved above average.






Fielder has zero defensive value. Hanley has minimal defensive value, Pujols had a bad year on defense this year (his physical problems are mounting and it's entirely possible he winds up missing time at some point to get some surgery to fix it...it's amazing he keeps on hitting!). Utley even had a down year defensively by his standards, though still above average. Tulo doesn't have enough on offense. I think Pujols is pretty clearly ahead of the pack with his .452 wOBA...Hanley Ramirez would be second on my ballot followed closely by Utley...Tulo and Fielder are much further back.


I wondered here because you said Tulo was a real MVP choice in '07. His OPS+ is up a lot from '07. I guess 6+ defensive wins goes a long way.

When you say Hanley has no defensive value, how do you factor in his position? Wouldn't you still prefer a marginal defensive SS than a marginal defensive left fielder for example if they hit the same?

[brett]

Matt, I also wondered if you have used "wins" for each player on a team to go back and "predict" team wins like how many wins do the players on the '07 Red Sox add up to.

Is there anyway to confirm that say a 9 win offensive 2 win defensive player is worth the same as a 6 offensive 6 defensive win player?

And how do you compare a 10 win shortstop to a 10 win first baseman?

[SABR Matt]

I still have the PCA-Awards database you put online a while back, which gave the top 25 for each season-league, and I wondered if it might be possible to do another based on DNRA+ and companion stats. It could make for handy reference. I realize this is a bigger undertaking than digging in for a table of a player's season by season numbers, and that you are busy with school, so if you'd rather not bother, that's fine.

I can certainly provide the top 25 DNRA+ seasons for each league/year and/or the top 25 DNRA Marker-point seasons for each league/year. But I can also just make the whole DNRA table available to people who want it...that's all pitcher-seasons from 1957 to 2005 (minus 1999)...all modern seasons I quote here I have to go through and hand-calculate, but the whole PBP era up to 2005 can be had if people want it.

[SABR Matt]

I ask because I think that the defensive rating used in BBPro has it as his best year for runs saved above average.

BBPro's fielding numbers frequently make zero sense. Let's think about this...which is more logical? Did Ozzie Smith peak on defense at age 24 and then run 8 or 9 top seasons in a row before finally tailing off as the 90s approached and he passed 30? Or did he peak at age 31? I'm thinking the former. :)


I wondered here because you said Tulo was a real MVP choice in '07. His OPS+ is up a lot from '07. I guess 6+ defensive wins goes a long way.

When you say Hanley has no defensive value, how do you factor in his position? Wouldn't you still prefer a marginal defensive SS than a marginal defensive left fielder for example if they hit the same?

Well a replacement level shortstop has the same value as a replacement level first baseman...at least as it pertains to explaining team defensive production - that being ZERO value. But Hanley doesn't have zero value...as I said, he has very little value. Probably more value than the lion's share of first basemen. I would prefer a marginal SS to a marginal LF if they hit the same and I was trying to construct a team...but that's a different question to me than who was literally the most valuable player (in terms of run production).

[brett]

So how would a gold glove first baseman compare in defensive wins to an average shortstop?

And BTW does Greinke have an MVP case over Mauer?

[AstrosFan]

I can certainly provide the top 25 DNRA+ seasons for each league/year and/or the top 25 DNRA Marker-point seasons for each league/year. But I can also just make the whole DNRA table available to people who want it...that's all pitcher-seasons from 1957 to 2005 (minus 1999)...all modern seasons I quote here I have to go through and hand-calculate, but the whole PBP era up to 2005 can be had if people want it.

For reals? The entire DNRA table? That is beyond awesome.

[AstrosFan]

So how would a gold glove first baseman compare in defensive wins to an average shortstop?

And BTW does Greinke have an MVP case over Mauer?

Using the PCA-Awards database suggests that the average SS produces about 2.99 fielding wins per 162 games (PRG in the table; I forget what it stands for). With 247 PCA Gold Gloves from 1876-2004, 72 1B created about 2.99 wins or higher. The average Gold Glove 1B is at about 2.64 wins.

I'm just having fun scouring data. I'm sure Matt has a more informative answer.

[SABR Matt]

So how would a gold glove first baseman compare in defensive wins to an average shortstop?

And BTW does Greinke have an MVP case over Mauer?

To answer your first question...I believe a gold glove first baseman (typically worth between 3 and very rarely 4 wins) is worth as much defensively as a slightly above average shortstop...PCA doesn't include the play-difficulty-adjustment I intend to make later on, so in future renditions, I could see that comparison shifting a little, but just because it's not as difficult to play first doesn't mean it's not as valuable to play it well as it is to play shortstop at an average level.

As for the second question...Greinke's 204 DNRA+ estimate for 2009 would make him the MVP of the AL in some years...Mauer's 2009, makes that unlikely to be the case this particular year though. He's leading the AL in all three of the slash categories (BA/OBP/SLG)...finally hitting for power, hitting .366 and playing premium defense at the catching position. Mauer is an absolute no brainer pick.

[SABR Matt]

For reals? The entire DNRA table? That is beyond awesome.

Send me a PM with an e-mail addy and I can send it...it doesn't include all the prior data you'd need to actually calculate DNRA on your own...I did that in MySQL with several tables...but the raw output I have no problem giving out.

[brett]

To answer your first question...I believe a gold glove first baseman (typically worth between 3 and very rarely 4 wins) is worth as much defensively as a slightly above average shortstop...PCA doesn't include the play-difficulty-adjustment I intend to make later on, so in future renditions, I could see that comparison shifting a little, but just because it's not as difficult to play first doesn't mean it's not as valuable to play it well as it is to play shortstop at an average level.

As for the second question...Greinke's 204 DNRA+ estimate for 2009 would make him the MVP of the AL in some years...Mauer's 2009, makes that unlikely to be the case this particular year though. He's leading the AL in all three of the slash categories (BA/OBP/SLG)...finally hitting for power, hitting .366 and playing premium defense at the catching position. Mauer is an absolute no brainer pick.

I'd take Mauer but I think his playing time (130s games played, less than 110 in the field) keeps it from being as great as some think.

[SABR Matt]

Using the PCA-Awards database suggests that the average SS produces about 2.99 fielding wins per 162 games (PRG in the table; I forget what it stands for). With 247 PCA Gold Gloves from 1876-2004, 72 1B created about 2.99 wins or higher. The average Gold Glove 1B is at about 2.64 wins.

I'm just having fun scouring data. I'm sure Matt has a more informative answer.

The average shortstop produces about 2.65 wins in a season of typical length (in other words, they don't get 162 equivalent games....most of them get like 152 or 154). The average gold glove first baseman (in his average playing time) is getting about as many wins as the average shortstop in his typical playing time (because the average GG 1B is able to play a few more games...it's less physically taxing). But yes...you can see they're roughly comparable in terms of value.

[SABR Matt]

I'd take Mauer but I think his playing time (130s games played, less than 110 in the field) keeps it from being as great as some think.

True...but still...hard to find 130 games of 178 OPS+ from the catching position at any point in major league history...Mauer is doing something rather remarkable.

[SABR Matt]

Using the PCA-Awards database suggests that the average SS produces about 2.99 fielding wins per 162 games (PRG in the table; I forget what it stands for). With 247 PCA Gold Gloves from 1876-2004, 72 1B created about 2.99 wins or higher. The average Gold Glove 1B is at about 2.64 wins.

I'm just having fun scouring data. I'm sure Matt has a more informative answer.

BTW PRG originally meant Positional Real Games Equivalent Games (EqG) is the acronym of choice these days...easier to understand what I meant. :)

[brett]

So Tulo has a 136 OPS+ with 149 games played

Hanley has 150 with 150 GP

Hanley is not getting the kind of added base-stealing value as in the past. He's only 26-8 and Tulo's 20-11.

If Tulo's making up 1+ win in the field how can he be way back of Hanley right now?

Tulo BTW has a 176 OPS+ since the all star break and has gone .349/.427/.623. In his last 100 games I've got him at .329/.404/.618 and 175 OPS+. If I was just a little surer that '08 and April/May were fluky developmental slumps, I'd take him over Hanley or Mauer next year.

Also I was wondering because Tulo "seems" to be making all the plays, and a lot of unassisted putouts on the bases. Do unassisted putouts hurt him in fielding metrics? Also Ian Stewart at third and Clint Barmes at second both look real good in some defensive metrics. Is it possible for players to rob each other of chances. I do know that CO is up over 1 K per 9 IP this year versus '07.

[SABR Matt]

Yes...unassisted putouts are less valuable than assists for the shortstop in the PCA method...that's true for second basemen and third basemen as well. Making a UPO isn't BAD, but it would be better if he were making more assists too.

Tulo is quite as far back as Fielder...he's actually probably a closer 4th than I at first thought, probably. I do still think Pujols/Ramirez/Utley are all better (Utley is outhitting and outfielding Tulo, though the latter is close this year, Ramirez is outhitting and slightly outrunning Tulo and the fielding side is a bit closer than it has been in the past, and Pujols is just blowing everyone away offensively).

[PVNICK]

Yes...unassisted putouts are less valuable than assists for the shortstop in the PCA method...that's true for second basemen and third basemen as well. Making a UPO isn't BAD, but it would be better if he were making more assists too. Is that just a glitch, b/c logically many of these are 2 out man on first so what difference should it make if he steps on the bag or makes the throw to either base? You might argue the non-throw is the best play since that's one less thing to potentially screw up.

[SABR Matt]

Technically, a UPO carries one claim point of value as does an A...they're both a single play made. But the UPO is less valuable because (a) some As turn into DPs and (b) UPOs are more rare so having that as a skill doesn't help you if you don't have range.

The trick is actually that IF POs are rarely unassisted, so you have to take great pains to accurately estimate how many of a SS's POs are really unassisted...that's why in old fielding models like BPro's...the PO is worth half of an assist.

[brett]

So lets say that a gold glove first baseman and an average fielding SS who hit the same are about equal value. Why then is Keith Hernandez a borderline hall of famer? If an average fielding SS had a 128 OPS+ for around 2100 games I'd think he'd be a pretty clear hall of famer. Does it have to do with the rarity of value at each position ie there are more first baseman than SS's who are at that level?

[SABR Matt]

Yes.

It is easier to stay healthy enough for a long enough period of time playing first base, so we see significantly larger numbers of elite players at first than at short. It should also be pointed out that the physical tools needed to play short, which not mutually exclusive with those needed to be a great hitter, do make a combination more unlikely (if you're big enough to hit, chances are, you won't be able to field at short...or if you're a good hitter despite being small, chances are, you won't keep up with all the slugging first basemen in history).

[Ubiquitous]

It isn't a matter of staying healthy (which even if true I don't think first basemen are somehow better at staying healthy) but a matter of staying good enough to stay on the field. A SS who is a light hitter but good glove will not stay on the field unless his glove stays good and he can hit good enough to justify going out there. If he loses a step and his bat declines then he'll be gone soon. Whereas a firstbasemen can lose a step defensively and no one will care. A firstbasemen can even have his bat decline but still have numbers that look good enough to justify him staying out there.



Eddie Murray's peak was basically a 156 OPS+. He declined to about a 110 OPS+ or so and he wasn't as quick as good on defensive as he once was but he stayed out there. Rey Ordonez's peak was basically in the mid 60's and when his defense slipped even hitting at his peak wasn't enough to justify him starting.

[SABR Matt]

Not so, Ubi. Look at the list of eligible first basemen who have a career OPS of (X)...presuming that X value is somewhere in the normal range of performance, you're going to find the average career duration for first basemen with that OPS is longer than the career duration for shortstops.

And EDIT to add...I am not saying you're wrong entirely...it's true that there are fewer shortstops with enough of an offensive peak to be worth keeping out there when they slide on defense...without a doubt. But we were talking about players who were COMPARABLE offensively.

[Ubiquitous]

I'm not sure I follow.

My view is that good hitting first basemen last awhile because they can hit well and people really don't care about their defense. Middle infielders walk the razors edge in that there are plenty of minor leaguers that can field well and not hit so when a middle infielders slips defensvely and offensively they are going to be gone,

I'm not sure how saying first basemen worth X play longer than middle infielders who cannot sustain X somehow shows that I am wrong.

A firstbasemen who had a 150 OPS+ peak and is now at a 110 OPS+ level will still in all probability be in baseball. A 90 OPS+ SS who has slipped to 70 OPS+ is going to get cut unless people think he is a great defensive player. Middle infielders simply cannot afford to decline by all that much.

But a 90 OPS+ firstbasemen will be out of baseball much much faster than a 90 OPS+ SS.

[SABR Matt]

You're still missing the point.

We were talking about why Keith Hernandez (128 OPS+ hitting gold glove first baseman) is a marginal HOFer when a shortstop with his exact career batting lie would be a slam dunk first ballot type. Your last post still compares shortstops with 90 OPS+ to first basemen with 150 OPS+. I'm saying if you took the list of all the shortstops who hit 120 (OPS+) and compared it to the list of all the first basemen who hit 120, the shortstop list would be significantly shorter and the average offensive career would also be significantly shorter.

Your point is valid for the 80 OPS+ shortstops...but we're talking about SS with manifest hitting skill.

[brett]

Well, we are starting with the supposition that a 128 OPS+ gold glove 1B and a 128 OPS+ average fielding SS are responsible for the same # of team wins in a season.

Now since in addition to this, SSs and 1B produce about the same number of wins per 162 on average it implies to me that you are more likely to see a first baseman put up that kind of value for 15 years than to see a SS do so.

That is to say that if you took the top 250 seasons all time by a SS and by a first baseman, the ones ones by the SS's would be produced by a larger collection of players than the one's by the first basemen.

So you get more 140 win first basemen than SS's, but you get about the same number of 14 win seasons by SSs. There has to be the corresponding lower win seasons by SSs so its not that they don't hang around, but that their peaks and valleys are more pronounced.

Either that, or Matt your saying that people overrate SS's who hit and underrate the defensive component of their game. But you said you'd rather have the average fielding SS over the GG first baseman if they hit the same. Just why is that then?

[SABR Matt]

I would argue that the 14 win/year shortstops *DO* hang around for shorter timespans than the 14 W/year first basemen. You want some evidence of this?

Let's compare the career 125 OPS+ shortstops (+/- 5) with the career 125 OPS+ first basemen (also +/- 5). I didn't spring for Foreman's PI, so if someone could pull that data from B-Ref, I'd appreciate it.

I am betting what you will find is that even if you set a minimum games played req. to make our lists, the SS will have a lower average PA count than the first basemen.

[SABR Matt]

And to answer your last question Brett...I would rather have the 14 win shortstop than the 14 win first baseman (for a single year) because the 14-win shortstop is harder to find on short notice (and these days you can't trade for one or sign him in FA very often either...teams are holding their middle infielders very tight-fistedly). But position scarcity does not equal hard mathematical value in the direct way that PCA is trying to measure. There's a difference between the value a player has to team-building for a GM and the value he has directly connected to his winning of baseball games.

[brett]

I would argue that the 14 win/year shortstops *DO* hang around for shorter timespans than the 14 W/year first basemen. You want some evidence of this?

Let's compare the career 125 OPS+ shortstops (+/- 5) with the career 125 OPS+ first basemen (also +/- 5). I didn't spring for Foreman's PI, so if someone could pull that data from B-Ref, I'd appreciate it.

I am betting what you will find is that even if you set a minimum games played req. to make our lists, the SS will have a lower average PA count than the first basemen.

The other explanation would be that value at the shortstop position tends to come from more guys in a given season/league than value at first. Maybe 18 first baseman get most of the leagues wins, while 25 shortstops do.

So who is a better HOF candidate: Mark Grace or Alan Trammell (similar offensively given Trammell's baserunning).

[SABR Matt]

Trammell is definitely the better HOF candidate...once again because first base is so stacked with long-career sluggers.

BTW, PCA (and the HOF Marker) give Grace 132.2 offensive marker points and 48.1 defensive marker points (180.3 total) and that's good for 24th among first basemen all time. Trammell gets 112.6 offensive marker points and 37.5 defensive marker points, 150.1 total...which is good for 13th among shortstops excluding Monte Ward.

He had about the same playing time, so PCA is making the claim that he was just enough worse offensively to be notably worse overall...but yet still a better HOF candidate.

What's interesting is that both of them have EXACTLY 123.7 PCA wins created. And very close to the same total playing time. But Trammell had a much shorter life-span at his ELP than did Grace...compare their player cards:

Mark Grace
Yr Lg Off Def O-M D-M Wins
1992 NL 8.09 3.53 11.8 5.5 11.62
1996 NL 7.46 3.04 11.0 4.7 10.50
1989 NL 8.03 2.06 12.3 2.8 10.09
1997 NL 7.62 2.43 11.1 3.4 10.05
1998 NL 7.98 1.91 11.6 2.3 9.89
1990 NL 6.27 2.99 8.4 4.5 9.26
1991 NL 5.55 3.29 6.6 5.1 8.84
1999 NL 7.54 1.18 10.7 0.8 8.72
1995 NL 8.11 0.52 12.2 -0.3 8.63
1993 NL 6.96 1.67 9.6 1.8 8.63
2000 NL 5.80 0.97 7.7 0.6 6.77
2001 NL 4.68 1.33 5.9 1.5 6.01
1988 NL 5.35 0.14 7.2 -1.0 5.49
1994 NL 4.07 0.97 5.3 0.9 5.04
2002 NL 2.23 1.28 2.3 1.8 3.51

Alan Trammell
Yr Lg Off Def O-M D-M Wins
1987 AL 13.72 2.15 23.2 1.6 15.87
1983 AL 10.03 1.93 16.4 1.4 11.96
1986 AL 7.11 4.66 10.1 6.6 11.77
1990 AL 8.01 3.42 12.0 4.3 11.43
1984 AL 8.31 2.03 12.7 2.1 10.34
1988 AL 7.25 1.93 11.2 1.6 9.18
1980 AL 6.16 1.85 8.2 1.1 8.01
1982 AL 4.31 2.82 5.1 2.9 7.13
1993 AL 5.55 0.89 8.3 0.2 6.44
1981 AL 2.52 3.57 2.1 5.3 6.09
1985 AL 2.70 2.23 1.1 1.7 4.93
1978 AL 1.23 3.32 -0.7 4.2 4.55
1979 AL 2.51 1.82 1.7 1.1 4.33
1989 AL 2.69 1.57 2.2 0.9 4.26
1991 AL 2.43 1.38 2.2 1.2 3.81
1994 AL 1.08 0.82 0.2 0.4 1.90
1995 AL 0.73 0.53 -0.2 0.1 1.26
1992 AL 0.92 0.32 1.1 0.2 1.24

The result is that Trammell's career is not quite as impressive looking despite having the same net total value...with the marker, it's better to be good for a long time than great for a few years and below average for a while thereafter...a position that I believe is sensible.

[brett]

The result is that Trammell's career is not quite as impressive looking despite having the same net total value...with the marker, it's better to be good for a long time than great for a few years and below average for a while thereafter...a position that I believe is sensible.

I thought that the marker score was intended to reward super-excellent seasons.

I think that Trammell may explain why the 120 win SS is rarer-SS's do end up often playing partial seasons due to injuries. Its a lot easier to put a SS out of the lineup for a week than to put a first baseman out.

Also, Trammell has more defensive wins but a lower D-M-there is no positional adjustment to the marker score it looks like. What if D-marker were done versus ALL defensive players?

[brett]

And to answer your last question Brett...I would rather have the 14 win shortstop than the 14 win first baseman (for a single year) because the 14-win shortstop is harder to find on short notice (and these days you can't trade for one or sign him in FA very often either...teams are holding their middle infielders very tight-fistedly). But position scarcity does not equal hard mathematical value in the direct way that PCA is trying to measure. There's a difference between the value a player has to team-building for a GM and the value he has directly connected to his winning of baseball games.

Like it or not, it sounds like you are saying that the "bench/replacement" level is lower for SS's than for first basemen.

[lekin]

What teams are most productive with 2 outs? Also, what teams allow fewest runs with two outs? Where can I find this information for this season or past seasons?

Thanks.

Larry Ekin

[SABR Matt]

I thought that the marker score was intended to reward super-excellent seasons.

I think that Trammell may explain why the 120 win SS is rarer-SS's do end up often playing partial seasons due to injuries. Its a lot easier to put a SS out of the lineup for a week than to put a first baseman out.

Also, Trammell has more defensive wins but a lower D-M-there is no positional adjustment to the marker score it looks like. What if D-marker were done versus ALL defensive players?

That's a potentially interesting idea. I have been ranking D-marker by position, but if you d-mark for all positions at once, every major league middle infielder and center fielder would get a huge boost in the standings. The problem with that is...my final rankings would become UBER-dominated by center fielders. Notice I said center fielders only. Because there were a bunch of good slugging CFers who could also field...that position's skills requirements are less exclusive to being a slugger than the MIF.

The Marker was designed to reward extreme excellence, yes, but primarily it's designed to reward sustained excellence. I may make an adjustment to change what the Marker ratio asymptotically approaches (right now it's just wins + wins above average, meaning your marker ratio can never exceed two...I could shift that by changing the simple formula to something like wins + 2 * wins above average (now the penalties for being below average accelerate faster and the rewards for being outstanding are much greater).

[SABR Matt]

Like it or not, it sounds like you are saying that the "bench/replacement" level is lower for SS's than for first basemen.

I have never said otherwise. My point has always been that there's a difference between dollar value and baseball value.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

According to PCA where does Mauer's '09 season rank historically?

[brett]

That's a potentially interesting idea. I have been ranking D-marker by position, but if you d-mark for all positions at once, every major league middle infielder and center fielder would get a huge boost in the standings. The problem with that is...my final rankings would become UBER-dominated by center fielders. Notice I said center fielders only. Because there were a bunch of good slugging CFers who could also field...that position's skills requirements are less exclusive to being a slugger than the MIF.


Just as a reference point I know that BBPro and other systems as well rate an average centerfielder about 1 WIN above an average corner outfielder. They also tend to value an average fielding SS about 2.5 WINS above an average first baseman-based on defensive value only.

If I remember correctly this is there baseline wins for average fielders by position:
1B: 1
Corner OF: 1.4
3B: 2.2
CF 2.4
2B: 2.9
SS: 3.4
C: 3.9

I don't really know where the values come from but lets face it, if a first baseman goes down there are a lot of guys on the roster who could fill in for a week. If a SS goes down, you are not going to put a DH or right fielder there for a day.

The thing is that if Trammell is a better HOF candidate than Grace, it is because there were guys at other positons who could do what Grace did. And if he is better, but he has the SAME number of wins and a LOWER marker score, what does it all mean?

[SABR Matt]

Again...the marker score measures not just volume of production...but the nature of that production. The goal being to identify the players who were great...not the ones who were prolific. You will get a higher marker score if you run ten years noticeably above average and 4 years average to below than you will if you run 5 years somewhat further above average than the first guy and then 9 years barely above to well below average. Even if the net result is the same career win total. And I think that makes sense.

BPro's 1B value is too low, their catching value is way way way WAAAAAAYYY too high, and their corner outfield values are too low. But otherwise I don't have a major beef with their baselines.

And again...I never denied that it's true that first basemen are easier to replace when team-building. That much is obvious. But dollar value != baseball value. It may be what GMs care about, but it does not translate directly to what matters on the field toward winning baseball games in the absolute sense.

[SABR Matt]

According to PCA where does Mauer's '09 season rank historically?

I haven't calculated 2009 values yet...even my short form estimates stop at 2008 unless I hand-calcuate something for a specific purpose...I'll come back to this one in a few weeks once I've integrated the 2009 Forman database.

[Ubiquitous]

You're still missing the point.

We were talking about why Keith Hernandez (128 OPS+ hitting gold glove first baseman) is a marginal HOFer when a shortstop with his exact career batting lie would be a slam dunk first ballot type. Your last post still compares shortstops with 90 OPS+ to first basemen with 150 OPS+. I'm saying if you took the list of all the shortstops who hit 120 (OPS+) and compared it to the list of all the first basemen who hit 120, the shortstop list would be significantly shorter and the average offensive career would also be significantly shorter.

Your point is valid for the 80 OPS+ shortstops...but we're talking about SS with manifest hitting skill.

Yes, SS that have a 120 OPS+ are fewer than first basemen that do that but that has very very little to do with injuries which is what I originally and still do object to. The statement I was responding to of yours had an ipso facto thing going on where healthiness of the position leads to more players being able to hit.

[Ubiquitous]

I would argue that the 14 win/year shortstops *DO* hang around for shorter timespans than the 14 W/year first basemen. You want some evidence of this?

Let's compare the career 125 OPS+ shortstops (+/- 5) with the career 125 OPS+ first basemen (also +/- 5). I didn't spring for Foreman's PI, so if someone could pull that data from B-Ref, I'd appreciate it.

I am betting what you will find is that even if you set a minimum games played req. to make our lists, the SS will have a lower average PA count than the first basemen.

Would you like to know how many SS over the last 60 years have an OPS+ greater than 120 and are retired? If you do the answer is zero. 28 firstbasemen have done it over the same 60 years.

[leewileyfan]

Ubi: If I am misinterpreting your zero SS, 60 years, retired entry, I apologize in advance. However, over the last 60 years, the following players have played a considerable portion of their careers and either amassed a career OPS+ =, > 120, or had a significant run of seasons where they surpassed 120 easily:

-Ernie Banks
-Alex Rodriguez
-Nomar Garciaparra
-Lou Boudreau
-Derek Jeter
--Larkin, 9 seasons + 1 @ 119

Poor Vern Stephens played abot 20-30 games too many, coming in, career @ 119.

The position of SS and 120 are not mutually exclusive.

[SABR Matt]

Yes, SS that have a 120 OPS+ are fewer than first basemen that do that but that has very very little to do with injuries which is what I originally and still do object to. The statement I was responding to of yours had an ipso facto thing going on where healthiness of the position leads to more players being able to hit.

Really? Should we check to see how many equivalent games or PA or defensive innings the average shortstop with a 100 OPS+ plays per season compared to the average first baseman with a 100 OPS+? I guarantee that the figure will be lower for SSs and that the injuries they suffer reflect in their batting line. I don't see what's so revolutionary about this idea...we've already seen and proven how switching to DH improves the batting performances of aging players by keeping them healthier...how corner outfieldes who switch to center field hit worse, etc. It seems fairly evident to me that playing a skill position is risky and that it impacts batting performance.

[SABR Matt]

Would you like to know how many SS over the last 60 years have an OPS+ greater than 120 and are retired? If you do the answer is zero. 28 firstbasemen have done it over the same 60 years.

Think that might have something to do with shortstop aging curves being steeper? Because I do. If you look at the average age when a shortstop begins to rapidly decline, it's around 31-32...for a first basemen it's closer to 36.

[Ubiquitous]

Ubi: If I am misinterpreting your zero SS, 60 years, retired entry, I apologize in advance. However, over the last 60 years, the following players have played a considerable portion of their careers and either amassed a career OPS+ =, > 120, or had a significant run of seasons where they surpassed 120 easily:

-Ernie Banks
-Alex Rodriguez
-Nomar Garciaparra
-Lou Boudreau
-Derek Jeter
--Larkin, 9 seasons + 1 @ 119

Poor Vern Stephens played abot 20-30 games too many, coming in, career @ 119.

The position of SS and 120 are not mutually exclusive.

Ernie played more games as a first basemen. ARod, Nomar, and Derek are all still active. The last 60 years only encompasses the very end of Lou's playing days.

[SABR Matt]

Just to be clear here...I am not claiming that the difference in offensive skill is entirely explained by injuries and position difficulty...far from it. I do, however, believe that element does help explain why if you take a first baseman who has hit 120 (OPS+) through age 30 and a shortstop who has done the same (of which there are considerably more than zero), you will find that the shortstop will finish will the lower career OPS+ than the first baseman. They had equivalent hitting talent going in, but the shortstop aged faster because he position was more demanding.

BTW, you're just flat out wrong about shortstops never hitting at least 120...Arky Vaughan retired with an OPS+ of 136. And let's not forget Honus Wagner (150).

Also...Ernie Banks played more equivalent games at short than first base...the total game count at first might be higher, but many more of those games were as a pinch hitter late in his career. There's a reason PCA ranks Banks as a SS, not a 1B.

[Ubiquitous]

Really? Should we check to see how many equivalent games or PA or defensive innings the average shortstop with a 100 OPS+ plays per season compared to the average first baseman with a 100 OPS+?

Yes, by all means do it. And you know what you'll discover? That you'll never get two good groups to study. Not because of injuries but because SS are not picked based on simply hitting. You'll simply never ever find any comparable groups at any point on the OPS+ chain for these two positions. Simply because the standards for hitting at first are much higher than they are at SS and to get the OPS+ low enough to start getting a good amount of SS is going to be a level that starts booting out lots of first basemen. First basemen that have a 95 OPS+ are not long for this world while SS that can hit 95 OPS+ start games regularly.



I guarantee that the figure will be lower for SSs and that the injuries they suffer reflect in their batting line. I don't see what's so revolutionary about this idea...we've already seen and proven how switching to DH improves the batting performances of aging players by keeping them healthier...how corner outfieldes who switch to center field hit worse, etc. It seems fairly evident to me that playing a skill position is risky and that it impacts batting performance.

Playing first base is not some walk in the park either. Bagwell, Pujols, McGwire, Lee, and many others do not go through life injury free. The original statement I responded to is simply wrong. We don't see more elite players at first because they stay healthier than SS. We see more elite hitters at first because hitting is the main criteria for that position whereas the SS position it is not the main criteria for selection and for many decades quite a few managers didn't give a fig if their SS could hit or not. In otherwords your second statement's general point is correct but the first statement is not.


Think that might have something to do with shortstop aging curves being steeper? Because I do. If you look at the average age when a shortstop begins to rapidly decline, it's around 31-32...for a first basemen it's closer to 36.

Until steroids came along all players began to age rapidly at that age. Nowadays, even without steroids, players are aging a bit better. Except for the truly elite no player, whether it be first basemen or SS, could stave off old age. Nor is it true that somehow SS in their 20's are putting up 150 OPS+ left and right and then falling apart at age 31 or so and putting up 60 OPS+ and dragging their OPS+ down. Most SS even at their peak don't get to the 120 to 130 OPS+ range.

[Ubiquitous]

BTW, you're just flat out wrong about shortstops never hitting at least 120...Arky Vaughan retired with an OPS+ of 136. And let's not forget Honus Wagner (150).

No, I'm not. Read what I wrote



There's a reason PCA ranks Banks as a SS, not a 1B.


Because you decided to?


I do, however, believe that element does help explain why if you take a first baseman who has hit 120 (OPS+) through age 30 and a shortstop who has done the same (of which there are considerably more than zero), you will find that the shortstop will finish will the lower career OPS+ than the first baseman.

Well, yeah because the average SS who is above 120 OPS+ (or really I'm talking about any such number since so few SS do get to that level) by the time they are 30 has an OPS+ probably around 120 while the average first basemen who has an OPS+ above 120 by the time they are 30 is probably at at least 130 or so.

And would you like to know how many SS in the last 80 years and retired have had an OPS+ at or above 120 by the time they reached 30? If you do the answer is 5. Firstbasemen at that level or above is 55



edit:

but many more of those games were as a pinch hitter late in his career.

That isn't how it works. If Ernie is pinch hitting then he doesn't get a defensive game tally for his appearance. He only gets the tally if he stays in the game and mans first base. Ernie had almost 1000 more innings at first base than at SS in his career.

[SABR Matt]

Yes, by all means do it. And you know what you'll discover? That you'll never get two good groups to study. Not because of injuries but because SS are not picked based on simply hitting. You'll simply never ever find any comparable groups at any point on the OPS+ chain for these two positions. Simply because the standards for hitting at first are much higher than they are at SS and to get the OPS+ low enough to start getting a good amount of SS is going to be a level that starts booting out lots of first basemen. First basemen that have a 95 OPS+ are not long for this world while SS that can hit 95 OPS+ start games regularly.

I understand the concept of selection based on non-hitting criteria, Ubi. I do not argue counter to that point anywhere in this or any other thread. I believe injuries and position difficulty have the effect of muting peaks that would otherwise have been more impressive, but doesn't mean I'm blind to the fact that the majority of shortstops are selected for defense first. In fact in several posts during this argument I have pointed out that the physical requirements of the SS position are almost mutually exclusive with the physical requirements of being a prolific hitter and that the same is not true for center fielders, which is why the top of most ranking charts are populated with a lot of CF (high defensive value AND prolific offense).

I think, however, that you're overstating yourself if you claim there is no way to study the impact of position difficulty on the tail end of the average career at any given position.


Playing first base is not some walk in the park either. Bagwell, Pujols, McGwire, Lee, and many others do not go through life injury free. The original statement I responded to is simply wrong. We don't see more elite players at first because they stay healthier than SS. We see more elite hitters at first because hitting is the main criteria for that position whereas the SS position it is not the main criteria for selection and for many decades quite a few managers didn't give a fig if their SS could hit or not. In otherwords your second statement's general point is correct but the first statement is not.

Playing baseball in general is not a walk in the park...but that's not the point. Playing shortstop is manifestly more dangerous than playing first base. To deny this is to be completely blind to the perfectly obvious. You might as well try to convince me that catchers don't suffer from their injuries more than other positions...that dog won't hunt. I believe you're response to my first statement is based on an incorrect reading of the meaning in that statement. Nowhere did I argue that injuries were the primary factor in deciding the hitting spectrum for the SS position. They most CERTAINLY do play a role in modulating the duration of the SS's peak, though, relative to the peaks of first basemen.


Until steroids came along all players began to age rapidly at that age. Nowadays, even without steroids, players are aging a bit better. Except for the truly elite no player, whether it be first basemen or SS, could stave off old age. Nor is it true that somehow SS in their 20's are putting up 150 OPS+ left and right and then falling apart at age 31 or so and putting up 60 OPS+ and dragging their OPS+ down. Most SS even at their peak don't get to the 120 to 130 OPS+ range.

I cite you...Nomar Garciaparra. As one recent example. I could also cite Barry Larkin, Jose Vidro, and Jeff Blauser as recent examples of middle infielders whose offensive eaks were above the 120 OPS+ line and very much shortened by injuries.

[Ubiquitous]

BTW in all of MLB history only 6 SS who are currently retired have gone into their 30's with OPS+ at 120 or better. If we include active players it balloons to 10 with Hanley Ramirez still having 5 years to go.

For firstbasemen it is 75 retired players and 89 including active players.


One more:
Ernie Banks PH 75 times in his career and only subbed other 20 times (1953 not included) in his career.

[SABR Matt]

No, I'm not. Read what I wrote

In that case, what you wrote is meaningless. Why single out the last sixty years...other than to bias the data in your favor?


Because you decided to?

Um...no. I made no individual decisions at all...I devised a simple criterion for position ranking...which position had the most EqG on defense got the nod. Simple, objective and a better estimate of real defensive playing time than games played.


Well, yeah because the average SS who is above 120 OPS+ (or really I'm talking about any such number since so few SS do get to that level) by the time they are 30 has an OPS+ probably around 120 while the average first basemen who has an OPS+ above 120 by the time they are 30 is probably at at least 130 or so.

I was not talking about a sample grouping...I was talking about two players who at age thirty had the same OPS+ (120).


And would you like to know how many SS in the last 80 years and retired have had an OPS+ at or above 120 by the time they reached 30? If you do the answer is 5. Firstbasemen at that level or above is 55

Still missing the point of the 20 posts on this subject Ubi...I am NOT arguing that shortstops only hit worse because they get injured...that's clearly not true. I'm arguing that the few shortstops who do hit likely what have hit better if not for playing a demanding position. ALl of the sabermetric studies conducted on position switches to the left on the difficulty spectrum conclude that moving left hurts the offense and increases the odds of injury.



edit:

That isn't how it works. If Ernie is pinch hitting then he doesn't get a defensive game tally for his appearance. He only gets the tally if he stays in the game and mans first base. Ernie had almost 1000 more innings at first base than at SS in his career.

Rather than assuming I'm a moron and do not understand the rules of baseball, you could try...NOT being insulting. Banks' appearances at first were influenced more by his having been pulled early from or inserted late into the line-up (as a pinch hitter who remained in the game late) than the straight game count ratio would attest. It's very close...but in terms of plays made as a ratio of team plays made at that position (summed over his career), Banks did more at short than he did at first. Barely.

[Ubiquitous]

In that case, what you wrote is meaningless. Why single out the last sixty years...other than to bias the data in your favor?


REally? Meaningless? So you're telling me that if I had extended the criteria a boatload of SS would come up?



I was not talking about a sample grouping...I was talking about two players who at age thirty had the same OPS+ (120).

So how is this meaningful? Two players? Just two players?





Still missing the point of the 20 posts on this subject Ubi...I am NOT arguing that shortstops only hit worse because they get injured...that's clearly not true. I'm arguing that the few shortstops who do hit likely what have hit better if not for playing a demanding position. ALl of the sabermetric studies conducted on position switches to the left on the difficulty spectrum conclude that moving left hurts the offense and increases the odds of injury.


Could you direct me to the studies that show the odds of injuries go up? I think you're tacking on a point that wasn't in those studies. Secondly I'm not even arguing that players would hit better if they didn't get injured. I've stated two things. One, that first base is not some cupcake position. Two, that the reason elite hitters man first has very little to do with SS getting injured.



Rather than assuming I'm a moron and do not understand the rules of baseball, you could try...NOT being insulting. Banks' appearances at first were influenced more by his having been pulled early from or inserted late into the line-up (as a pinch hitter who remained in the game late) than the straight game count ratio would attest. It's very close...but in terms of plays made as a ratio of team plays made at that position (summed over his career), Banks did more at short than he did at first. Barely.

When one thinks to know what the other is assuming one reveals their own insecurities.

Still not seeing it. Banks made 1000's and 1000's and 1000's more plays at first base than he ever did at SS. He played more innings at first base than he did at SS. It is simple fact that if you randomly picked any of his PA the odds are that you would be watching a PA in which Ernie Banks is manning first base.

[Ubiquitous]

I cite you...Nomar Garciaparra. As one recent example. I could also cite Barry Larkin, Jose Vidro, and Jeff Blauser as recent examples of middle infielders whose offensive eaks were above the 120 OPS+ line and very much shortened by injuries.

And I could cite you 10 to 15 guys at each position over the last 20 years who have had careers very much shortened because of injuries. Getting injured is not the exclusive domain of SS.

[leewileyfan]

Ernie played more games as a first basemen. ARod, Nomar, and Derek are all still active. The last 60 years only encompasses the very end of Lou's playing days.

Not to overly argumentative here; but does Lou's career starting >60 years ago but continuing into the 60 year circle disqualify him?

Ernie played a huge chunk at SS; and lots of us old geezers recall him as a SS who got moved to 1B based on the fact that Cub management wanted to extend his career anmd believed moving him to 1B would do that. Ernie was a solid SS, too.

A-Rod is effectively retired as a SS; and, notwithstanding that, was a 120+ performer when he played SS at that. Same goes for Nomar. Jeter's 120+ today speaks for itself as past tense on his resume.

As to the 60 year parameter, I was meticulous in omitting Arky Vaughan.

[SABR Matt]

REally? Meaningless? So you're telling me that if I had extended the criteria a boatload of SS would come up?

No...but why cherry pick just the last 60 years?


So how is this meaningful? Two players? Just two players?

It's NOT a statistical argument...it's a HYPOTHETICAL ONE.


Could you direct me to the studies that show the odds off injuries go up? I think you're tacking on a point that wasn't in those studies. Secondly I'm not even arguing that players would hit better if they didn't get injured. I've stated two things. One, that first base is not some cupcake position. Two, that the reason elite hitters man first has very little to do with SS getting injured.

How the heck ELSE would you explain the same player moving to a tougher position and routinely hitting worse at the tougher position? If not for fatigue and injuries.


When one thinks to know what the other is assuming one reveals their own insecurities.

When one deigns to MAKE assumptions about the meaning of another's argument rather than asking for clarification if it seems discontinuous...particularly when done with a paternalistic smart-ass tone, then one reveals his own arrogance.


Still not seeing it. Banks made 1000's and 1000's and 1000's more plays at first base than he ever did at SS. He played more innings at first base than he did at SS. It is simple fact that if you randomly picked any of his PA the odds are that you would be watching a PA in which Ernie Banks is manning first base.

thousands and thousands and thousands? Maybe if you count all the assisted putouts where he stood there and caught a throw from an infielder...LOL Counting true plays made, I'm quite certain Banks made many hundreds more plays at short than at first. It's also a simple fact that if you picked Banks best offensive seasons, you'd find the vast majority of them fell when he was a shortstop.

[SABR Matt]

And I could cite you 10 to 15 guys at each position over the last 20 years who have had careers very much shortened because of injuries. Getting injured is not the exclusive domain of SS.

No it's not...but it clearly happens more frequently at short than at first. And it's not particularly close.

[Ubiquitous]

Not to overly argumentative here; but does Lou's career starting >60 years ago but continuing into the 60 year circle disqualify him?

Ernie played a huge chunk at SS; and lots of us old geezers recall him as a SS who got moved to 1B based on the fact that Cub management wanted to extend his career anmd believed moving him to 1B would do that. Ernie was a solid SS, too.

A-Rod is effectively retired as a SS; and, notwithstanding that, was a 120+ performer when he played SS at that. Same goes for Nomar. Jeter's 120+ today speaks for itself as past tense on his resume.

As to the 60 year parameter, I was meticulous in omitting Arky Vaughan.

I am at a loss for finding a point to all this. What is the endgame here that makes this all meaningful?

[Ubiquitous]

No...but why cherry pick just the last 60 years?

Scramble the dates the facts remain the same. The vast majority of SS do not hit at that level.




It's NOT a statistical argument...it's a HYPOTHETICAL ONE.

So if it is hypothetical why are you arguing with me about it as if it was a fact?



How the heck ELSE would you explain the same player moving to a tougher position and routinely hitting worse at the tougher position? If not for fatigue and injuries.


I could explain it lots of ways but I wouldn't say that there have been studies done to prove them.



When one deigns to MAKE assumptions about the meaning of another's argument rather than asking for clarification if it seems discontinuous...particularly when done with a paternalistic smart-ass tone, then one reveals his own arrogance.


You really keep proving my statement true. You made a statement that Ernie Banks late in his career somehow puffed up his game totals for first base by pinch hitting. That is simply not true. The rest of the baggage on this little squabble is of your own making.





thousands and thousands and thousands? Maybe if you count all the assisted putouts where he stood there and caught a throw from an infielder...LOL Counting true plays made, I'm quite certain Banks made many hundreds more plays at short than at first. It's also a simple fact that if you picked Banks best offensive seasons, you'd find the vast majority of them fell when he was a shortstop.

"true plays"? This is what you originally said, "Also...Ernie Banks played more equivalent games at short than first base...the total game count at first might be higher, but many more of those games were as a pinch hitter late in his career." And in that statement you are absolutely wrong. Your argument in this statement is that Ernie Banks played more games at SS and the reason for this is because he pinched hit late in his career. That argument is false. You are now arguing that Ernie Banks is a SS because basically he was more valuable as a SS. Okay fine, nothing wrong with taking that stance, you are entitled to that opinion. Like I said PCA sees Ernie Banks as a SS because you decided that PCA should do that.




No it's not...but it clearly happens more frequently at short than at first. And it's not particularly close.

Okay, what are the rates for injuries for the various positions?

[RuthMayBond]

Matt, feel free to weigh in on Current Events discussions about your picks for who deserves 2009 Gold Gloves

[SABR Matt]

Scramble the dates the facts remain the same. The vast majority of SS do not hit at that level.[/QUOTE[

I never argued otherwise. But WTF do you care?

[QUOTE]So if it is hypothetical why are you arguing with me about it as if it was a fact? I'm not arguing as if it were fact...I'm arguing as if it were eminently LOGICAL. Which it is.


I could explain it lots of ways but I wouldn't say that there have been studies done to prove them. Go for it...let's see your brilliant explanations that make more sense than the one I put forward. And the B-Pro study that reached a conclusion on CF did indeed speculate on the reason being fatigue and increased rate of minor injuries due to the demands of the position.


You really keep proving my statement true. You made a statement that Ernie Banks late in his career somehow puffed up his game totals for first base by pinch hitting. That is simply not true. The rest of the baggage on this little squabble is of your own making. I didn't say every word, so that was my fault...but my point was that he did not play full games at the end of his career or contribute as much to his team's total defensive plays at first as he did at short.


"true plays"? This is what you originally said, "Also...Ernie Banks played more equivalent games at short than first base...the total game count at first might be higher, but many more of those games were as a pinch hitter late in his career." And in that statement you are absolutely wrong. Your argument in this statement is that Ernie Banks played more games at SS and the reason for this is because he pinched hit late in his career. That argument is false. You are now arguing that Ernie Banks is a SS because basically he was more valuable as a SS. Okay fine, nothing wrong with taking that stance, you are entitled to that opinion. Like I said PCA sees Ernie Banks as a SS because you decided that PCA should do that.

Again...there was no decision...I'm going straight off the numbers calculated during the PCA process. Your skeptical quotation around true plays suggests that either you are unfamiliar with how plays are counted in most uber-stat metrics for fielding or you think first basemen should get credit for catching throws from infielders...since I know you know how these uber-stats work, I can only conclude that you think first basemen should get credit for standing there and catching balls fielded by other players. Which I would find rather strange.

[Ubiquitous]

et al


Assumptions are the beginning of the research journey not the end of it.

[SABR Matt]

Threading the eye of the needle? I don't even know what you mean by that.

The only decision made was to estimate playing time for the purposes of calculating rate statistics by dividing a player's claim points at each position by team's total claim points and multiplying by the team's games played. EqG is a direct measure of the proportion of the team's total production at a position which came from any given player...it seems reasonable to me to base my rating of playing time at each position not on time on the field but on net productivity.

[SABR Matt]

Matt, feel free to weigh in on Current Events discussions about your picks for who deserves 2009 Gold Gloves

I will once I get the Forman database for 2009 and recalculate PCA for 2009.

[brett]

I am a little lost as to why people are looking for SS's with 120 OPS+'s?

Wasn't the question basically whether SS's play fewer games than first basemen because teams won't accept a SS when he loses some of his talent, or whether its because they tend to get beat up more?

First look at how many guys played at least 20 games at SS this year versus how many played at least 20 games at first. Or how many SS's played 150 versus first basemen. That would be a measure of in-season health.

How many SS's have played 1800 games there? How many first baseman have 1800 games there.

Second how many SS games are played by marginal win level SS's and how many 1B games are played by marginal win level first basemen.

That would be a measure of willingness to play a guy.

How many games are played by 100 OPS+ first basemen and how many by 60 OPS+ SS's?

[leewileyfan]

Maybe some historical context into the history of position evolution would help explain the perceived roles of 1B vs. SS.

1. In the pure deadball era [1901-1911], small ball reigned and batter contact was essential, the first baseman and third baseman being virtual bookends with similar responsibilities for defending against the bunt.

2. Well into the 1901-1941 period, clubs looked for left-handed throwing first basemen, the driving concept being conservation of lefty movement and energy expended in throwing to other bases and home plate. As late as the '30s, regulars at 1B were predominantly lefties and the dominance was surpassed only by the dominance of right-handed throwing catchers [for similar reasons].

3. Whether incited by realty variance problems or by pitcher protection in a predominantly right-handed batting game, ball parks generally had larger distances from home plate to the left field fould pole than to the right field foul pole.

Who's Who in ML Baseball, hawked outside all ballparks, was a great annual source of pictorials and data on each team, its players and its home ballparks. Around 1942, the only MLB park in which RF was further from the plate than LF was Fenway Park. Yankee Stadium, known for its cavernous dimensions ["the place where triples go to die"] was a park with a split personality.

"The House That Ruth Built" was indeed home for the Babe. The RF foul pole was 286' - 297' at various times; and the next marker in right-center was 344'. Left field, down the line, was 301', expanded to 357' and 407' and then to 461' near the momunments. Left-handed hitters were favored.

4. While there were some flashes of live ball impact [1912-1920], there was no explosion until 1921 and after. NOW power really became a factor for any club wanting to contend.

5. Power + physical size and strength began to be seen as synonymous; and those qualities + lefty hitting power became huge. Thus, size and strength, at a position that called for some stretching and reach, made 1B evolve as a power position. It didn't take too long for the small-ball advantages of lefty-throwing 1B to fade away; but the template having once been set, the model generally survived.

The stereotype of !B calling for powerful Klutzes is unfair and unfortunate. However, if you have a less-than-agile super star who can knock the cover off the ball, 1B is where you put him.

[brett]

Matt can you give me Amos Otis versus Carlos Beltran

I would like to see who is better both offensively and defensively if Beltran were to retire now.

[SABR Matt]

Here's Otis' card:

Yr Lg Off Def O-M D-M Wins
1978 AL 11.29 3.45 19.0 4.7 14.74
1971 AL 7.98 5.38 12.1 8.3 13.36
1970 AL 9.09 3.19 13.7 3.7 12.28
1974 AL 6.75 4.30 9.5 6.1 11.05
1973 AL 8.99 1.47 13.8 0.6 10.46
1979 AL 6.53 3.29 8.9 4.2 9.82
1976 AL 8.71 0.31 13.2 -1.8 9.02
1972 AL 7.04 1.45 10.3 0.6 8.49
1977 AL 4.72 2.65 5.9 3.1 7.37
1975 AL 4.34 1.90 5.2 1.6 6.24
1981 AL 3.07 3.16 3.5 4.7 6.23
1980 AL 2.66 2.38 2.5 3.1 5.04
1982 AL 3.32 1.63 3.3 1.3 4.95
1983 AL 0.84 1.74 -0.8 2.2 2.58

Career Offensive Marker: 117.1
Career Defensive Marker: 56.4

Carlos Beltran:

Yr Lg Off Def O-M D-M Wins
2006e NL 13.50 4.40 22.9 6.5 17.90
2001 AL 11.21 4.09 18.1 5.6 15.30
2008e NL 12.30 2.10 20.1 1.8 14.40
2007e NL 10.60 3.10 16.8 3.9 13.70
2003 AL 11.26 2.37 18.7 2.5 13.63
2002 AL 10.27 2.84 16.0 3.2 13.11
2005 NL 4.13 3.86 4.2 5.2 7.99
1999 AL 5.29 2.14 6.0 1.6 7.43
2009e NL 6.40 0.80 10.6 0.4 7.20
2004 NL 6.20 0.87 9.9 0.1 7.07
2004 AL 6.20 0.62 10.4 0.0 6.82
2000 AL 0.72 2.08 -1.2 2.8 2.80

Career Offensive Marker: 152.7
Career Defensive Marker: 44.0

Beltran is pretty clearly the better hitter, although at his peak Otis was pretty darned good offensively. Otis has the edge on defense and Beltran's fielding skills are fading badly of late, so it may stay that way.

Beltran is, IMHO the superior player now, though.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Matt,

What the deal with the rather large gap between Beltran's 6th and 7th best season?

[SABR Matt]

It's actually a large gap between his 7th and 8th best season (2004 is broken into two pieces because he was traded)...and it appears the seasons falling below the line set by 2002's performance were either when he was very young and still learning how to hit (1999, 2000) or shortened by injury (2009)...with the exception of his TERRIBLE first year as a Met...and I don't to this day know why he did so poorly with the bat that year. New York fans thought he was choking under the bright lights...but I tend to doubt that was the cause...he did fabulously in the post-season in 2004. Something else must have happened in 2005 that screwed him up.

[SavoyBG]

How could anybody who is watching A.J. Burnet here in the first inning possibly buy into DIPS?

Every strike this guy is throwing is being hit like it was shot out of a Bazooka.

According to DIPS these hits are not his fault, because they are not home runs.

[SABR Matt]

No theory designed to measure the probable distribution of events for a pitcher over a chunk of innings approaching the size of a full season at least is going to look perfect if viewed from the perspective of a single game, single appearance. When you start dismissing theory backed by real research and solid analysis and logic based on a single game, you have failed to grasp the fundamental concept of statistics and how they work to give us information we wouldn't otherwise see.

I could just as easily point to any of a number of starts in which the pitcher literally gave up 4, 5, 6 bloop and dink hits in a row and say "how could anyone watching this game believe that ball in play hits are the pitcher's fault? Everything these guys hit is a duck snort or a 40 hopper squeaking into the outfield!"

I remember a start made by Felix Hernandez back in the first couple of months of 2006 or 2007 in which he gave up a sequence of hits that went something like:

Infield single to third
Bunt Single to the catcher
Sac Bunt
Bloop single over second base (2 runs score)
Infield single to short
Seeing eye single through the third base hole (1 run scores)
K
infield single to first, loading the bases
Monstrous grand slam home run - Felix out of the game.

Are you really going to sit here and tell me all of those hits were Felix pitching poorly?

[SavoyBG]

No theory designed to measure the probable distribution of events for a pitcher over a chunk of innings approaching the size of a full season at least is going to look perfect if viewed from the perspective of a single game, single appearance. When you start dismissing theory backed by real research and solid analysis and logic based on a single game, you have failed to grasp the fundamental concept of statistics and how they work to give us information we wouldn't otherwise see.

I could just as easily point to any of a number of starts in which the pitcher literally gave up 4, 5, 6 bloop and dink hits in a row and say "how could anyone watching this game believe that ball in play hits are the pitcher's fault? Everything these guys hit is a duck snort or a 40 hopper squeaking into the outfield!"

I remember a start made by Felix Hernandez back in the first couple of months of 2006 or 2007 in which he gave up a sequence of hits that went something like:

Infield single to third
Bunt Single to the catcher
Sac Bunt
Bloop single over second base (2 runs score)
Infield single to short
Seeing eye single through the third base hole (1 run scores)
K
infield single to first, loading the bases
Monstrous grand slam home run - Felix out of the game.

Are you really going to sit here and tell me all of those hits were Felix pitching poorly?


No, I'm gonna tell you that you have to use some formula of earned runs combined with unearned runs. DIPS does not work. It seems to work with enough pitchers just enough of the time that you guys are fooled into believing that it works most of the time with almost every pitcher.

Unlike clutch hitting, which doesn't seem to mean much for almost all hitters, clutch pitching definitely means something. Some pitchers are just consistently tougher with runners in scoring position. Some pitchers consistently prevent extra base hits better than other pitchers. That's why (earned) runs allowed are really the correct measure of a pitcher's effectiveness.

The game is won or lost by runs scored, not by baserunners allowed.

If you want to use some sort of a team defense rating to adjust each pitcher's (earned) runs allowed up or down some, you can do that, but DIPS DOES NOT WORK.

[SABR Matt]

It's like talking to a wall.

Earned runs aren't going to screen out games like the one I just described to you. And I have a mountain of recent research by many dozens of sabermetricians that says DIPS (modified to account for the measurable impacts of pitchers on the BIP event distribution) DOES work. Very well in fact.

So thanks for your input, but I think I'll pass on stepping 20 years back in time.

[STLCards2]

How could anybody who is watching A.J. Burnet here in the first inning possibly buy into DIPS?

Every strike this guy is throwing is being hit like it was shot out of a Bazooka.

According to DIPS these hits are not his fault, because they are not home runs.

Current DIPS theory states that there is much hit-luck invloved in BABIP. This is proven by the huge year-to-year fluctuations that most pitchers have in BABIP despite playing on the same defense with other skills remaining fairly consistant (K rate, etc.). In order to see a player's true BABIP ability, they need a lot of BF to weed out he hit luck. Very, very, very few believe that pitchers have no ability to prevent hits on balls in play - only that it is more limited than once thought, and without enough sample size, drowned out by noise. Matt is one who always includes true BABIP reduction in his anaysis. Also very few would argue that pitchers don't have games in which they realisticaly get rocked with bad location, etc. What DIPS will say is: over the course of this season, Burnetts' BABIP is probably not too far away from the league average and within the range of true BABI ability (even the best all-time BABIP reducers are withing .02 of league average). If it is not in that range, he probably got a lot of hit luck and or/good or bad defense.


As far as Burnett and Hernandez, one game full of bloops or one game full of rockets does not give any indication of overall BABIP ability. Getting rocked indicates poor pitching that game, but does not mean the overall premise of DIPS is wrong. Giving up 5 bloop hits shows that Hernandez' hit luck that game was poor, but says nothing about his overall BABIP ability either.

[SavoyBG]

It's like talking to a wall. .

Yes, that's what i was thinking about you.



Earned runs aren't going to screen out games like the one I just described to you. .

Yes they are. The bottom line is that the balls hit off of the pitcher, whether they were bloops or rocket shots, ended up in runs being scored. The nature of baseball is that bloop fly balls that travel 140 feet are usually a good thing for the offense.

The hitters who got those hits in the game that you described are credited the same on those hits as the hits that Burnet gave up in the first tonight. You don't seem to have a probem crediting hitters for any kind of a hit, so why would you have a problem with blaming a pitcher for any kind of earned runs?

DIPS DOES NOT WORK.

[STLCards2]

Some pitchers consistently prevent extra base hits better than other pitchers. That's why (earned) runs allowed are really the correct measure of a pitcher's effectiveness.

.

Sabermetrics will not deny that. Prevention of XBHonBAP is largely a result a good GB/FB rate and somewhat a good "true" BABIP rate to begin with. Stranding runners seems to be correlated with 1. K rate and 2. in the case of a few pitchers, differences in approach between stretch and windup. Neither is contradicted by DIPS theory. DIPS theory will statem however, that irregulary high or low LOB% (like in the 50's or 80's) is likely somewhat due to luck.

[STLCards2]

Yes, that's what i was thinking about you.



Yes they are. The bottom line is that the balls hit off of the pitcher, whether they were bloops or rocket shots, ended up in runs being scored. The nature of baseball is that bloop fly balls that travel 140 feet are usually a good thing for the offense.

.

BABIP rate is much, much more consistant for hitters year-to-year than pitchers, and there actually are some studies/methods being done to isolate hit luck from batters in order to adjust their stats.

Oops- quoted the wrong portion of your post!

[SavoyBG]

Current DIPS theory states that there is much hit-luck invloved in BABIP. This is proven by the huge year-to-year fluctuations that most pitchers have in BABIP despite playing on the same defense with other skills remaining fairly consistant (K rate, etc.). In order to see a player's true BABIP ability, they need a lot of BF to weed out he hit luck. Very, very, very few believe that pitchers have no ability to prevent hits on balls in play - only that it is more limited than once thought, and without enough sample size, drowned out by noise. Matt is one who always includes true BABIP reduction in his anaysis. Also very few would argue that pitchers don't have games in which they realisticaly get rocked with bad location, etc. What DIPS will say is: over the course of this season, Burnetts' BABIP is probably not too far away from the league average and within the range of true BABI ability (even the best all-time BABIP reducers are withing .02 of league average). If it is not in that range, he probably got a lot of hit luck and or/good or bad defense.


As far as Burnett and Hernandez, one game full of bloops or one game full of rockets does not give any indication of overall BABIP ability. Getting rocked indicates poor pitching that game, but does not mean the overall premise of DIPS is wrong. Giving up 5 bloop hits shows that Hernandez' hit luck that game was poor, but says nothing about his overall BABIP ability either.

I have no interest in attempting to measure ability, only in measuring past effectiveness.

Maybe that's the problem. Matt and these other guys are all trying to predict how good a pitcher might be in the future, rather than to simply measure how effective he has been in the past.

[STLCards2]

I have no interest in attempting to measure ability, only in measuring past effectiveness.

Maybe that's the problem. Matt and these other guys are all trying to predict how good a pitcher might be in the future, rather than to simply measure how effective he has been in the past.

I would agree that predicting future performance is the most effective way to impliment a fundamental DIPS theory. Since peripherals are the most repeatable, they are the best at predicting value.

All you need is enough innings for a pitcher and defensive support adjustements to get a pretty good feel on a pitcher's career ability/production(well along with park adjustments and leveraging adjusments). The problem is season to season, when batted ball distribution can fluctuate wildly. DIPS attempts to adjust for this. Of course some DIPS machines over simplified it by ignoring things like GB/FB rate (XBH and GBDP), controlling the running game, situational pitching (however much of it that exists), true BABIP reduction, and a few other thing. That has largely been "fixed." Hence the birth of WAR and WSAB, and Matt's own DNRA+. If you want to go after the fundamental DIPS crowd, Matt is the wrong target, he always considers the factors I mentioned above in his methods.

[SavoyBG]

BABIP rate is much, much more consistant for hitters year-to-year than pitchers, and there actually are some studies/methods being done to isolate hit luck from batters in order to adjust their stats.

Oops- quoted the wrong portion of your post!

So maybe the luck for pitchers has a lot more to do with random chance on which batters they are facing at what times then on their fielders.

The other huge problem here is BABIP

A statistician would be laughed at if he judged a batter only on batting average or batting average on balls in play. Everybody knows that SLG% is more important than batting average, but yet DIPS judges old time pitchers purely on batting average on balls in play with no regard for doubles and triples.

DIPS DOES NOT WORK.

[STLCards2]

So maybe the luck for pitchers has a lot more to do with random chance on which batters they are facing at what times then on their fielders.

The other huge problem here is BABIP

A statistician would be laughed at if he judged a batter only on batting average or batting average on balls in play. Everybody knows that SLG% is more important than batting average, but yet DIPS judges old time pitchers purely on batting average on balls in play with no regard for doubles and triples.

DIPS DOES NOT WORK.

Well, the problem of a pitcher facing more or less than their fair share of good/bad hitters can and does get accounted for with leveraging indexes. There is no reason to not include quality of batter faced variables, hit luck variables and defense suppor variables. They all have their say in the outcome.

Slg% is more important than batting average, agreed. That does not mean that we should take everybody's BABIP at face value. Also, who is only judging a pitcher based on BABIP? In fact, fundamentalist DIPS fans will judge a pitcher based on just about anything except BABIP. In fact some (the most hardcore) would completely get rid of any BABIP consideration if possible. I have never heard of a sinlge fan, saber or not, use BABIP as the only criteria to judge a player's value or ability.

[SavoyBG]

Well, the problem of a pitcher facing more or less than their fair share of good/bad hitters can and does get accounted for with leveraging indexes. There is no reason to not include quality of batter faced variables, hit luck variables and defense suppor variables. They all have their say in the outcome.

Slg% is more important than batting average, agreed. That does not mean that we should take everybody's BABIP at face value. Also, who is only judging a pitcher based on BABIP? In fact, fundamentalist DIPS fans will judge a pitcher based on just about anything except BABIP. In fact some (the most hardcore) would completely get rid of any BABIP consideration if possible. I have never heard of a sinlge fan, saber or not, use BABIP as the only criteria to judge a player's value or ability.

It's not the only criteria, but it's a component of when DIPS is used on old time pitchers with nothing done to allow for the fact that some pitchers allow a lot more (or a lot fewer) doubles and triples.

If you simply use runs allowed and earned runs allowed it gets rid of all of these problems.

I much prefer the small amount of luck that could be involved, over time, with runs allowed, than the margin of error involved with not accounting for the difference in doubles and triples allowed rates of various pitchers, and also clutch pitching, controling the running game, and other things that can't be factored in when using DIPS for a pitcher in 1922.

I want to know how many rums were allowed, not how many baserunners might be allowed in the future under different circunstances.

[STLCards2]

It's not the only criteria, but it's a component of when DIPS is used on old time pitchers with nothing done to allow for the fact that some pitchers allow a lot more (or a lot fewer) doubles and triples.

If you simply use runs allowed and earned runs allowed it gets rid of all of these problems.

I much prefer the small amount of luck that could be involved, over time, with runs allowed, than the margin of error involved with not accounting for the difference in doubles and triples allowed rates of various pitchers, and also clutch pitching, controling the running game, and other things that can't be factored in when using DIPS for a pitcher in 1922.

I want to know how many rums were allowed, not how many baserunners might be allowed in the future under different circunstances.

I would agree that given a long career, ignoring everything except for the DIPS components (K rate, BB rate, HR rate) will be less accurate than including everything (while adjusting for defense and park.) Why? Well, for most long-termed pitchers, BABIP luck will come close to evening out and leveraging is fairly stable(esp. post WW2). For a single season,however, hit distribution could be extremely significant, and effect run prevetion more than controling running game, XBH, etc.

[SavoyBG]

Can you believe that Hughes shook off Posada and then threw a belt high fastball to Vlade with a 1-2 count after he just swung at a curve in the dirt?

[SABR Matt]

Let me boil down my position as simply as possible.

1) It is not true that a statistic that does well predicting the future is a worse tool than one that summarizes the past for accounting for value. Why? There's a *REASON* that the predictive tool predicts better than the non-predictive tool. It represents the real component of the outcomes which can be attributed to a particular pitcher. Fundamentally, the reason sabermetricians focus so hard on the stats that seem to have enhanced predictive skill over the rest of the potential candidates for use is not just for making projections for 2010. It's also an indiciation that something about that statistic is boiling down a complex and biased data source into component parts...the component the pitcher contributed and the component influenced by context.

2) We all recognize that parks are a context. One could use the same logic that SavoyBG uses to fight DIPS on park adjustments. It's just "part of the game" that some parks are smaller than others. If a pitcher were any good, he'd adjust to his circumstances and defeat any park with a change in approach. And a bloop home run is always good for the offense and bad for the defense...the fact that some parks allow more bloop home runs doesn't negate that.

I hope we can all see how pregnant with potential to derail future analysis that kind of logic is. If we accept that ballparks are a context and league conditions are a context and strength of schedule is a context...then we MUST accept that DEFENSE...is also a context. If you pitch in front of a crappy defense, you're GOING to give up more hits when they put it in play than if you pitch for a good one. Don't believe me...you ask JARROD WASHBURN. THe man has been essentially the same gosh darned pitcher for 7 years now...and in that time he's pitched in front of good defenses and bad ones...and here is his ERA+ line in that time:

Year ERA+
2002 141
2003 99
2004 97
2005 132
2006 95
2007 100
2008 90
2009 164 (SEA)
2009 63 (DET)

Anyone care to guess which seasons he pitched in front of above average defenses? YEP! 2002, 2005, and 2009 (SEA). Other than 2004 (injuries screwed him up then), he was an IDENTICAL pitcher this whole time...those wild ERA swings...almost entirely the fault of his DEFENSES...not him. He has always been and continues to be a league average pitcher. And any pitching metric which does not account for team defense is missing a vitally important contextual variable.

3) Pure DIPS has been more or less thoroughly REJECTED by any sabermetrician worth his research computer. Pure DIPS as defined by McCracken in 2001 was overstated and subsequent research by people who have always understood the value of continuing to question assumptions has proven him partially incorrect. Myself and every other current sabermetrician now use DIPS theory not in its' distilled form but in a modified form that makes every attempt to quantify the real things that pitchers do to influence their defenses.

[SavoyBG]

Let me boil down my position as simply as possible.

1) It is not true that a statistic that does well predicting the future is a worse tool than one that summarizes the past for accounting for value. Why? There's a *REASON* that the predictive tool predicts better than the non-predictive tool. It represents the real component of the outcomes which can be attributed to a particular pitcher. Fundamentally, the reason sabermetricians focus so hard on the stats that seem to have enhanced predictive skill over the rest of the potential candidates for use is not just for making projections for 2010. It's also an indiciation that something about that statistic is boiling down a complex and biased data source into component parts...the component the pitcher contributed and the component influenced by context.



But I have no interest in predicting the future. I only care about assessing value for the past. If a pitcher happened to get lucky....or unlucky over the course of a season, that's the way it goes.

I don't buy that the difference in fielders from team to team on a major league level have a bigger effect on the outcome of balls in play than the pitchers do.

Something like 85% of all plays are routine.

And then there's the problem for older seasons of assuming that all pitchers on the same staff allow the same rate of doubles and triples. I know that's not true because I've gone back and charted extra base hits against pitchers on a team for a season and the difference was huge.

[STLCards2]

Something like 85% of all plays are routine.

And then there's the problem for older seasons of assuming that all pitchers on the same staff allow the same rate of doubles and triples. I know that's not true because I've gone back and charted extra base hits against pitchers on a team for a season and the difference was huge.

Yes - but the remaining 15% still make up a lot of BIP over a season, and even slight luck distribution can have real, statisticaly meaningful impact on run prevention. A single roller than Brendan Ryan gets to that Jeter doesn't can equal half of a ERA+ point. You allow one lack-o-range ball through a poor middle infiled every other start, and your ERA+ can decrease by 15 points!

All analysts should consider GB/FB rate, which is the leading contributor to XBH prevention. Any DIPS measure that ignores GB/FB rate is lacking, I agree. But most new metrics that are even somewhat DIPS based (WAR, PCA, WSAB) account for that. Outside of the vast minority of McCracken-like DIPS proponents, who is saying that XBH prevention isn't "real" or completely luck?

[SavoyBG]

Yes - but the remaining 15% still make up a lot of BIP over a season, and even slight luck distribution can have real, statisticaly meaningful impact on run prevention. A single roller than Brendan Ryan gets to that Jeter doesn't can equal half of a ERA+ point. You allow one lack-o-range ball through a poor middle infiled every other start, and your ERA+ can decrease by 15 points!

All analysts should consider GB/FB rate, which is the leading contributor to XBH prevention. Any DIPS measure that ignores GB/FB rate is lacking, I agree. But most new metrics that are even somewhat DIPS based (WAR, PCA, WSAB) account for that. Outside of the vast minority of McCracken-like DIPS proponents, who is saying that XBH prevention isn't "real" or completely luck?


You can't get GB/FB rates for 1922.

[STLCards2]

You can't get GB/FB rates for 1922.

But DIPS is only being functionaly applied to post PBP data pitchers. For pitchers previous to the PBP era, no working/ popular, career-value model ignores XBH prevention either. Matt's PCA does not, Smith's WAR does not ,and neither does WSAB. Neither does James' Win Shares. Or BP's WARP3.

Most systems that try to evaluate older players adjust for park, defense, and leveraging. Name a single respected career value metric that has stripped out XBH prevention from pre-PBP pitchers. I can't think of one. I guess Fangraphs has FIP for older pitchers (right?), but I have never seen anybody use pre-PBP FIP to make a case for career value/production.

If your argument is that DIPS cannot be perfectly applied to pre-PBP pitchers due to lack of hit-trajectory, etc. fine, that is true. But that is far different from using Josh Beckett as the example as why DIPS doesn't work.

[SavoyBG]

But DIPS is only being functionaly applied to post PBP data pitchers. For pitchers previous to the PBP era, no working/ popular, career-value model ignores XBH prevention either. Matt's PCA does not, Smith's WAR does not ,and neither does WSAB. Neither does James' Win Shares. Or BP's WARP3.

Most systems that try to evaluate older players adjust for park, defense, and leveraging. Name a single respected career value metric that has stripped out XBH prevention from pre-PBP pitchers. I can't think of one. I guess Fangraphs has FIP for older pitchers (right?), but I have never seen anybody use pre-PBP FIP to make a case for career value/production.

If your argument is that DIPS cannot be perfectly applied to pre-PBP pitchers due to lack of hit-trajectory, etc. fine, that is true. But that is far different from using Josh Beckett as the example as why DIPS doesn't work.


Who used josh beckett?

I'm mainly interested in evaluating players from long ago. I don't even know who most modern players are. I couldn't even name one player on several of today's teams.

XBH prevention is not needed when you simply use runs and earned runs allowed, and your results will be just as accurate or more accurate for assessing VALUE.