Dick Allen's HoF credentials compared to Shoeless Joe's

[538280]

About Joe Jackson (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/player.php?p=jacksjo01), I was thinking a bit about Dick Allen (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/player.php?p=allendi01)recently and I realized that most of the people who support Joe Jackson going into the HOF are also those who oppose Dick Allen going in. Personally, I would consider Allen ostensibly superior to Jackson only on his playing credentials, but that's another story. My issue is that the main case against Allen, of course, is his clubhouse diviseiveness, being a jerk with teammates, and that sort of off the field stuff. It stikes me as extremely contradictory to make such an argument against Allen, then turn around and defend Joe Jackson, whose crime against the game was FAR worse and more serious than anything Allen did.

Sure, Allen may have been a jerk, and if you want to keep him out of the HOF for that then okay, but there's no way you should be supporting Joe Jackson when you take that position with Allen.

[Bill Burgess]

Apples/Oranges. Their cases are unrelated.

For one, Jackson is suspect for about 5 games, at the most, happening in a 10 day time frame. Richie's temperamental issues extended over around 15 years! Not the same scale at all.

And I'm surprised you fail to mention such a drastic difference. I think most here take each case separately. I'm surprised you failed to dredge up the most obvious comparison. The cases for Rose/Jackson, which I don't see as related at all either.

Incidentally, I do not hold his issues against Richie Allen. I don't support him for the Hall due to his lack of consistency, and he had a hard time finding his position. 1B 807 games, 3B 652 games, OF 256 games.

Bill

[538280]

Apples/Oranges. Their cases are unrelated.

No they're not. They're both players who are basically being kept out of the HOF for off the field reasons.

For one, Jackson is suspect for about 5 games, at the most, happening in a 10 day time frame. Richie's temperamental issues extended over around 15 years! Not the same scale at all.

Those five games were the World Series! Did Allen ever cost his team the World Series? I would think what Jackson did was FAR worse not only for the integrity of the game (obviously), but also for his team.

And I'm surprised you fail to mention such a drastic difference. I think most here take each case separately. I'm surprised you failed to dredge up the most obvious comparison. The cases for Rose/Jackson, which I don't see as related at all either.

I don't support either Rose or Jackson for the HOF. I have no sympathy for either of them. You probably think that way because I'm much more enamored with Rose the player.

Incidentally, I do not hold his issues against Richie Allen. I don't support him for the Hall due to his lack of consistency, and he had a hard time finding his position. 1B 807 games, 3B 652 games, OF 256 games.

Bill

He had a hard time finding his position due to injuries, and despite that his career is of decent length, and he was one of the best hitters of all time, as shown by OPS+, which he is 20th all time in. I don't see where you find Allen had a lack of consistency. That may be his reputation, but he certainly didn't play like it. Please show me where exactly he had an off year 1964-1972, which is the meat of his career. His only prime season in which he missed a ton of time to injury was 1973.

[Bill Burgess]

No they're not. They're both players who are basically being kept out of the HOF for off the field reasons.

Those five games were the World Series! Did Allen ever cost his team the World Series? I would think what Jackson did was FAR worse not only for the integrity of the game (obviously), but also for his team.

One WS vs. pennants. ????

I don't support either Rose or Jackson for the HOF. I have no sympathy for either of them. You probably think that way because I'm much more enamored with Rose the player.

He had a hard time finding his position due to injuries, and despite that his career is of decent length, and he was one of the best hitters of all time, as shown by OPS+, which he is 20th all time in. I don't see where you find Allen had a lack of consistency. That may be his reputation, but he certainly didn't play like it. Please show me where exactly he had an off year 1964-1972, which is the meat of his career. His only prime season in which he missed a ton of time to injury was 1973.

Richie WAS NOT one of the great hitters. His was unfulfilled potential. When he arrived in Philly in 1963, he and Art Mahafey were supposed to lead us out of the wilderness to the promised land. Never found their groove. Manager Gene Mauch was too tense to lead us where we wanted to go. Like Billy Martin, but not the winner Martin was.

Richie had one of the most beautiful physiques ever. Much like the later Jose Canseco. He played 3B when I got to see him, but I think his failure to find his position has really hurt his legacy. Fans like to pigeon-hole players with an easy ID. But fans have a hard time deciding where he belonged. Killebrew was the same way, as was Rose. Would have made a better impression if they had played 80% of their games at a single position.

Richie didn't have the super seasons of Albert Belle, Frank Thomas or some of the others. He had 2 good seasons (1966/1972), but nothing which would compel his induction to the Hall.


Year Ag Tm Lg G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG TB+
--------------+---+----+----+----+---+--+---+----+---+--+---+---+-----
1963 21 PHI NL 10 24 6 7 2 1 0 2 0 0 0 5 .292 .280 .458
1964 22 PHI NL 162 632 125 201 38 13 29 91 3 4 67 138 .318 .382 .557 352
1965 23 PHI NL 161 619 93 187 31 14 20 85 15 2 74 150 .302 .375 .494 306
1966 24 PHI NL 141 524 112 166 25 10 40 110 10 6 68 136 .317 .396 .632 331
1967 25 PHI NL 122 463 89 142 31 10 23 77 20 5 75 117 .307 .404 .566 262
1968 26 PHI NL 152 521 87 137 17 9 33 90 7 7 74 161 .263 .352 .520 271
1969 27 PHI NL 118 438 79 126 23 3 32 89 9 3 64 144 .288 .375 .573 251
1970 28 STL NL 122 459 88 128 17 5 34 101 5 4 71 118 .279 .377 .560 257
1971 29 LAD NL 155 549 82 162 24 1 23 90 8 1 93 113 .295 .395 .468 257
1972 30 CHW AL 148 506 90 156 28 5 37 113 19 8 99 126 .308 .420 .603 305
1973 31 CHW AL 72 250 39 79 20 3 16 41 7 2 33 51 .316 .394 .612 153
1974 32 CHW AL 128 462 84 139 23 1 32 88 7 1 57 89 .301 .375 .563 260
1975 33 PHI NL 119 416 54 97 21 3 12 62 11 2 58 109 .233 .327 .385 160
1976 34 PHI NL 85 298 52 80 16 1 15 49 11 4 37 63 .268 .346 .480 143
1977 35 OAK AL 54 171 19 41 4 0 5 31 1 3 24 36 .240 .330 .351 60

[Brad Harris]

This is one individual who would elect both Allen and Jackson. Allen's career certainly does merit election. Jackson's "crimes" against baseball have been paid for in full; he should be eligible for election now. He's been dead more than half a century. Stop punishing the man.

[Fuzzy Bear]

About Joe Jackson, I was thinking a bit about Dick Allen recently and I realized that most of the people who support Joe Jackson going into the HOF are also those who oppose Dick Allen going in. Personally, I would consider Allen ostensibly superior to Jackson only on his playing credentials, but that's another story. My issue is that the main case against Allen, of course, is his clubhouse diviseiveness, being a jerk with teammates, and that sort of off the field stuff. It stikes me as extremely contradictory to make such an argument against Allen, then turn around and defend Joe Jackson, whose crime against the game was FAR worse and more serious than anything Allen did.

Sure, Allen may have been a jerk, and if you want to keep him out of the HOF for that then okay, but there's no way you should be supporting Joe Jackson when you take that position with Allen.

Concur 100%.

Allen was a jerk at his worst, and had alcohol problems. Jackson and his cohorts brought about the dishonest outcome of a World Series, and that's forever, not just for the best-of-nine game period of the 1919 Series. Forever, in the books, are the 1919 Reds as champions, tainted by scandal. What Jackson and the Black Sox did was PERMANENT, not just for a few games.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Richie had one of the most beautiful physiques ever. Much like the later Jose Canseco. He played 3B when I got to see him, but I think his failure to find his position has really hurt his legacy. Fans like to pigeon hole players with an easy ID. But fans have a hard time deciding where he belonged. Killebrew was the same way, as was Rose. Would have made a better impression if they had played 80% of their games at a single position.

Richie didn't have the super seasons of Albert Belle, Frank Thomas or some of the others. He had 2 good seasons (1966/1972), but nothing which would compel his induction to the Hall.




I can't agree with this analysis at all.

Allen's seasons are in the context of the worst offensive era in baseball history. His seasons are truly impressive; his combination of power AND average is exceptionally impressive for a player in a league which failed to produce 10 players hitting over .300.

Allen's "failure to find his position" just isn't the case. Allen found his position, and it was third base. What happened was that in late 1967, Allen was pushing a car that wouldn't start, and his hand went through the headlight. The broken glass caused injury to the nerves in his throwing hand, which led to his move off 3B.

[leecemark]

Apples/Oranges. Their cases are unrelated.

For one, Jackson is suspect for about 5 games, at the most, happening in a 10 day time frame. Richie's temperamental issues extended over around 15 years! Not the same scale at all.

And I'm surprised you fail to mention such a drastic difference. I think most here take each case separately. I'm surprised you failed to dredge up the most obvious comparison. The cases for Rose/Jackson, which I don't see as related at all either.

Incidentally, I do not hold his issues against Richie Allen. I don't support him for the Hall due to his lack of consistency, and he had a hard time finding his position. 1B 807 games, 3B 652 games, OF 256 games.

Bill


--Jackson had clubhouse issues as big a Allen's without even considering his involvement in the Black Sox scandal. Connie Mack gave up on him despite his obvious talent because he was a disruption. The Indians moved him even though he was probably the second best hitter in baseball at that point. He was known for a lack of hustle and dedication, just coasting along on his talent - much like Allen. Also, why is Allen's switching IF corners a big issue for you, but Jackson switching OF corners is not. I really don't see any difference myself.

[LouGehrig]

How interesting.

If not being able to find a defensive position is to be held against Mr. Allen, then how is that different from David Ortiz or Edgar Martinez not being able to play a defensive position?

Dick Allen was a wonderful teammate according to some who were on his team.

How can anyone not admire an individual who rarely reported for spring training on time and then when there was a strike, was the only player to report for spring training?

[JimAbbott]

Why on earth would anyone even debate Dick Allen's worthiness of being in the hall on stats alone let alone his clubhouse persona. Who cares how he was in the clubhouse, he was a journeyman ballplayer totally and completely unworthy of the hall based on numbers alone. It's a joke. This is like debating Howard Johnson or someone like that

[KCGHOST]

Joe Jackson has reached an almost legendary status of mythic proportions. Most people when confronted with legend and fact opt for legion. Richie Allen was simply a living hemorrhoid.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Why on earth would anyone even debate Dick Allen's worthiness of being in the hall on stats alone let alone his clubhouse persona. Who cares how he was in the clubhouse, he was a journeyman ballplayer totally and completely unworthy of the hall based on numbers alone. It's a joke. This is like debating Howard Johnson or someone like that
Because baseball is actually more than what you see on the back of a baseball card.

[JimAbbott]

If you start putting in Dick Allen type dudes then you'll need to put in the likes of: Ellis Burks, Dewey Evans, darrell evans, murphy, Norm Cash, Greg Vaughn, Lee May, Gaetti, Colavito, chili davis, Matt Williams, George Foster, Jack Clark, Don Baylor, Tino, Boog Powell....etc etc. talk about watering down the hall. Forget about Allen. He's no better than any above mentioned. Dave Parker was way way better. I can think of minimum 50 guys more worthy than Allen. I dont get the obsession with the journeyman

[Honus Wagner Rules]

If you start putting in Dick Allen type dudes then you'll need to put in the likes of: Ellis Burks, Dewey Evans, darrell evans, murphy, Norm Cash, Greg Vaughn, Lee May, Gaetti, Colavito, chili davis, Matt Williams, George Foster, Jack Clark, Don Baylor, Tino, Boog Powell....etc etc. talk about watering down the hall. Forget about Allen. He's no better than any above mentioned. Dave Parker was way way better. I can think of minimum 50 guys more worthy than Allen. I dont get the obsession with the journeyman
OK, name 50 guys. And don't just list 50 guys, tell us why they are better than Allen with substantial evidence. Dave Parker? Parker had a career 121 OPS+ and Allen had a career 156 OPS+. 'Nuff said...

[digglahhh]

If you start putting in Dick Allen type dudes then you'll need to put in the likes of: Ellis Burks, Dewey Evans, darrell evans, murphy, Norm Cash, Greg Vaughn, Lee May, Gaetti, Colavito, chili davis, Matt Williams, George Foster, Jack Clark, Don Baylor, Tino, Boog Powell....etc etc. talk about watering down the hall. Forget about Allen. He's no better than any above mentioned. Dave Parker was way way better. I can think of minimum 50 guys more worthy than Allen. I dont get the obsession with the journeyman

If any of the 50 you are going to name are included in this post then you have, so far, named 0 players who I think are better than Dick Allen.

I'm not saying I'm the authority on the ranking the greatest baseball players of all time (we all know that title goes to RMB)

I can't name 50 players outside the Hall better than Allen, but I might be able to name 50 who are IN who are WORSE.

[Brad Harris]

If you start putting in Dick Allen type dudes then you'll need to put in the likes of: Ellis Burks, Dewey Evans, darrell evans, murphy, Norm Cash, Greg Vaughn, Lee May, Gaetti, Colavito, chili davis, Matt Williams, George Foster, Jack Clark, Don Baylor, Tino, Boog Powell....etc etc. talk about watering down the hall. Forget about Allen. He's no better than any above mentioned. Dave Parker was way way better. I can think of minimum 50 guys more worthy than Allen. I dont get the obsession with the journeyman

(*sigh*)

One of my resolutions this year was to be nicer to people like you, but you make it so hard. (Is this what I've been missing this summer, guys?) :laugh

Not all those players are jerks. There are a number of Dwight and Darrell Evans fans around this board. Matt Williams has a good case for the Hall and Dale Murphy definately merits induction. Allen is the best damn hitter not in the Hall of Fame (among eligible players, that is) and our "obsession" is with giving due justice to the game's greatest players, not confusing noteworthy players with "journeymen."

[Bill Burgess]

Allen's seasons are in the context of the worst offensive era in baseball history. His seasons are truly impressive; his combination of power AND average is exceptionally impressive for a player in a league which failed to produce 10 players hitting over .300.

Allen's "failure to find his position" just isn't the case. Allen found his position, and it was third base. What happened was that in late 1967, Allen was pushing a car that wouldn't start, and his hand went through the headlight. The broken glass caused injury to the nerves in his throwing hand, which led to his move off 3B.
I don't hold Richie's moving to 1B against him. I was merely musing that that might have a lot to do with it. The public are lazy sheep. Want to have an easy handle and ID for players.

After all, I don't hold it against the Babe for moving off the mound! I wish he hadn't, but I would have too if I were him!! And I never held it against others who changed their positions. Musial, Banks, Carew, A-Rod, Ewing, King Kelly, Bresnahan, Biggio, Wagner.

But I would think that certain players would have been judged greater if they had not moved. I realize some HAD to move, due to injuries.

If Wagner had been assigned SS earlier, I think he'd been perceived as even greater than he is now. I firmly believe A-Rod's legacy is being permanently discounted by having to move to 3B, to accommodate ego boy.

If Ewing had caught more, and hadn't thrown out his forearm in spring, 1892, he would be ranked significantly higher than he presently is now. That's the major dig at him today. I forget if Musial/Banks/Carew were forced to 1B due to injuries.

Secondly, I like Rickie, despite his emotional issues. But then again, I also like Cobb, Hornsby, McGraw, Bonds, Belle. All the guys that Bill James called horse's asses.

I honestly didn't know about Allen's hand injury. I wasn't following baseball by then. Was trying to be the next Jim Ryun. I don't care about clubhouse cancers. I refuse to vote Richie into the Hall simply because I don't think he has the requisite numbers. Others in the 60's did better. The true greats like Mays, Aaron, Clemente, Kaline, Yaz, Rose, Billy Williams, Oliva all outhit Richie by a sizable amount. Richie just wasn't a Famer, IMHO.

Mark: Do you rank Richie Allen a Hall of Famer?

Bill

[538280]

Sorry about what I said on the other thread, I did not realize this new thread until now.

Richie WAS NOT one of the great hitters. His was unfulfilled potential. When he arrived in Philly in 1963, he and Art Mahafey were supposed to lead us out of the wilderness to the promised land. Never found their groove. Manager Gene Mauch was too tense to lead us where we wanted to go. Like Billy Martin, but not the winner Martin was.

Richie had one of the most beautiful physiques ever. Much like the later Jose Canseco. He played 3B when I got to see him, but I think his failure to find his position has really hurt his legacy. Fans like to pigeon hole players with an easy ID. But fans have a hard time deciding where he belonged. Killebrew was the same way, as was Rose. Would have made a better impression if they had played 80% of their games at a single position.

Richie didn't have the super seasons of Albert Belle, Frank Thomas or some of the others. He had 2 good seasons (1966/1972), but nothing which would compel his induction to the Hall.


Year Ag Tm Lg G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG TB+
--------------+---+----+----+----+---+--+---+----+---+--+---+---+-----
1963 21 PHI NL 10 24 6 7 2 1 0 2 0 0 0 5 .292 .280 .458
1964 22 PHI NL 162 632 125 201 38 13 29 91 3 4 67 138 .318 .382 .557 352
1965 23 PHI NL 161 619 93 187 31 14 20 85 15 2 74 150 .302 .375 .494 306
1966 24 PHI NL 141 524 112 166 25 10 40 110 10 6 68 136 .317 .396 .632 331
1967 25 PHI NL 122 463 89 142 31 10 23 77 20 5 75 117 .307 .404 .566 262
1968 26 PHI NL 152 521 87 137 17 9 33 90 7 7 74 161 .263 .352 .520 271
1969 27 PHI NL 118 438 79 126 23 3 32 89 9 3 64 144 .288 .375 .573 251
1970 28 STL NL 122 459 88 128 17 5 34 101 5 4 71 118 .279 .377 .560 257
1971 29 LAD NL 155 549 82 162 24 1 23 90 8 1 93 113 .295 .395 .468 257
1972 30 CHW AL 148 506 90 156 28 5 37 113 19 8 99 126 .308 .420 .603 305
1973 31 CHW AL 72 250 39 79 20 3 16 41 7 2 33 51 .316 .394 .612 153
1974 32 CHW AL 128 462 84 139 23 1 32 88 7 1 57 89 .301 .375 .563 260
1975 33 PHI NL 119 416 54 97 21 3 12 62 11 2 58 109 .233 .327 .385 160
1976 34 PHI NL 85 298 52 80 16 1 15 49 11 4 37 63 .268 .346 .480 143
1977 35 OAK AL 54 171 19 41 4 0 5 31 1 3 24 36 .240 .330 .351 60

Your failure to adjust for offensive context is a glaring oversight. Are you aware of context adjustments? Maybe try putting Dick Allen into context of the era in which he played. I'm sure when you do that you'll see how great his numbers were. Did you see his 156 OPS+, Bill? Are you aware that is 20th all time? Your saying that none of his seaons compell his entry into the HOF is just your not putting his numbers in context.

[leecemark]

--Yes, I do. He was a better hitter than most of the guys you mention who "outhit him by a sizeable margin". I think he was clearly better hitter than Clemente, for example, although Clemente does beat him in counting stats and was probably a better overall player.

[Bill Burgess]

Sorry about what I said on the other thread, I did not realize this new thread until now.



Your failure to adjust for offensive context is a glaring oversight. Are you aware of context adjustments? Maybe try putting Dick Allen into context of the era in which he played. I'm sure when you do that you'll see how great his numbers were. Did you see his 156 OPS+, Bill? Are you aware that is 20th all time? Your saying that none of his seasons compel his entry into the HOF is just your not putting his numbers in context.
It's not a problem. My response is contained in the previous post.

I refuse to vote Richie into the Hall simply because I don't think he has the requisite numbers. Others in the 60's did better. The true greats like Mays, Aaron, Clemente, Kaline, Yaz, Rose, Billy Williams, Oliva all outhit Richie by a sizable amount. Richie just wasn't a Famer, IMHO.

[538280]

Others in the 60's did better. The true greats like Mays, Aaron, Clemente, Kaline, Yaz, Rose, Billy Williams, Oliva all outhit Richie by a sizable amount. Richie just wasn't a Famer, IMHO.


What "sizeable amount" are you talking about? Just at their peaks, let's look at some peak OPS+ (minimum 500 PA) with those guys you mention, compared to Dick Allen:

Allen: 200, 181, 174, 166, 165 Average: 177.2
Mays: 185, 176, 175, 175, 173 Average: 176.8
Aaron: 194, 181, 179, 178, 168 Average: 180
Clemente: 170, 168, 158, 151, 146 Average: 158.6
Kaline: 176, 162, 162, 152, 144 Average: 159.2
Yaz: 195, 178, 171, 156, 148 Average: 169.6
Rose: 158, 152, 141, 138, 134 Average: 144.6
B.Williams: 170, 157, 147, 147, 142 Average: 152.6
Oliva: 154, 150, 146, 142, 139 Average: 146.2

Allen, Mays, and Aaron are pretty far ahead of everyone else on this chart. This is also true of career OPS+, where Allen/Aaron/Mays are clustered at the top, Allen/Aaron both at 156 and Mays one point ahead at 157. They are ahead of the 2nd highest guy (Kaline at 134) by a whopping 22 points. The disparity is similar with peak marks. How you could think Pete Rose and Tony Oliva were better hitters is VERY puzzling to me. Oliva's career high OPS+ was lower than Allen's career mark, and Rose only had one season higher than Allen's career, and that was only above by 2 points.

[Bill Burgess]

Well, I can concede that those peak stats are a little surprising to me, but life is more than just peak stats, Chris.

I'd be curious to see that same comparison with respect to career OPS+. As you and Mark never tire of reminding me concerning Sisler, career is ultimately how we must judge ballplayers.

[538280]

Well, I can concede that those peak stats are a little surprising to me, but life is more than just peak stats, Chris.

I'd be curious to see that same comparison with respect to career OPS+. As you and Mark never tire of reminding me concerning Sisler, career is ultimately how we must judge ballplayers.

Career OPS+
Allen: 156
Mays: 156
Aaron: 155
Clemente: 130
Kaline: 134
Yaz: 130
Rose: 118
B.Williams-132
Oliva-131

Allen was right up there with Mays/Aaron, everyone else was miles behind. There's basically no question that, putting his statistics in context, Allen is way up there on the HOF ladder.

[digglahhh]

Bill,

What is your position regarding Albert Belle's case?

[Bill Burgess]

Richie 'Dick' Allen

[Bill Burgess]

Bill,

What is your position regarding Albert Belle's case?
Not ignoring your question, Digglahhh. I'll get to it tomorrow. Too tired to answer tonight.

[EvanAparra]

If you start putting in Dick Allen type dudes then you'll need to put in the likes of: Ellis Burks, Dewey Evans, darrell evans, murphy, Norm Cash, Greg Vaughn, Lee May, Gaetti, Colavito, chili davis, Matt Williams, George Foster, Jack Clark, Don Baylor, Tino, Boog Powell....etc etc. talk about watering down the hall. Forget about Allen. He's no better than any above mentioned. Dave Parker was way way better. I can think of minimum 50 guys more worthy than Allen. I dont get the obsession with the journeyman

Dont get into it with this guy, he wants everyone short of the 500 HR club and 300 win list to be kicked out of the hall...

[538280]

Bill,

What is your position regarding Albert Belle's case?

I've seen Albert Belle brought up when we're talking about Allen before-I see no way how you could think Belle is better, unless you ignore the offensive contexts of their time. All the criticisms of Allen also apply to Belle-short career (Belle's was even shorter actually), and clubhouse divisiveness. Those are basically the only criticisms against Allen, and while neither really holds up to a formal analysis (despite the short career Allen still does very well on career value because he was so good while he was playing, 10th among 1Bmen in career WS in the NBJHBA). As far as him being a jerk, I think it's very instructive for you to read the comments of his teammates and managers-no one knew what Allen's clubhouse effect was better than them. Their comments are very positive, and basically shatter the case against Allen due to his jerkiness. Here's an article on that:

http://www.expressfan.com/dickallenhof/docs/anotherview.pdf

As far as Allen against Belle, it's just as simple as putting their numbers in offensive context. Belle's superficial numbers look better, but only because of the era he played in-Allen has a career 156 OPS+ compared to Belle's 143. Plain and simple Belle's numbers are not as good in era context.

[soberdennis]

I strongly support the reinstatement posthumously of Joe Jackson and his induction in the HOF. .356 says it all.
My position on Dick Allen is not so clear cut. I don't think his lifetime BA holds a candle to the third highest all time. That does not mean he doesn't belong though
I would not keep Allen out because he was a jerk. So was Ty Cobb. Anyone want to tell me he doesn't belong.

[Bill Burgess]

As far as Allen against Belle, it's just as simple as putting their numbers in offensive context. Belle's superficial numbers look better, but only because of the era he played in-Allen has a career 156 OPS+ compared to Belle's 143. Plain and simple Belle's numbers are not as good in era context.
Your meaning is quite vague. Are you simply referring to the valid relative stats, or are you once again applying your own thing - LQ adjustments, or some combination of both?

[soberdennis]

If you start putting in Dick Allen type dudes then you'll need to put in the likes of: Ellis Burks, Dewey Evans, darrell evans, murphy, Norm Cash, Greg Vaughn, Lee May, Gaetti, Colavito, chili davis, Matt Williams, George Foster, Jack Clark, Don Baylor, Tino, Boog Powell....etc etc. talk about watering down the hall. Forget about Allen. He's no better than any above mentioned. Dave Parker was way way better. I can think of minimum 50 guys more worthy than Allen. I dont get the obsession with the journeyman
I'll; just say that I believe aome of the players you mention deserve serious consideration.

[Bill Burgess]

I like several of Albert Belle's seasons. He was an excellent hitter. Some of his seasons were indeed excellent from a hitting standpoint. Similar to Frank Thomas.

But I do not recommend him for the Hall of Fame. His defense/running were not noted, and his career ended in injury far prematurely. If he had continued in his career path through to a normal decline, I'd say, yeah, he's a good Hall candidate. But as it is, a short career, plus he was in a good offensive era, falls just short for me. BTW - I do not hold his clubhouse/off-field issues against him.

Bill

[CTaka]

He had a hard time finding his position due to injuries, .

Chris, If I recall, you have been pretty adamant on not giving any credit to players who had careers shortened by injury, whether baseball related or not. It sounds like you're giving Allen a free pass on his fielding by saying it was due to injury. I think you are right about that, but to be consistent, he should just be marked down as a poor fielder without excusing it due to injury.

I do agree with your case for Allen as a hitter though. By way of comparison, Allen's career slugging percentage is 152 points higher than league average, whereas another great slugger of that timeframe, Willlie McCovey had a career slugging percentage 127 points higher than league average. I'm not knocking Willie Mac at all, but it gives you some idea of just how impressive Allen's stats were when you keep it in the context of his era.

[538280]

Your meaning is quite vague. Are you simply referring to the valid relative stats, or are you once again applying your own thing - LQ adjustments, or some combination of both?

I'm talking about the player's statistics compared to the league average, or relative stats. OPS+ basically measures the amount a player's OBP and SLG are above the league average. Allen's is a good amount higher, 156 to 143. Considering Allen's career was longer and there is no big defensive difference between them, it's hard to see how on earth Belle can overcome that. Belle only has better raw stats than Allen, once you index them to league averages the advantage goes away.

[538280]

Chris, If I recall, you have been pretty adamant on not giving any credit to players who had careers shortened by injury, whether baseball related or not. It sounds like you're giving Allen a free pass on his fielding by saying it was due to injury. I think you are right about that, but to be consistent, he should just be marked down as a poor fielder without excusing it due to injury.

No, I'm saying Bill's comment that Allen jumped around positions due to his poor defensive play is inaccurate. He jumped around positions because of injuries.

[Bill Burgess]

I did not say why Richie found it difficult to find his position. I merely noted his games at 3 different positions.

I had not known he was forced out of 3B due to a hand injury. I was not slighting Richie's D. I think that he was considerably better defensively than Albert Belle, at least until he injured his hand. He was a good defensive fielder if he could handle a post such as 3B in the modern context.

However, I admire both for their excellent hitting, but alas, cannot, in the final analysis, support either's Hall candidacy. Neither had the longevity, or all-around Hall excellence that we should want for the Hall.

Belle's career was finally ended by a devastating injury. I think it was his hip. Pity. He was on track. Richie needed quite a few more seasons. Even though a decline phase drags down one's rate stats, they are still normally required to qualify for the Hall of Fame. Some rare talents, like DiMag, can overcome that deficit, but most still need their decline phases to get their counting stats up there.

Bill

[flash143817]

If you start putting in Dick Allen type dudes then you'll need to put in the likes of: Ellis Burks, Dewey Evans, darrell evans, murphy, Norm Cash, Greg Vaughn, Lee May, Gaetti, Colavito, chili davis, Matt Williams, George Foster, Jack Clark, Don Baylor, Tino, Boog Powell....etc etc. talk about watering down the hall. Forget about Allen. He's no better than any above mentioned. Dave Parker was way way better. I can think of minimum 50 guys more worthy than Allen. I dont get the obsession with the journeyman

None of those guys you mentioned were better than Allen. You obviously are getting caught up in raw stats to make such a post.

Allen is by far the best hitter not in the HOF currently and better than at least half of the people that ARE in the HOF. His 156 career OPS+ is better or equal to such slouches as Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, and Joe DiMaggio. Not saying he is better or equal as a hitter to those guys, but the fact that he is in their league makes him a hell of a lot better than all of those guys you listed.

[yankillaz]

What "sizeable amount" are you talking about? Just at their peaks, let's look at some peak OPS+ (minimum 500 PA) with those guys you mention, compared to Dick Allen:

Allen: 200, 181, 174, 166, 165 Average: 177.2
Mays: 185, 176, 175, 175, 173 Average: 176.8
Aaron: 194, 181, 179, 178, 168 Average: 180
Clemente: 170, 168, 158, 151, 146 Average: 158.6
Kaline: 176, 162, 162, 152, 144 Average: 159.2
Yaz: 195, 178, 171, 156, 148 Average: 169.6
Rose: 158, 152, 141, 138, 134 Average: 144.6
B.Williams: 170, 157, 147, 147, 142 Average: 152.6
Oliva: 154, 150, 146, 142, 139 Average: 146.2

Allen, Mays, and Aaron are pretty far ahead of everyone else on this chart. This is also true of career OPS+, where Allen/Aaron/Mays are clustered at the top, Allen/Aaron both at 156 and Mays one point ahead at 157. They are ahead of the 2nd highest guy (Kaline at 134) by a whopping 22 points. The disparity is similar with peak marks. How you could think Pete Rose and Tony Oliva were better hitters is VERY puzzling to me. Oliva's career high OPS+ was lower than Allen's career mark, and Rose only had one season higher than Allen's career, and that was only above by 2 points.

Ummm. So the end be all stat is OPS. Ummm. Interesting. So i can't punish Allen for being an ### but i do punish Rose and Oliva for not being power hitters? Is true, they're not related, but i think you get my drift.

I'm not saying that Oliva was better than Allen, since he wasn't. But the fact that some players weren't as powerful as others, well. I bring this up, since OPS+ is a measure that has to be 75% power. When you see a line drive hitter get a high OPS+, then you have to be surprised (That's why i get your Morgan-liking ways). But this doesn't means he's the better player.

Let's go back to 1987 to find an interesting case here. Jack Clark had an incredible 71 points differential in OPS+ over Ozzie Smith..but who was the better player for the League Champions, St. Louis Cardinals???

That's why i agree with Bill on those players being better that Allen. Of course, i do not count Oliva in the mix.

[leecemark]

--Clark was a much better HITTER, which is the only thing being looked at with OPS+. Smith was the better player due to an enormous edge in defensive and baserunning value, plus he was better at staying in the lineup.

[Bill Burgess]

Allen is by far the best hitter not in the HOF currently and better than at least half of the people that ARE in the HOF.
That is quite a sweeping statement. There are a small number of very good hitters not presently in the Hall. Some are not yet eligible.

I'm sure you mean among eligible hitters, right? Not counting Bonds, Frank Thomas, Ramirez, Pulhols, Guerrero, etc.

Among those eligible (?) we still have Joe Jackson (setting aside the moral questions for the moment), Rose, Belle and some others I'm not remembering.

Be leery of sweeping, categorical assertions. They have a peculiar way of coming back and taking a bite out of the derrière.

[538280]

Ummm. So the end be all stat is OPS. Ummm. Interesting. So i can't punish Allen for being an ### but i do punish Rose and Oliva for not being power hitters? Is true, they're not related, but i think you get my drift.

I'm not getting your drift at all. Of course you can (and should) punish Oliva and Rose for not being power hitters. That's a part of their game, a part of what defines their skill set, and particularly in Rose's case it is a weakness. Their lack of power makes them less valualble hitters. Are you saying that is not relevent to this discussion, their value as hitters?

I'm not saying that Oliva was better than Allen, since he wasn't. But the fact that some players weren't as powerful as others, well. I bring this up, since OPS+ is a measure that has to be 75% power. When you see a line drive hitter get a high OPS+, then you have to be surprised (That's why i get your Morgan-liking ways). But this doesn't means he's the better player.[/quote]

Line drive hitters don't get higher OPS+ for two reasons:

1.It weighs SLG just a bit too much, I'm not disputing that. Allen's relative OBP was top notch too though, and it would also be right with Mays and Aaron and WAY ahead of everyone else there:

Relative OBP
Allen-117
Mays-117
Aaron-114
Clemente-110
Kaline-113
Yaz-113
Rose-113
B.Williams-108
Oliva-108

Allen has the highest relative OBP of this whole group, about a tenth ahead of Mays. His lead in OPS+ is coming from more than the power.

2.The other reason is simply because in general line drive hitters are not as valuable as power hitters! Of course that is a general statement, and there are different degrees to everything (Ichiro is a better hitter than Rob Deer), but if you study how teams score runs and what correlates to run scoring, you will find it is indisputable that power puts more runs on the scoreboard than line drive hitting, and of course putting runs on the scoreboard is what offense is all about.

Let's go back to 1987 to find an interesting case here. Jack Clark had an incredible 71 points differential in OPS+ over Ozzie Smith..but who was the better player for the League Champions, St. Louis Cardinals???

This is a strawman argument. OPS+ is ONLY measuring hitting. Smith was better because he killed Clark in everything outside of hitting. OPS+ is absolutely correct in saying Clark was an ostensibly superior hitter.

[538280]

That is quite a sweeping statement. There are a small number of very good hitters not presently in the Hall. Some are not yet eligible.

I'm sure you mean among eligible hitters, right? Not counting Bonds, Frank Thomas, Ramirez, Pulhols, Guerrero, etc.

Among those eligible we still have Joe Jackson (setting aside the moral questions for the moment), Rose, Belle and some others I'm not remembering.

Be leery of sweeping, categorical assertions. They have a peculiar way of coming back and taking a bite out of the derrière.

His statement is absolutely true if you take the time to place Allen's numbers in offensive context, not just looking at the raw numbers. I'd honestly like you to tell me why Albert Belle is a better hitter than Dick Allen, Bill. And don't use raw numbers, either, because that is unfair because of the huge gap in offensive context they played under. Rose's career high OPS+ is about the same as Allen's career mark.

Your problem is simple-you're just not placing Allen's numbers in context of the time in which he played. Do that and you'll find he's a true all time great hitter, at least one of the top 25 of all time. And that is not a sweeping statement! It is based on facts.

[Bill Burgess]

His statement is absolutely true if you take the time to place Allen's numbers in offensive context, not just looking at the raw numbers. I'd honestly like you to tell me why Albert Belle is a better hitter than Dick Allen, Bill. And don't use raw numbers, either, because that is unfair because of the huge gap in offensive context they played under. Rose's career high OPS+ is about the same as Allen's career mark.

Your problem is simple-you're just not placing Allen's numbers in context of the time in which he played. Do that and you'll find he's a true all time great hitter, at least one of the top 25 of all time. And that is not a sweeping statement! It is based on facts.
I didn't pontificate if his sweeping assertion was correct or not. I heard your point on context the first time. No need to repeat yourself forever.

I didn't conclude who was the better hitter, simply those who need to be considered for the title, Best Hitter Outside the Hall.

I am so busy with upgrading the Photos and to have to keep interrupting for such things as doing a Allen/Belle is distracting. But here is a quick, off the cuff comparison, from baseball-reference.

Belle-------Top 10---Led L.--------Allen--------Top 10-----Led L
Silver Slug.---5----------------------------------------------------
MVP---------5---------------------------------------7--------1
BA----------3----------------------------------------6------------
Onbase-----2----------------------------------------7--------2
Slugging----6----------2-----------------------------8-------3
Runs--------4---------1-----------------------------6-------1
Hits---------4---------------------------------------3----------
TB----------7----------2----------------------------6--------1
Doubles------4---------1----------------------------4--------0
Triples-----------------------------------------------6-------1
Home Runs---8----------2----------------------------8-------2
RBIs---------8----------3----------------------------4-------1
Walks-------2----------------------------------------7-------1
Strike outs--2----------------------------------------9-------2
adj. OPS+---5------------1--------------------------10-------3
EBH---------7------------3---------------------------8-------3
SB---------------------------------------------------2---------
times on base-6--------------------------------------5--------1
GIDP---------7------------1-------------------------2----------
Salaries------7------------4--------------------------------------
All Stars-----5----------------------------------------7

Appears that Richie Allen was a better, more dominant hitter than Albert Belle, despite his shorter career. He was also apparently a better fielder, until his injury. But I still resist both of them as all-around players as candidates for the Hall of Fame. Satisfied now?

[Fuzzy Bear]

Belle and Allen both should get in. I've come around on Allen, and his numbers indicate a truly worthy player on peak value.

[538280]

I didn't pontificate if his sweeping assertion was correct or not. I heard your point on context the first time. No need to repeat yourself forever.

I didn't conclude who was the better hitter, simply those who need to be considered for the title, Best Hitter Outside the Hall.Appears that Richie Allen was a better, more dominant hitter than Albert Belle, despite his shorter career. He was also apparently a better fielder, until his injury. But I still resist both of them as all-around players as candidates for the Hall of Fame. Satisfied now?

No, not satisfied at all. I'm glad you realize Allen is better than Belle, but your resisting of him as a HOF candidate makes me wonder about your understanding of value in baseball players. Certainly fielding and baserunning are extremely important, but hitting is BY FAR the most important part of the game. There is no inherent value in a player being well rounded, value is value is value no matter where it is coming from.

You still seem to think Allen's career was much shorter than it actually was. Allen's career was actually quite a bit longer than Belle's, 1749 games played for Allen versus 1539 for Belle.

Though the conclusion you arrived at is correct, I also do not like using league leads to evaluate a player offensively, when you have relative stats available. It is important to always realize that league leaderships is an informal methodology on evaluating players. The formal methodology is to actually compare them to the league averages, and league leaderships should NEVER be taken over that. They also give false images of the value of well rounded players, who spread their value out over many categories, rather than concentrating it in a few categories. It will also miss the tremendous contributions of players like Craig Biggio, Jackie Robinson, Joe Morgan, Rickey Henderson, and Tim Raines (those are probably the five biggest exemplars of this group), who have fantastic "little stats" like SB, CS, and are great at keeping out of GIDPs. I know this will sound like nitpicking, but I've been trying to debunk the use of league leaderships for a long time. I cringe whenever I see them used. They should just about never be used in this way.

Ink tests are even worse. In addition to the problems above, there is also the HUGE problem of the weightings given to the different categories.

Good job though, it is good you have realized that Allen truly was better than Belle. But Allen should be overwhelming deserving for the HOF.

[Sliding Billy]

The formal methology is to actually compare them to the league averages...
Why averages (i.e. means) in particular? I mean, what's the formal methodological imperative for using league average rather than, say, replacement value, which may give very different results? Granted, means are better defined and behave better statistically, but are they the best way to measure a player's contribution to team wins?

[Bill Burgess]

Chris,

When one takes a break from their heavy workload to do a 30 minute session of work, it is not with a good feeling to read the first sentence of, "No, not satisfied at all." For the future, when one leads off with that, it tends to drown out whatever you follow it with. See the point?

I acknowledge that both Richie and Al were wonderful hitters, but I have been trying to raise the Hall standards. Would you like to see every good player enshrined? Wouldn't that tend to discount the honor it was originally intended for?

I would like to see only truly great players go in. And my personal preference is for all-around players, but realize that sometimes one dimensional players like Ted Williams qualify on the strength of their special skills.

While Allen/Belle qualify for some people's Hall, I would like it to be reserved for the Bonds, A-Rods, Ichiro, Schmidts, Morgans, R.Jacksons, Benchs, etc.

If we open the door to Allen/Belle, we open the door to others. Many good players, with varying degrees of good cases are banging on the door. Hernandez, Murray, Winfield, Garvey, Rynberg, Mattingly, W.Clark, McGwire, Perez, Big Klu, Hodges, McGriff, Bill White, Jake Daubert, Fred Tenney, Dave Concepcion and that is just mostly at 1B!

And soon enough there will be Sosa, Frank Thomas, Palmeiro, Big Mo, C.Fielder, Nomar, Larkin, Raines.

So, I would like to keep the door firmly closed to the merely very good players.

I'd also like to take exception to your philosophy. If one only uses relative stats, that is good as far as it goes, but it doesn't penetrate deeply enough. A player can theoretically post very good relative stats, and still lag behind many other stars of their day. That is why league leads are still valuable. Ink is flawed to say the least, as sometimes dominant players suppress their peers, as Cobb did to Crawford, Speaker, Jackson, Collins, and the Babe did to Gehrig, Foxx, Simmons. So I realize their limitations.

That is why I took the trouble to show the Top 10 in my little chart above. Grey Ink is a possibly more useful stat. But taken in conjunction, they give at least some insights into how a player does in comparison to their peers.

Wish you could learn to acknowledge time-consuming work, especially when it was on your behalf. Also, did a little chart on Honus Wagner Thread you might appreciate.

Bill

[Windy City Fan]

Bill, there is a pretty wide gap between some of the players you mentioned. Larkin, Raines, Thomas, Murray, and Winfield are usually ranked among the top ten at their respective positions around here, and are clearly deserving unless you want to limit the HOF to about 75 players (even then some of them might have case in my mind). Also, while some folks do advocate a stricter "standard" for the hall, the fact is the hall's "standards" have been in place for a while. The players you mentioned are clearly on the positive side of the established threshold. I don't see any value in arbitrarily raising the bar now, 70 years after the hall began, to exclude players who are as good, and in many cases better than the established inductees. And we're not talking about the mistakes and low end guys. Some of the folks you listed would fit comfortably in the second tier of the HOF.

As to Allen, his career is a little short. 7300 plate appearances is a little below the "typical" HOF career, but when you look at what Allen did in those 7300 PA, its hard to knock him.

Duke Snider had only 900 more PA, with 14 less points of OPS+. Positional adjustment might work slightly for the Duke, but 14 is a lot of offense to make up.

Chuck Klien has about 200 less PA, and 19 less OPS+. If anything postional adjustment works for Allen here (650 games at third). I know you don't make timeline adjustments, but many folks do and that's another point for Richie.

Joe DiMaggio had only 200 more PA, and 1 point less OPS+. Yes, Joe D was better in the field, on the bases, missed years due to the war, and was handicapped by his homefield. I'm not arguing Allen = DiMaggio, but he's not terribly far off as a hitter.

Johnny Mize, about the same number of PA and 2 more points in OPS. Yes, like Joe, Mize missed time due to the war, but again Allen isn't far behind.

Hank Greenberg, 1200 less PA and 2 more points of OPS+ Missed 3 years due to the war.

Earl Averill, 100 less PA, 23 less points of OPS+. Maybe a slight positional adjustment for Averill, after factoring in Allen's time at third. Still, offensively, Allen blows him away.

These guys are all unquestioned HOF material (except possibly the Baker Bowl fueled Klien). They all had careers on the short side, and Allen stacks up well with them, even if he falls short of some of the names I mentioned. When you look at who is already in the HOF, Allen is easily above the margin.

And Allen's ink scores aren't bad at all, especially considering era (harder to win ink in modern era with more players to compete against). 2 OBP titles, with 5 more top ten appearances. 3 SLG titles with 6 more top ten appearances. 4 OPS titles, 6 more 10 ten appearances. 3 HR crowns, 6 more top ten appearances. 3 OPS+ titles, 7 more top ten appearances. I know you love to use contemporary opinions, so here's something to chew on. Despite having a shorter career, Allen is 48th all time in intentional BB. Seems opposing pitchers and managers respected him a great deal.

BTW, did you get my PM?

[538280]

Why averages (i.e. means) in particular? I mean, what's the formal methodological imperative for using league average rather than, say, replacement value, which may give very different results? Granted, means are better defined and behave better statistically, but are they the best way to measure a player's contribution to team wins?

It does not have to be league average, it could certainly be replacement level instead of that. My point was that it is wrong to focus on league leads rather than comparing him to the league norm (or you can bring that down a bit to make it replacement if you'd rather).

[538280]

I acknowledge that both Richie and Al were wonderful hitters, but I have been trying to raise the Hall standards. Would you like to see every good player enshrined? Wouldn't that tend to discount the honor it was originally intended for?

The HOF Standard it what it is, Bill. It is completely unfair to just lower the standard because you want to make it tougher. The standard hasn't been for only the true all time greats. It doesn't matter what you want the HOF to be, just what it is. Dick Allen is fully qualified for the HOF the way the standard is now.

This is part of a post I made a long time ago:

Yeah, the 156 OPS+ in the 1960s and 1970s isn't good enough. The 140 rel. SLG isn't good enough. The fact he is second in 3 year Win Shares peak among all 1B in the NBJHBBA, ahead of Jimmie Foxx, that's just not HOF matierial.

I've shown it before, his peak EqAs are just about the same as Ty Cobb.

Bill James' Win Shares rating system has him as the 2nd best 1Bman of all time, ahead of even Jimmie Foxx. James, of course, is a noted hater of Dick Allen, and moves him down to 15th despite what his system has to say.

You say he was a great fielding 1B? I must say, that's the first time I've ever heard that. From what I've read, he was considered to only be fair with the glove. But, he still was a much more valuable defensive player than most other 1B, simply because he played a lot of third base.

Eyewitness opinions are also in his favor. Allen was always the center of attention on any team he was on, not only because of his temperment, but also because he just had so much talent. People would see him and just go "wow, that guy can hit!". Look at what Chuck Tanner had to say about him:

"He was the greatest player I ever managed, and what he did for us in Chicago was amazing. In Pittsburgh I had guys like Willie Stargell, Dave Parker, Phil Garner, Bill Madlock, but in Chicago it was Dick Allen and, what, Bill Melton? There just wasn't a lot of talent there. With Dick -- well, we were able to battle the Oakland A's, one of the greatest teams ever. Without him we simply weren't a first division team."

See that? He says Dick Allen was the kind of player who could take a team with almost no talent and transform them into winners. The stats certainly support that-just look at the Win Shares system. Dick Allen was worth in his career a little more than 30 Win Shares per season (his per season mark is better than any 1B but Gehrig, I may add). Each Win Share is one third of a win so that means Allen by himself was worth about 10 wins. 10 Wins is a huge thing. It's enough to transform a mediocre team into a pennant winner. That's what Dick Allen was worth his whole career.

Many of his detractors will look at his traditional stats and say they're not quite up to par. Only one season with 40 HRs, only 3 100 RBI years, only once over 200 hits, etc. Well, that is of course ridiculous. Allen played in one of the toughest hitting eras of all time. The league average OPS in his time was .706. For those who find relative stats too complicated, all you need to do is look at his performance in league leads. Allen was top 10 in BA 6 times, and never led despite finishing top 5 three of those years. He led in OBP twice, SLG three times, OPS four times (he finished top 10 in OPS every single full season of his career), runs scored once, home runs twice, RBI once, and runs created three times. Quite a good index of league leads. No question Allen was a fantastic hitter despite his less than eye popping traditional stats.

If relative stats are your bag, Allen is one of the best all time. I already mentioned his OPS+. It is fifth all time among players who played mostly post 1950.

Here's a link to it: http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=446916&postcount=8

Hopefully that will shed some light to you on just how great Allen's statistics really are in context.

I would like to see only truly great players go in. And my personal preference is for all-around players, but realize that sometimes one dimensional players like Ted Williams qualify on the strength of their special skills.

This is just not the standard of the HOF, to begin with, and secondly, placing his numbers in context Dick Allen is ABSOLUTELY a good enough hitter to go in even without great skills in other areas. And I think Allen's fielding/baserunning is not being portrayed in an accurate light either. Early in his career he was known as just an unbelieveable athlete with good speed. He could steal a good amount of bases. At third, he was error prone, which is a fault of his, but he had pretty good range. Craig Wright has pointed out how his plays per game were only behind Ron Santo in the 1964-1967 period. Never mind him playing third base to begin with, which is a defensive position which requires some defensive skill. At first he was known as far from a butcher as well.

While Allen/Belle qualify for some people's Hall, I would like it to be reserved for the Bonds, A-Rods, Ichiro, Schmidts, Morgans, R.Jacksons, Benchs, etc.

Your HOF should not matter in this discussion. We're talking about whether or not Dick Allen is qualified for the actual Cooperstown HOF. I find it amusing you would consider Ichiro better than Allen as well.

If we open the door to Allen/Belle, we open the door to others. Many good players, with varying degrees of good cases are banging on the door. Hernandez, Murray, Winfield, Garvey, Rynberg, Mattingly, W.Clark, McGwire, Perez, Big Klu, Hodges, McGriff, Bill White, Jake Daubert, Fred Tenney, Dave Concepcion and that is just mostly at 1B!

A good number of those guys you mention are already in the HOF, and it's hard to see how guys like Kluszewski, Mattingly, Garvey, Hernandez, Daubert, Tenney White, Hodges, McGriff et al are really even close to Allen as hitters-none of them has an OPS+ within 20 points of Allen.

And soon enough there will be Sosa, Frank Thomas, Palmeiro, Big Mo, C.Fielder, Nomar, Larkin, Raines.

Larkin, Raines, and Frank Thomas should be no questions asked HOFers. I don't see how they enter into this discussion. Nomar could be as well if he continues to play very well over the next five or so years. Sosa and Palmeiro are certainly no questions asked guys based on accomplishments, but he has other issues completely unrelated to Dick Allen. How exactly do Mo Vaughn and Cecil Fielder compare to Dick Allen? :confused:

So, I would like to keep the door firmly closed to the merely very good players.

Dick Allen is not a very good player, Bill, he was legitimately great.

I'd also like to take exception to your philosophy. If one only uses relative stats, that is good as far as it goes, but it doesn't penetrate deeply enough. A player can theoretically post very good relative stats, and still lag behind many other stars of their day. That is why league leads are still valuable. Ink is flawed to say the least, as sometimes dominant players suppress their peers, as Cobb did to Crawford, Speaker, Jackson, Collins, and the Babe did to Gehrig, Foxx, Simmons. So I realize their limitations.

It does not matter how far they lag behind the top level stars. We're talking about value, right, what a player does for his team. In that context it does not matter. Dick Allen creates a run for his team. That run's value is defined by the context in which he plays (if there are less runs scored that run is all the more valuable). It is NOT defined by what the other top stars are doing. Of course, based on league leads, Allen is a certain HOFer anyway (right at the HOF average in black/gray ink). I hate those methods, and they mean nothing, but since you seem to like league leads so much, why aren't you believing what they say?

That is why I took the trouble to show the Top 10 in my little chart above. Grey Ink is a possibly more useful stat. But taken in conjunction, they give at least some insights into how a player does in comparison to their peers.

No, they don't mean a thing, and they give HORRIBLE summaries of a player's value. Did you ever see that long post I made about league leads being useless?

Wish you could learn to acknowledge time-consuming work, especially when it was on your behalf. Also, did a little chart on Honus Wagner Thread you might appreciate.

Your work on Allen's league leads was nice. My problem is that that is your methology to begin with, and that you don't even follow what it says (league leads DO unquestionably show Allen being HOF caliber).

[538280]

Here's a debate we had on Dick Allen a while ago:

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=36671

That thread left me feeling rather confident he was a HOFer, and probably the best player outside.

[538280]

The case against Dick Allen here being presented, that his numbers are just not good enough, is based on not much than made up standards and not putting numbers into context IMO. I just want to show you guys how Allen does on actual context adjusted rating systems:

-Bill James' Win Shares rating system, which he introduces in his New Historical Abstract, has Dick Allen the 21st best player of all time, and the 2nd best 1Bman.

-Baseball Prospectus' Jay Jaffe has a JAWS system, and this system shows Allen being the best player outside the HOF.

-Matt Souder's PCA system has Allen the 8th best 1Bman of all time and the best eligible player outside of the HOF.

-For what it's worth, my system has him the 6th best 1Bman of all time, the best player outside the HOF BY FAR, and a top 50 player of all time.

In other words, just about every statistical system comes out with Dick Allen as an unquestionable HOFer. How you could still doubt whether his numbers are good enough is puzzling to me.

How is Joe Jackson better than Dick Allen either? Jackson played almost 4000 games less, and in that time put up a 169 OPS+. Allen played just about the same amount of games as Jackson through 1974, and his OPS+ was 165. At that time Allen was mostly a 3Bman, and he still had more left in the tank, played against much tougher competition his whole career, and wasn't banned from the game. How is Joe Jackson better than Dick Allen? Where's the case, outside of romantic deadball books, and "baseball never got better than it was in the 1910s, and anything modern just sucks" BS?

[Bill Burgess]

Hold up, Chris. Slow it down. Let's take some stock here. I'm not sure if we have philosophic differences or not. You saying league leads mean nothing is just too extreme for me to take seriously. And I know you only said that in the heat of battle.

League leads mean a great deal. Before the new sabremetrics came along, the most league leads by the old traditional stats was 59 by Cobb and 56 by Ruth. Showed dominance. So that means a lot.

Grey ink is also important. Coming in your L's top 10 for a career is certainly an accurate indication of excellent quality. Guys like Zack Wheat, Roush, Frisch, Rose, Robin Roberts, Bert Blyleven, Early Wynn, etc. does show something.

But not everyone who is excellent deserves a place in the Hall. I would think that would be obvious. I think around 8 position players, 5 pitchers per decade should suffice.

What if a decade produced 20 great players, all awesome? Should all 20 go in the Hall? If a man is the 20th best player in his decade, should he go in the Hall, simply because his stats were that great?

Maybe the era produced a lot of great stats because of the era! 1920-38 comes to mind. So, Relative stats must be consulted, and ink too. We must sort out the wheat from the chaff.

If Simmons was only posting great stats due to his era, and his ink was suppressed by Ruth, Foxx, Gehrig, Greenberg, but he was great and had great grey ink, what do we do with him?

Do you support Simmons' case as a legitimate Hall member.

And I also must reject your opposition to my trying to raise the Hall bar. The Hall, as presently constituted, is a joke. No one takes it too seriously. Too many mistakes from the past.

The Hall today is trying to correct itself. And let's not be naive. It's a totally 100% political animal. They are deliberately going slow to not overload itself. They have been saying no to Tony Oliva forever. Said no to Nellie Fox until he died. Only recently put in a boatload of Negro L. players, to make amends to past injustices. But at the ceremonies, only their descendants could attend, to receive their plaques post mortem. They all died decades earlier.

The bottom of the Hall barrel should not force the enshrinement of Allen/Belle or many others. And who in my list is now in the Hall. Am I behind the times again? Probably.

If I could put into the Hall right now some players, the top of my list would be: Joe Jackson, Pete Rose, Bill Lange, Ron Santo. And I'm not relating that to Richie Allen at all. I'm not saying they were better ballplayers than Allen, just those I'd most like to see enshrined.

Bill

[538280]

Hold up, Chris. Slow it down. Let's take some stock here. I'm not sure if we have philosophic differences or not. You saying league leads mean nothing is just too extreme for me to take seriously. And I know you only said that in the heat of battle.

No, I honesty mean that. I've been fighting that battle for a long time. League leads have nothing to do with a player's actual value. It does not matter if the guy happens to lead the league, what really matters is how good he is in context of his time. League leads do not truly place him in context, you have to look at how the league as a whole has performed. It will also HEAVILY ignore those players who have big contributions in "little stats" like SB, CS, GIDP, HBP, and sacrifices.

League leads mean a great deal. Before the new sabremetrics came along, the most league leads by the old traditional stats was 59 by Cobb and 56 by Ruth. Showed dominance. So that means a lot.

Grey ink is also important. Coming in your L's top 10 for a career is certainly an accurate indication of excellent quality. Guys like Zack Wheat, Roush, Frisch, Rose, Robin Roberts, Bert Blyleven, Early Wynn, etc. does show something.

Gray Ink is not important. Even forgetting about the weightings it has to different categories, it has the same problem of all league leaderships-it is an informal methology. A MUCH better way to look at career value would be something like Win Shares, which takes everything into account instead of looking at the simplistic and flat out wrong summaries of value given by league leaderships/gray ink.

You should read this:

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=647417&postcount=1

But not everyone who is excellent deserves a place in the Hall. I would think that would be obvious. I think around 8 position players, 5 pitchers per decade should suffice.

What if a decade produced 20 great players, all awesome? Should all 20 go in the Hall? If a man is the 20th best player in his decade, should he go in the Hall, simply because his stats were that great?

Maybe the era produced a lot of great stats because of the era! 1920-38 comes to mind. So, Relative stats must be consulted, and ink too. We must sort out the wheat from the chaff.

Well, to me 1920-1938 was no stronger top talent wise than most of the rest of history. Never mind that though. Relative BA/OBP/SLG are very important, but also very important is other things a player can do for his offense. Stealing bases and keeping out of double plays are among those things. Ink tests or league leads should have no part in a value evaluation. They do not have anything to do with VALUE.

If Simmons was only posting great stats due to his era, and his ink was suppressed by Ruth, Foxx, Gehrig, Greenberg, but he was great and had great grey ink, what do we do with him?

Do you support Simmons' case as a legitimate Hall member.

Yes, though I think he's horribly overrated (but that's for another thread). His black/gray ink has nothing to do with what I think of him or any other player.

And I also must reject your opposition to my trying to raise the Hall bar. The Hall, as presently constituted is a joke. No one takes it too seriously. Too many mistakes from the past.

You have to take it seriously or else you can't have a legit discussion on HOF worthiness. We're talking about Dick Allen's perhaps entry to the HOF. You cannot raise the bar over what it is in reality to keep Dick Allen out (never mind the fact that he very may be a top 50 player of all time anyway-like I said earlier James' system actually has him #21 all time).

The Hall today is trying to correct itself. And let's not be naive. It's a totally 100% political animal. They are deliberately going slow to not overload itself. They have been saying no to Tony Oliva forever. Said no to Nellie Fox until he died. Only recently put in a boatload of Negro L. players, to make amends to past injustices. But at the ceremonies, only their descendants could attend, to receive their plaques post mortem. They all died decades earlier.

I don't really know what you mean here. There has been no recent changing of the HOF standard. Bruce Sutter was just elected this past year. He would not even come close to getting in if they were really trying to up their standards.

The bottom of the Hall barrel should not force the enshrinement of Allen/Belle or many others. And who in my list is now in the Hall. Am I behind the times again. Probably.

Allen is actually far better than the bottom of the HOF barrel. I've already made my case as to why, and it is quite simple-every single context adjusted total value system has him WELL up and FAR beyond the HOF standard (even your beloved ink systems do, though I still will never use them).

If I could put into the Hall right now some players, the top of my list would be: Joe Jackson, Pete Rose, Bill Lange, Ron Santo. And I'm not relating that to Richie Allen at all. I'm not saying they were better ballplayers than Allen, just those I'd most like to see enshrined.

For me, the #1 player I'd put in the HOF if I were in charge would be Dick Allen, and that would not be a hard decision at all.

Bill[/QUOTE]

[jalbright]

But not everyone who is excellent deserves a place in the Hall. I would think that would be obvious. I think around 8 position players, 5 pitchers per decade should suffice.

What if a decade produced 20 great players, all awesome? Should all 20 go in the Hall? If a man is the 20th best player in his decade, should he go in the Hall, simply because his stats were that great?

And I also must reject your opposition to my trying to raise the Hall bar. The Hall, as presently constituted is a joke. No one takes it too seriously. Too many mistakes from the past.

The bottom of the Hall barrel should not force the enshrinement of Allen/Belle or many others.

Bill
Bill,

Given that we have 13 full decades of play in, 13 players per decade amounts to 169 players (leaving out the current decade due to the waiting period and actives). We have 56 more than that. I agree with Chris that Allen would belong within that 13 from the 1960's or the 169 or so total. There's no question the Hall has made some awful selections, and they shouldn't be the basis for more bad choices--but Allen is well above that level. If we just ignore the really lousy picks, about the bottom 15-20, there's not that much difference between that and what you're advocating. That being the case, why not just look at what standards have actually applied if we eliminate those awful picks? Seems to me it's best for the Hall to try and be consistent among those at the level above the awful picks. It may not work out perfectly (what in human affairs does?), but it's a reasonable approach.

And, yes, if careful analysis indicates one decade (say the 1970's) had 20 great players and another (say the 1870's) had far less, that's the way it is. We can use 13 or 15 or 17 players a decade as a guide, but the Divinity doesn't appear to be fond of following such guidelines, so we shouldn't tie our hands with such benchmarks. either.

Jim Albright

[538280]

Bill,

I want you to show us why Dick Allen does not meet your definition of a HOFer. Jim already showed that by your definition we would get about 169 members in the HOF. Why, to you, is Dick Allen not among the 169 best players of all time? I've already shown what the statistical measures show, and they show him being AT LEAST in the top 70 or so all time, in many cases even higher (Bill James' system has him #21). What exactly is it that leads you to believe he is considerably worse than the statistical measures would indicate? You have already told us you do not hold any clubhouse divisiveness against him.

[Bill Burgess]

Lighten up guys. What is this? A lynch mob? Chris asks me to show why I don't support Dick Allen for the Hall. Sorry, Chris. I don't work that way. I don't have a system. Never did. I go by my gut, what I've seen, read, the stat page, opinions, whatever.

It seems to me that the 60's are well represented in the Hall already. I always liked Tony Oliva and he never got in. But of course, now that I've said that, someone I know will jump on that innocent comment and demand to know why I think Oliva belongs but Allen doesn't'.

Sorry, folks, but I don't have a system. Allen hit well and I know about context, and adjustments for an offensively-depressed era. I just don't feel that enamored of Richie (or Albert Belle for that matter) as my Hall candidates.

Isn't this still America? Don't I still have the right to feel however I do about ballplayers/Cooperstown? Why do I need to defend my subjective opinions? My gut is what it is. Best I can do.

Bill

[Windy City Fan]

Bill, I think we can understand if you say that you won't be leading the crusade for Allen's induction. We all have personal favorites. But flat out opposing his induction seems like a questionable, if not indefensible position. Especially for a knowledgeable fan, such as yourself.

I also find your argument here: What if a decade produced 20 great players, all awesome? Should all 20 go in the Hall? If a man is the 20th best player in his decade, should he go in the Hall, simply because his stats were that great?
To be inconsistent with many of your previous statements. You, more than most, have taken heat for having a top 20 or 25 list heavily weighted towards old time players. You often respond with the argument that greatness is not neccessarily evenly spread throughout the ages. Yet, here you seem to be advocating that exact approach!

As to your last post. Of course this is America and you can feel however you want about the players in question. Of course, when you state your opinions, you can't be surprised when some folks question them or ask you to explain your reasoning or logic. A large part of these forums is having each of us take turns explaining our various rankings/beliefs - defending them from criticism if you will. This place would be rather bland if that give and take didn't exist. Besides, I've never known you to back down just because the majority of the posters here disagreed with you. :)

[Bill Burgess]

Hey Windy, old bean. Good to see you around again. Missed you man. I am not actively opposing Richie. I don't support/oppose him. I just don't see him as a Hall guy. Never did.

But hey. I have always liked him as a ballplayer. Simply never thought of him as a Famer. That's just how I feel in my heart.

I remember him well. Build like a body-builder, like Canseco. Big, rangy, bounced like a kangaroo. Thick, coke-bottle glasses. Hit the hell out of the old ball, great elevation, soft hands. LOOKED like a great athlete. Could have been a track star, boxer, wrestler, gymnast, swimmer.

I don't normally back down from an exchange, but don't want to be too anti-Richie. I LIKE him. Just isn't a Famer for me. But he may be a Famer for you.

I think he went through a lot of unfair racism in Philly. Fans threw garbage on his front lawn. Messed him up.

Anyone can ask me anything and I try my best to explain myself. But sometimes I haven't a well thought-out position. That is why I made that little chart. He looked very good.

I do not see greatness spread out evenly, but nor do I see it spread out unevenly. As you say, the Almighty can't be limited to symmetry. If I have too many early players in my rankings, it may be because I am better read on them than more recent players. Read a lot of baseball history books, 1958-65, but didn't follow baseball, 1966-mid 80's. So that's the way it played out in my case.

Good to see you posting again, Windy.

Bill

[Windy City Fan]

I'm curious why you don't see him as a HOFer? I understand that may have been your initial gut reaction to the name Dick Allen, but I would think as take a closer look at his numbers and at the circumstances surrounding his poor reputation (largely overstated it would appear), that most folks would reconsider a negative gut reaction. We all have gut feelings on certain players.

At one time my gut said Andre Dawson should be in the HOF. Today, I'm not so sure. My gut said guys like Larkin and Raines were borderline candidates. Today I rank both in my top 50 all time. My gut said, "Who?" when confronted with names like Ewing, Wheat, Rousch, and others. Today (in part thanks to your efforts) I not only recognize the names, but recognize the accomplishments of those players.

Our gut can only take us so far. Some folks here have posted pretty good cases for Allen, including myself (I think you missed my first post in this thread on page one). Take a look at the arguments and see if you still agree with your initial "gut" response.

[Bill Burgess]

Bill,

I want you to show us why Dick Allen does not meet your definition of a HOFer. Jim already showed that by your definition we would get about 169 members in the HOF. Why, to you, is Dick Allen not among the 169 best players of all time? I've already shown what the statistical measures show, and they show him being AT LEAST in the top 70 or so all time, in many cases even higher (Bill James' system has him #21). What exactly is it that leads you to believe he is considerably worse than the statistical measures would indicate? You have already told us you do not hold any clubhouse divisiveness against him.
Chris,
You have obviously done your homework and I'm not trying to blow off your question. I simply can't answer it. I simply have no stat system to evaluate players! If I did, perhaps I'd come to similiar conclusions as you have. But I don't. What can I say? I respect your stat chops, and wish I had more of my own. I actually saw Richie Allen play baseball, 1964-65, and he was awesome. Assumed he'd go down and make his mark.

But I didn't follow the game from 1966 on, and when I got back to it, mid-1980's, everyone was saying what a sad thing it was about Allen. He got a terrible press. Don't know if it was deserved or not.

BTW - When you say you've been trying to debunk league leads/ink for a long time, what the hell are you talking about? How young were you when you started doing that debunking? Were you in the womb?! There's something fishy going on here. And I think I know what it is. But we'll put that off for a more appropriate time/place.

Bill

[538280]

Chris,
You have obviously done your homework and I'm not trying to blow off your question. I simply can't answer it. I simply have no stat system to evaluate players! If I did, perhaps I'd come to similiar conclusions as you have. But I don't. What can I say? I respect your stat chops, and wish I had more of my own. I actually saw Richie Allen play baseball, 1964-65, and he was awesome. Assumed he'd go down and make his mark.

But I didn't follow the game from 1966 on, and when I got back to it, mid-1980's, everyone was saying what a sad thing it was about Allen. He got a terrible press. Don't know if it was deserved or not.

You reserve the right to think what you want. I just think it's natural that someone who's an ardent Dick Allen supporter, like myself, to question you on your belief and ask you to justify it. And, sorry, if all you can come up with is "he just didn't seem like a HOFer" then I can't accept that at all.

We need to get beyond our gut reactions, and look at what a player actually accomplished. There are many players who may seem less impressive in person, but when you get to looking at what they're actually done to help their team you find their resume is VERY impressive. You're not the first person who saw Dick Allen to say this to me, and I suspect that, because of that and the backgroud research I"ve done on him, the media never portrayed him like they should have.

Dick Allen was a subject of extreme racism in his first years as a player, coming up through the minor leagues. Allen played minor league baseball for the Phillies' farm team in Little Rock, Arkansas. Now obviously this was not an easy thing for a VERY talented black prospect to be the star of a minor league team in Arkansas. Young Dick (he doesn't want us to call him Richie, you know!) was not a bad guy, but sometimes a bit hot tempered, and as you can expect he did not always react well to the racism. The media, like the always do, especially when they were out to get him as is with his race, teared him apart. This is NOT something you should be holding against him.

When he went to Philadelphia he was again confronted with racial problems-this time with Frank Thomas, an outfielder the Phillies had picked up. Thomas was a big white man who had already had a decent career in the big leagues. He was making racial comments towards young outfielder Johnny Briggs. Dick did not take too kindly to this, and jumped in to help Briggs. It turned out to be a huge brawl between him and Thomas. This is how then backup Phillies catcher Pat Corrales described the fight:

"It had really started earlier on our road trip in Chicago. Thomas was your tough
bully type, and he had been picking on Johnny Briggs [21-year-old black outfielder],
saying `Boy this' and `Boy that.' Dick didn't go for that, and there were some words
between them. We get back to Philly, and during early BP I'm down the line talking
with Mauch, when we see this commotion down at the cage. They were just pulling
them apart at this point, after Thomas swung the bat. During the fight, Thomas had
hit Dick with a bat -- on the shoulder."

That is probably the most publicized bad event of Allen's career, he supposedly stalled the Phillies from building off their somewhat successful 1964 (though they did blow the pennant that year). Not only do Allen's actions actually seem admirable according to those who were actually there, but that explanation is lacking in factual basis anyway. It happened in July, well into the 1965 season already to begin with, and the team was already doing worse than they had the previous season, and there was no forseen amount that they did worse after the fight. Craig Wright makes this chart showing how they did before and after the fight:

Phillies before and after Allen/Thomas fight:
.............W......L......Pct.
Before....40.....35.....526
After......45.....41.....523

That incident was really tough on Allen for the rest of his career. Gene Mauch sums that up well:

When Mauch told Allen that Thomas was being put on irrevocable waivers, Dick
protested on Frank's behalf. Mauch ordered Allen and his teammates not to speak to
the press about the fight and backed it up with a threat of stiff fines. That was
unfortunate as the press and the fans heard just Thomas's side, and they did not
take kindly to a young black guy popping a white veteran. Mauch told me, "They
really turned on him [Allen] after the Thomas fight. From there, if he did one little
thing wrong, they would see it as so much worse because it was Allen. They got it in
their heads that this was a bad guy, and they booed his every move."

This, Bill, is why many people did not think of Dick Allen as a HOFer in his time. They were caught up in flat out wrong media reports, which painted him out to be the biggest SOB the game had ever seen. We should owe it to Allen to judge him on his actual accomplishments-and those ARE unquestionably of HOF quality as I've already shown.

BTW - When you say you've been trying to debunk league leads/ink for a long time, what the hell are you talking about? How young were you when you started doing that debunking? Were you in the womb?! There's something fishy going on here. And I think I know what it is. But we'll put that off for a more appropriate time/place.

Bill

You have to think in relative terms, Bill. Not years, more like months. For me at least, that is a long time. A "long time" has a different meaning to people of different ages.

[Bill Burgess]

Chris,

As I said earlier, I stopped following BB after the 1965 World Series. I entered HS and got obsessed with running. When I refocused on BB I was saddened to read what had happened to Richie. He was Richie when he came up, and that's how I knew him. But I'll call him Dick now if he wants me to. I never held anything against him. I always liked him as a player, and as a person. (But then again, I love Cobb/Hornsby). Just call me the horse's ass club.


You have to think in relative terms, Bill. Not years, more like months. For me at least, that is a long time. A "long time" has a different meaning to people of different ages.Hmm. You're making me laugh. Is this what you call 'fooling the world'.

[538280]

Chris,

As I said earlier, I stopped following BB after the 1965 World Series. I entered HS and got obsessed with running. When I refocused on BB I was saddened to read what had happened to Richie. He was Richie when he came up, and that's how I knew him. But I'll call him Dick now if he wants me to. I never held anything against him. I always liked him as a player, and as a person. (But then again, I love Cobb/Hornsby). Just call me the horse's ass club.

Allen really doesn't deserve to be mentioned with Hornsby in the "horse's ass club". That's a myth brought out by Bill James, who is the king of writing inaccurate things about Allen (count that in as a part where I HEAVILY disagree with James too). You should still support him for the HOF. Don't you see why you probably didn't think of him as a HOFer?


Hmm. You're making me laugh. Is this what you call 'fooling the world'.

:confused: I don't really know what you mean here.

[Bill Burgess]

There might be several factors which influence my thinking on Dick Allen. Since I stopped following BB after the '65 WS, I missed Dick's good seasons, and that might be the lion's share of why he doesn't impress me like he should. Also, when I started up again, I see he divided his career between 1B/3B. That might also fail to impress me, although now I realize he had valid reasons to move.

I can appreciate that, but you shouldn't, seeing as you're still so tough on Sizz, depite his equally-valid reasons for decline.

But there is something else I notice that I missed on my 1st. look at his stat page. When he went to the AL, his stats jumped way up! Just like Frank Robinson before him in 1967. Does that jump off the page at anyone else? His HRs jump way up, along with his other numbers.

Changing leagues also does not feel good to me. I'm funny that way. But I think the biggest thing is his stats in the 60's just don't jump off the page as they should. I know, I know. CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT! Indexing corrects for that.

How come no one has shown his relative stats yet? Strange. And we still don't know if his home/away are in line. I assume they are.

'Fooling the world'? I think you do. But we'll let it pass for now.

Bill

[538280]

There might be several factors which influence my thinking on Dick Allen. Since I stopped following BB after the '65 WS, I missed Dick's good seasons, and that might be the lion's share of why he doesn't impress me like he should. Also, when I started up again, I see he divided his career between 1B/3B. That might also fail to impress me, although now I realize he had valid reasons to move.

You missed quite a bit of Allen, including his MVP campaign in 1972.

I can appreciate that, but you shouldn't, seeing as you're still so tough on Sizz, depite his equally-valid reasons for decline.

Well, if you adjust for context you'll find Sisler wasn't even close to the hitter Allen was, even before his decline, but we'll hold back on that. Never mind that half of Sisler's career was "decline". I can pass off a one or two year decline, like Allen after 1974, but when a decline is half of your career, you need to be punished for your horrible play. It doesn't matter to me about Sisler's injury either. He gets no credit for that. But let's not talk about him.

But there is something else I notice that I missed on my 1st. look at his stat page. When he went to the AL, his stats jumped way up! Just like Frank Robinson before him in 1967. Does that jump off the page at anyone else? His HRs jump way up, along with his other numbers.

They went up for exactly one year, his MVP season in 1972. How exactly is this germane to the discussion, especially considering the AL was fully integrated by that time?

Changing leagues also does feel good to me. I'm funny that way. But I think the biggest thing is his stats in the 60's just don't jump off the page as they should. I know, I know. CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT! Indexing corrects for that.

...and indexing he comes out as one of the top 20 or so hitters of all time. Raw numbers are bad ways to compare players. All stats must be compared to the norms of the time. Otherwise Cobb/Wagner would look like awful power hitters, instead of the great ones they really are. It's the same with Allen. Don't be fooled by when he played.

How come no one has shown his relative stats yet? Strange. And we still don't know if his home/away are in line. I assume they are.

Here you go:

Dick Allen
..Rel. BA....Rel. OBP...Rel. SLG.....OPS+
....112.........117.........140.........156

The 156 OPS+ is 20th all time, tied with Willie Mays.

Home/Road, from Retrosheet:
...........BA.....OBP.....SLG
Home...293.....384.....548
Road....290.....372.....519

'Fooling the world'? I think you do. But we'll let it pass for now.

Bill

PM me about it then.

[Bill Burgess]

..Rel. BA....Rel. OBP...Rel. SLG.....OPS+
....112.........117.........140.........156

The 156 OPS+ is 20th all time, tied with Willie Mays.

Home/Road, from Retrosheet:
...........BA.....OBP.....SLG
Home...293.....384.....548
Road....290.....372.....519
Hmm. This is interesting. Looks as if Dick did much better in Rel. Slug./OPS+ than he did in Rel. BA/Onbase.

Hall of Fame for Rel.Slug/OPS+, but not Hall for his Rel. BA/Onbase.
This is good information. Just goes to show that we need the full range of stats and not just a few isolated ones, which might skew the full view.

His home/away is normal. No problems there. I wonder why his onbase is suppressed. I assume he walked well. Was he patient? No, not that much. His SOs prove that. He was going for too many bad balls they were feeding him.

I just looked again at his page on baseball-reference. I was a little surprised at a few items I saw.

Out of a 15 yr. career, he only played 1749 games out of a possible 2415, or only 72.42%. That is the equivalent of only playing 116 games/season. He must have been extremely injury-prone. Dick only has 8 full seasons, out of 15!!!

He also struck out a huge amount of times more than he walked. 1,556 SO, 894 walks. Even if we ignore his high SO, should we also look away at his low walks too? I thought you liked walks.

Also, in 1964, he went to bat 632 times, with only 91 RBIs. In 1965, he went to bat 619 times, with only 85 RBIs. Even with depressed offensive context, that is really low productivity. Were there that few Philly runners on base?

These are question that may have good reasons, but I don't know what they are. Dick led the AL in RBIs in 1972, and was in the Top 10 in the league on 3 other occasions. We are trying to distinguish between a good hitter and a Hall of Famer.

Bill

[Ubiquitous]

In 1964 Dick played the most games while batting 2nd, a close runner up was batting 4th, followed by a distant 3rd spot.

In 1965 it went 4th, 3rd, 2nd. 71-51-21.

In both years he had a lot more at bats with bases empty then with men on. 57% in one year and 55% the next. Generally speaking players with high RBI totals have that number reversed. They generally have more at bats with runners on then they do with bases empty.

Secondly in 1964 he was one of the league leaders with walks with runners in position, and in both years he was one of the league leaders in strike outs with runners in scoring position.

In 1964 his batting line was better with runners on and RISP, in 1965 it was worse. That is partly because of all the walks in 1964. Perhaps in 1965 when he wasn't a #2 man so much he tried to swing more instead of simply trying to get on base and that cost him.

[Bill Burgess]

When I saw his ABs and RBI figures, I thought as much. Looked as if Mauch was putting him too high up in the batting order. What was wrong with Mauch? Good looking prospect, hitting 2nd? Who did he have better? Pancho Herrera? Strange that Gene Mauch.

I know that Dick had RBI potential. He later proved it, but couldn't figure out why he started off so slowly. Hitting 2nd explains a lot of it, and too few Phillies on base might account for the rest of it.

Thanks, Ubi, for the good assist. Where did you get that from, Retrosheet?

Bill

[538280]

This post is just completely wrong, Bill. Your entire premise is false.

Hmm. This is interesting. Looks as if Dick did much better in Rel. Slug./OPS+ than he did in Rel. BA/Onbase.

Hall of Fame for Rel.Slug/OPS+, but not Hall for his Rel. BA/Onbase.
This is good information. Just goes to show that we need the full range of stats and not just a few isolated ones, which might skew the full view.

Those relative BA and OBP are actually HOF quality. Remember that group you showed earlier, guys who you though Allen was not as good as? Allen's relative OBP was the highest of that group, higher than Willie Mays and Henry Aaron. You need to realize that relative BA and OBP are on a completely different scale than rel. SLG. 112 relative BA and 117 rel. OBP are very impressive. This makes me wonder if you understand what is good as far as relative stats are concerned.

Willie Mays had a relative OBP of 117.

His home/away is normal. No problems there. I wonder why his onbase is suppressed. I assume he walked well. Was he patient? No, not that much. His SOs prove that. He was going for too many bad balls they were feeding him.

Wrong. Allen was a patient hitter, and he got on base more than his share of times with the walk. To get a good idea of how often the player walked compared to league, you can subtract his BA from his OBP and compare that to the league. Allen's career BA was .292, his OBP .378, 86 point difference. The league was .260/.324, 64 point difference. This means Allen was ahead of the league by about 34%. That is a very good walker.

I just looked again at his page on baseball-reference. I was a little surprised at a few items I saw.

Out of a 15 yr. career, he only played 1749 games out of a possible 2415, or only 72.42%. That is the equivalent of only playing 116 games/season. He must have been extremely injury-prone. Dick only has 8 full seasons, out of 15!!!

Allen spent most of his first season in the minors, and was only called up towards the end of the year. He only played 10 games that season. You cannot count that against him, yet you are. Allen also spent the last two years of his career as a bench player/pinch hitter. You cannot count that against him. When you look at his career, the times when he was supposed to be slotted in as a regular, you will find he missed a very large portion of the season all of one year, 1973. Allen was not the most durable player of his time, but durability is not a concern. You should not be holding against him the season in which he came up from the minors in September, and when he was a pinch hitter. You should be smarter than that.

He also struck out a huge amount of times more than he walked. 1,556 SO, 894 walks. Even if we ignore his high SO, should we also look away at his low walks too? I thought you liked walks.

Where are the "low walks"? His isolated plate discipline was 34% better than average, he walked 83 times per 162 games. That is a VERY good walker. Walks are factored into his OPS+ as well, and he is 20th all time in that. :rolleyes:

As far as strikeouts, I'd like you to give me any evidence a K is worse than a regular out. Not "I played in Little League and there was this situation when a guy Ked and it killed the team". Linear weight studies have been done on the issue. They have found a K is approximately 0.09% worse than regular outs. :rolleyes:

Also, in 1964, he went to bat 632 times, with only 91 RBIs. In 1965, he went to bat 619 times, with only 85 RBIs. Even with depressed offensive context, that is really low productivity. Were there that few Philly runners on base?

What the hell is this supposed to mean? Do I have to dubunk RBI once again? RBI have little to do with true productivity as a hitter. Check how he actually compares to league. You will find he was 3rd and 7th in OPS+ those years.

These are question that may have good reasons, but I don't know what they are. Dick led the AL in RBIs in 1972, and was in the Top 10 in the league on 3 other occasions. We are trying to distinguish between a good hitter and a Hall of Famer.

Bill

BILL, THIS GUY WAS 20TH ALL TIME IN OPS+. AS I'VE SHOWN A MILLION TIMES EVERY SINGLE CONTEXT ADJUSTED SYSTEM EVER MADE HAS HIM IN THE TOP 70 PLAYERS AT LEAST! Get a clue on what actually makes value in baseball players.

[AstrosFan]

I did the Willie Davis translations for Dick Allen, using the RC formula from ESPN. All stats are adjusted to a 750 run context. For the display, I only included stats that I thought Bill Burgess would be interested in seeing, since this is for him. I know the RC formula isn't the best, but it works fine for these purposes.

FName LName Year Team League G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB K SB CS AVG OBP SLG
Dick Allen 1963 PHI NL 10 25 7 8 2 1 0 2 0 5 0 0 0.320 0.308 0.520
Dick Allen 1964 PHI NL 162 652 146 221 42 14 32 106 74 142 3 4 0.339 0.401 0.594
Dick Allen 1965 PHI NL 161 639 110 207 34 15 22 100 82 155 17 2 0.324 0.395 0.531
Dick Allen 1966 PHI NL 141 538 127 180 27 11 43 124 74 140 11 7 0.335 0.415 0.667
Dick Allen 1967 PHI NL 122 480 106 159 35 11 26 92 84 121 22 6 0.331 0.431 0.610
Dick Allen 1968 PHI NL 152 549 117 165 20 11 40 121 89 170 8 8 0.301 0.393 0.594
Dick Allen 1969 PHI NL 118 451 93 139 25 3 35 105 71 148 10 3 0.308 0.399 0.614
Dick Allen 1970 SLN NL 122 459 88 128 17 5 34 102 71 118 5 4 0.279 0.377 0.560
Dick Allen 1971 LAN NL 155 575 103 188 28 1 27 113 108 118 9 1 0.327 0.430 0.518
Dick Allen 1972 CHA AL 148 534 116 184 33 6 44 146 117 133 22 9 0.345 0.460 0.674
Dick Allen 1973 CHA AL 72 252 41 81 21 3 16 43 34 51 7 2 0.321 0.399 0.623
Dick Allen 1974 CHA AL 128 472 94 149 25 1 34 99 61 91 8 1 0.316 0.391 0.591
Dick Allen 1975 PHI NL 119 421 58 102 22 3 13 67 61 110 12 2 0.242 0.337 0.399
Dick Allen 1976 PHI NL 85 304 59 86 17 1 16 55 40 64 12 4 0.283 0.362 0.507
Dick Allen 1977 OAK AL 54 172 20 42 4 0 5 32 25 36 1 3 0.244 0.337 0.355
FName LName Year Team Totals 1749 6523 1285 2039 352 86 387 1307 991 1602 147 56 0.313 0.400 0.572


Enjoy, Bill.

[Skin & Bones]

Dick Allen I believe is the only player who's had 2 seasons with 40 or more WinShares that isn't in the HOF.

[538280]

Bill, about Dick Allen's relative stats. Here is a chart in your Ty Cobb Thread, showing relative stats for the all time leaders in rel. SLG:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rel Rel Through 2003, over 5,000 PA, indexed and park adjusted.
Pro+ OBA Slg Rel Rel
Rank Rank Rank Player PA Pro+ OBA Slg
----------------------------------------------------------------

1 2 1 Babe Ruth 10504 207.0 134.5 172.5
2 1 2 Ted Williams 9786 189.5 134.6 154.9
3 11 3 Lou Gehrig 9554 180.4 126.4 154.0
4 3 4 Barry Bonds 10963 180.0 131.6 148.4
5 8 5 Rogers Hornsby 9259 174.7 127.4 147.3
8 16 6 Joe Jackson 5559 168.7 123.9 144.8
16 102 7 Hank Greenberg 6061 157.3 113.5 143.9
6 5 8 Mickey Mantle 9895 172.1 128.3 143.8
11 40 9 Mark McGwire 7657 162.8 119.0 143.8
13 43 10 Jimmie Foxx 9599 161.6 117.9 143.7
21 122 11 Joe DiMaggio 7657 155.6 112.7 142.9
17 78 12 Johnny Mize 7351 157.0 114.9 142.1
7 4 13 Dan Brouthers 7656 170.9 129.4 141.4
9 10 14 Ty Cobb 12777 168.4 127.0 141.4
22 83 15 Hank Aaron 13919 155.2 114.6 140.6
18 54 16 Dick Allen 7295 156.7 116.8 140.0
20 53 17 Willie Mays 12480 156.0 116.8 139.2
25 52 18 Mike Piazza 6007 154.7 117.0 137.7
14 24 19 Stan Musial 12677 158.2 121.1 137.1
38 192 20 Willie Stargell 9017 147.1 110.0 137.1
19 36 21 Manny Ramirez 5910 156.5 119.8 136.7
26 41 22 Frank Robinson 11726 154.0 118.5 135.5
12 9 23 Frank Thomas 8167 162.6 127.3 135.3
10 6 24 Pete Browning 5315 163.2 128.0 135.3
15 18 25 Tris Speaker 11679 157.4 123.0 134.3
23 25 26 Mel Ott 11228 155.0 120.9 134.1
48 215 27 Albert Belle 6669 142.9 108.9 134.0
33 60 28 Nap Lajoie 10239 150.0 116.1 133.9
35 86 29 Ralph Kiner 6247 148.0 114.4 133.7
40 111 30 Mike Schmidt 10046 146.8 113.2 133.6
41 131 31 Sam Thompson 6497 145.4 111.9 133.5
29 42 32 Ed Delahanty 8340 151.5 118.1 133.4
42 159 33 Ken Griffey Jr. 8161 144.0 110.9 133.1
32 48 34 Honus Wagner 11518 150.4 117.6 132.9
36 77 35 Willie McCovey 9681 147.7 114.9 132.9
43 153 36 Alex Rodriguez 5671 143.9 111.1 132.7
24 21 37 Roger Connor 8834 154.9 122.2 132.6
46 158 38 Sam Crawford 10353 143.5 110.9 132.5
93 514 39 Juan Gonzalez 7014 133.3 100.8 132.5
49 163 40 Frank Howard 7346 142.8 110.7 132.2
57 226 41 Jeff Heath 5540 140.4 108.6 131.8
64 272 42 Wally Berger 5636 138.8 107.2 131.6
39 66 43 Harry Heilmann 8683 147.0 115.7 131.2
30 35 44 Jim Thome 6420 150.9 119.8 131.0
27 20 45 Jeff Bagwell 8626 153.4 122.3 131.0
44 118 46 Hack Wilson 5454 143.7 112.8 130.9
50 125 47 Harry Stovey 6832 142.8 112.5 130.3
58 165 48 Babe Herman 6134 140.2 110.6 129.6
66 205 49 Darryl Strawberry 6325 138.6 109.3 129.3
102 419 50 Sammy Sosa 8462 132.4 103.1 129.3



Rel Rel
Pro+ OBA Slg Rel Rel
Rank Rank Rank Player PA Pro+ OBA Slg
----------------------------------------------------------------
2 1 2 Ted Williams 9786 189.5 134.6 154.9
1 2 1 Babe Ruth 10504 207.0 134.5 172.5
4 3 4 Barry Bonds 10963 180.0 131.6 148.4
7 4 13 Dan Brouthers 7656 170.9 129.4 141.4
6 5 8 Mickey Mantle 9895 172.1 128.3 143.8
10 6 24 Pete Browning 5315 163.2 128.0 135.3
59 7 267 Billy Hamilton 7544 140.0 127.6 112.4
5 8 5 Rogers Hornsby 9259 174.7 127.4 147.3
12 9 23 Frank Thomas 8167 162.6 127.3 135.3
9 10 14 Ty Cobb 12777 168.4 127.0 141.4
3 11 3 Lou Gehrig 9554 180.4 126.4 154.0
192 12 582 Roy Thomas 6409 123.6 126.3 97.3
31 13 74 Edgar Martinez 8113 150.7 125.7 125.1
52 14 156 Eddie Collins 11525 142.4 124.4 118.1
28 15 53 Jason Giambi 5460 152.7 123.9 128.8
8 16 6 Joe Jackson 5559 168.7 123.9 144.8
140 17 420 Rickey Henderson 13316 128.6 123.4 105.2
15 18 25 Tris Speaker 11679 157.4 123.0 134.3
126 19 372 Wade Boggs 10711 130.0 123.0 107.0
27 20 45 Jeff Bagwell 8626 153.4 122.3 131.0
24 21 37 Roger Connor 8834 154.9 122.2 132.6
82 22 246 George Gore 6104 135.0 122.0 113.1
76 23 208 Gene Tenace 5504 136.3 121.2 115.0
14 24 19 Stan Musial 12677 158.2 121.1 137.1
23 25 26 Mel Ott 11228 155.0 120.9 134.1
232 26 531 Mike Hargrove 6649 121.0 120.8 100.2
105 27 285 Joe Morgan 11278 132.1 120.5 111.6
34 28 54 Elmer Flick 6293 149.2 120.5 128.7
56 29 118 Cap Anson 11292 140.9 120.4 120.5
60 30 137 Jesse Burkett 9525 139.5 120.3 119.2
37 31 60 Gary Sheffield 8026 147.5 120.1 127.4
419 32 705 Eddie Stanky 5332 109.0 120.0 88.9
143 33 351 Topsy Hartsel 5697 127.9 119.9 108.0
120 34 300 Rod Carew 10422 131.0 119.9 111.1
30 35 44 Jim Thome 6420 150.9 119.8 131.0
19 36 21 Manny Ramirez 5910 156.5 119.8 136.7
103 37 260 John Olerud 8360 132.3 119.6 112.7
81 38 194 Arky Vaughan 7605 135.4 119.5 115.9
107 39 254 Ken Singleton 8529 132.1 119.2 112.9
11 40 9 Mark McGwire 7657 162.8 119.0 143.8
26 41 22 Frank Robinson 11726 154.0 118.5 135.5
29 42 32 Ed Delahanty 8340 151.5 118.1 133.4
13 43 10 Jimmie Foxx 9599 161.6 117.9 143.7
99 44 209 Tony Gwynn 10187 132.6 117.8 114.8
47 45 71 Chipper Jones 6064 143.2 117.8 125.4
388 46 649 Richie Ashburn 9624 110.9 117.8 93.1
111 47 226 Jackie Robinson 5698 131.7 117.7 114.0
32 48 34 Honus Wagner 11518 150.4 117.6 132.9
167 49 345 Roger Bresnahan 5262 126.0 117.5 108.5
118 50 229 Ross Youngs 5214 131.3 117.4 113.9


You will see there that Allen just misses the top 50 all time in relative OBP, and is 54th all time. Is that what you call a "weak" relative OBP? His PRO+, which combines OBP and SLG, has him the 18th best hitter all time.

[Bill Burgess]

Chris,

Don't you think you're over-focusing on OPS+ just a little. How many times have the others always cautioned to not allow a single stat to dominate one's thinking.

If I were to isolate a single stat from Cobb, (and I would have a galaxy to choose from), and the same with Wagner, you would be the first to cry foul.

No stat, not even OPS+, is the deciding, determining factor. Just as ERA+ doesn't make Pedro #1, so OPS+ doesn't make Dick a Top 20 all time hitter. We can't allow a hitter with 7295 PA to outrank one with a similar OPS+ with thousands more. It just wouldn't be fair, reasonable or logical. Every thousand PAs should drop Dick about 10 places lower. If he had lasted longer, his logical decline would have dropped his OPS+ lower, and lower, and . . .

Get the picture, Chris. No one is dissing Dick Allen here. We all like him, but we must also give justice to those with similar OPS+ numbers but huge numbers of PAs that Dick didn't, and that allowed him to appear better than he might have if he declined longer.

Thanks for showing me the chart. I wouldn't have thought of that otherwise.

Bill

[Bill Burgess]

It's now clear from the above chart why Dick Allen can compete in Slug./OPS+ with Mays/Aaron, etc. He batted so fewer times. If he had as many PA as those below him, he would not rank so highly.

By all rights, we must rank him FAR below Mays, Aaron, Musial, F. Robinson, Speaker, Lajoie, Ott, Schmidt, Wagner, Crawford. His lack of a decline deprived him of many PA which would have logically dropped his stats. Hope this logic doesn't infuriate you, Chris. You have fought hard.

Hmm. What were those unkind, belittling remarks you made about my BB smarts? Let me see. What were they?

This makes me wonder if you understand what is good as far as relative stats are concerned. BILL, THIS GUY WAS 20TH ALL TIME IN OPS+. AS I'VE SHOWN A MILLION TIMES EVERY SINGLE CONTEXT ADJUSTED SYSTEM EVER MADE HAS HIM IN THE TOP 70 PLAYERS AT LEAST! Get a clue on what actually makes value in baseball players.

[Windy City Fan]

You are correct Bill that Allen's short career and consequently his lack of a decline must be factored in. I don't think anyone is arguing Allen is equal to Mays or Aaron. However, many fo the guys on your list are low PA/short career guys. Jackson, Greenberg, Mize, McGwire, DiMaggio, Belle, and Kiner all are roughly in the ballpark of Allen's career plate appearances. That's pretty good company to be in. Everyone but Belle is solidly in the HOF, and he has a fairly strong case in my mind.

I hate to quote myself, but I think you missed my first post in this thread, where I compared Allen to several other short career guys in the HOF:
Duke Snider had only 900 more PA, with 14 less points of OPS+. Positional adjustment works for the Duke, but not a ton considering Allen's time at third, and 14 points of OPS+ is a lot of offense to make up.

Chuck Klien has about 200 less PA, and 19 less OPS+. If anything postional adjustment works for Allen here (650 games at third). I know you don't make timeline adjustments, but many folks do and that's another point for Richie.

Joe DiMaggio had only 200 more PA, and 1 point less OPS+. Yes, Joe D was better in the field, on the bases, missed years due to the war, and was handicapped by his homefield. I'm not arguing Allen = DiMaggio, but he's not terribly far off as a hitter.

Johnny Mize, about the same number of PA and 2 more points in OPS. Yes, like Joe, Mize missed time due to the war, but again Allen isn't far behind.

Hank Greenberg, 1200 less PA and 2 more points of OPS+ Missed 3 years due to the war.

Earl Averill, 100 less PA, 23 less points of OPS+. Maybe a slight positional adjustment for Averill, after factoring in Allen's time at third. Still, offensively, Allen blows him away.

These guys are all unquestioned HOF material (except possibly the Baker Bowl fueled Klien). They all had careers on the short side, and Allen stacks up well with them, even if he falls short of some of the names I mentioned. When you look at who is already in the HOF, Allen is easily above the margin.

Another way to look at is fill in a hypothetical decline phase for Allen. His last three years his OPS+ averages out to about 104. Give him 2000 more PA at 104 OPS+, heck you can even knock it down to 95 to factor in a greater decline. That still gives him a career OPS+ of 143 - solidly HOF material even with a prolonged decline.

[Bill Burgess]

Pre-1900 players are high-lighted in red.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rel Rel Through 2003, over 5,000 PA, indexed and park adjusted.
Pro+ OBA Slg Rel Rel
Rank Rank Rank Player PA Pro+ OBA Slg
----------------------------------------------------------------

1 2 1 Babe Ruth 10504 207.0 134.5 172.5
2 1 2 Ted Williams 9786 189.5 134.6 154.9
3 11 3 Lou Gehrig 9554 180.4 126.4 154.0
4 3 4 Barry Bonds 10963 180.0 131.6 148.4
5 8 5 Rogers Hornsby 9259 174.7 127.4 147.3
6 5 8 Mickey Mantle 9895 172.1 128.3 143.8
11 40 9 Mark McGwire 7657 162.8 119.0 143.8
13 43 10 Jimmie Foxx 9599 161.6 117.9 143.7
21 122 11 Joe DiMaggio 7657 155.6 112.7 142.9
17 78 12 Johnny Mize 7351 157.0 114.9 142.1
7 4 13 Dan Brouthers 7656 170.9 129.4 141.4
9 10 14 Ty Cobb 12777 168.4 127.0 141.4
22 83 15 Hank Aaron 13919 155.2 114.6 140.6
18 54 16 Dick Allen 7295 156.7 116.8 140.0
20 53 17 Willie Mays 12480 156.0 116.8 139.2
14 24 19 Stan Musial 12677 158.2 121.1 137.1
38 192 20 Willie Stargell 9017 147.1 110.0 137.1
26 41 22 Frank Robinson 11726 154.0 118.5 135.5
12 9 23 Frank Thomas 8167 162.6 127.3 135.3
15 18 25 Tris Speaker 11679 157.4 123.0 134.3
23 25 26 Mel Ott 11228 155.0 120.9 134.1
33 60 28 Nap Lajoie 10239 150.0 116.1 133.9
40 111 30 Mike Schmidt 10046 146.8 113.2 133.6
29 42 32 Ed Delahanty 8340 151.5 118.1 133.4
42 159 33 Ken Griffey Jr. 8161 144.0 110.9 133.1
32 48 34 Honus Wagner 11518 150.4 117.6 132.9
36 77 35 Willie McCovey 9681 147.7 114.9 132.9
24 21 37 Roger Connor 8834 154.9 122.2 132.6
46 158 38 Sam Crawford 10353 143.5 110.9 132.5
39 66 43 Harry Heilmann 8683 147.0 115.7 131.2
27 20 45 Jeff Bagwell 8626 153.4 122.3 131.0
102 419 50 Sammy Sosa 8462 132.4 103.1 129.3



Rel Rel
Pro+ OBA Slg Rel Rel
Rank Rank Rank Player PA Pro+ OBA Slg
----------------------------------------------------------------
2 1 2 Ted Williams 9786 189.5 134.6 154.9
1 2 1 Babe Ruth 10504 207.0 134.5 172.5
4 3 4 Barry Bonds 10963 180.0 131.6 148.4
7 4 13 Dan Brouthers 7656 170.9 129.4 141.4
6 5 8 Mickey Mantle 9895 172.1 128.3 143.8
59 7 267 Billy Hamilton 7544 140.0 127.6 112.4
5 8 5 Rogers Hornsby 9259 174.7 127.4 147.3
12 9 23 Frank Thomas 8167 162.6 127.3 135.3
9 10 14 Ty Cobb 12777 168.4 127.0 141.4
3 11 3 Lou Gehrig 9554 180.4 126.4 154.0
31 13 74 Edgar Martinez 8113 150.7 125.7 125.1
52 14 156 Eddie Collins 11525 142.4 124.4 118.1
140 17 420 Rickey Henderson 13316 128.6 123.4 105.2
15 18 25 Tris Speaker 11679 157.4 123.0 134.3
126 19 372 Wade Boggs 10711 130.0 123.0 107.0
27 20 45 Jeff Bagwell 8626 153.4 122.3 131.0
24 21 37 Roger Connor 8834 154.9 122.2 132.6
14 24 19 Stan Musial 12677 158.2 121.1 137.1
23 25 26 Mel Ott 11228 155.0 120.9 134.1
232 26 531 Mike Hargrove 6649 121.0 120.8 100.2
105 27 285 Joe Morgan 11278 132.1 120.5 111.6
56 29 118 Cap Anson 11292 140.9 120.4 120.5
60 30 137 Jesse Burkett 9525 139.5 120.3 119.2
37 31 60 Gary Sheffield 8026 147.5 120.1 127.4
120 34 300 Rod Carew 10422 131.0 119.9 111.1
103 37 260 John Olerud 8360 132.3 119.6 112.7
81 38 194 Arky Vaughan 7605 135.4 119.5 115.9
107 39 254 Ken Singleton 8529 132.1 119.2 112.9
11 40 9 Mark McGwire 7657 162.8 119.0 143.8
26 41 22 Frank Robinson 11726 154.0 118.5 135.5
29 42 32 Ed Delahanty 8340 151.5 118.1 133.4
13 43 10 Jimmie Foxx 9599 161.6 117.9 143.7
99 44 209 Tony Gwynn 10187 132.6 117.8 114.8
388 46 649 Richie Ashburn 9624 110.9 117.8 93.1
32 48 34 Honus Wagner 11518 150.4 117.6 132.9


You will see there that Allen just misses the top 50 all time in relative OBP, and is 54th all time. Is that what you call a "weak" relative OBP? His PRO+, which combines OBP and SLG, has him the 18th best hitter all time.

[Windy City Fan]

OBP is the underrated twin of the OPS combo, but 54th all time isn't exactly weak. It's not god-like, but its certainly not weak. However, his relative slugging is quite impressive, 16th best ever. While I think OBP is underrepresented in OPS and OPS+, SLG is still the more valuable component.

I'd be interested to see a chart of relative SLG, OBP, and OPS at 7000 at bats for the guys on your chart. I think Allen would slip a bit in his rankings, but he'd still be solidly on HOF ground.

[Bill Burgess]

I have a friend named Jack Carney from my childhood. He was one of our gang in the old neighborhood. We played ball in his back yard for years. He was a good player, and was obsessed with the Phillies. Never stopped talking about them, telling us what they did the day before, and went to a huge number of their games at Connie Mack Stadium. He later became a sports writer in the local area.

He got to know Dick Allen. I wrote him and ask him if Dick was a Hall of Famer for him. Below is the email he wrote me today.
------------------------------------------
Hey Bill,

Good to hear from you again. I swapped an email with your lovely sister just the other day. Tell her I said hello.
Now for your quandary. Tough one for me, because Allen was my favorite player growing up, and I got to know him when I was writing during his second stint with he Phillies. My heart says yes. My head says no.
The talent was there and I believe Allen would have easily had the numbers to reach Cooperstown if the Phillies had not screwed him over as a prospect and throughout his initial stay with the club under that drill Sergent manager Gene Mauch.
Having Allen become the first player of color to "integrate" their AAA team in Little Rock, Ark. in the early '60s was a major blunder that changed him forever. Then, when he got into the altercation with the racist Frank Thomas, the club practically made Allen look like the guilty party when they released Thomas. Allen was never the same after that.
The guy was awesome. He had speed, power, hit for average. I'm convinced if he had come up in a better environment (Cardinals, Dodgers, etc.) we wouldn't even be having this discussion. His numbers would have been off the chart.
But the Hall of Fame is what it is and when it comes to power hitters, guys with less than 500 homers are a long shot and compounding that shortcoming, Allen was afflicted with an attitude problem, thanks in a big part to he Phillies' mishandling of him.
If he came up today with his talent, he'd be the toast of baseball. Unfortunately, today is not his time and the Hall of Fame is not his destiny.
But other than that, I love the guy.
Hey, take care friend and keep in touch.

Jack

P.S. Now for your next Hall of Fame discussion (unless I missed out on this one): Larry Bowa. He has the highest fielding average of any shortstop in history and finished with more than 2,000 hits. The guy belongs in Canton. Check out the numbers of several shortstops already there. Bowa was better. Period. Take care.

[538280]

I'd be interested to see a chart of relative SLG, OBP, and OPS at 7000 at bats for the guys on your chart. I think Allen would slip a bit in his rankings, but he'd still be solidly on HOF ground.

I don't have a way of doing that, but I'll give the next best thing. By clicking on a player's stats by age, we can find a player's OPS+ at any age though his career. Let's look at through age 30, and how Dick Allen compared with the guys ranked around Allen (15-25) on that chart, through age 30, by OPS+:

Allen: 164
Aaron: 157
Mays: 159
Musial: 172
Stargell: 136
F.Robinson: 154
F.Thomas: 174
Speaker: 166
Ott: 159
Lajoie: 166
Allen: 164

Allen ranks 5th out of this group of 10. Every one of these guys (other than Allen, of course) is in the HOF (except for the not yet eligible Thomas) and every one except Stargell would be considered a top tier one. I would not consider Allen as good as any of these guys except Stargell again, and that is mainly because of longevity, and defense in many of those cases as well. But while he was playing his hitting was right with this group.

[538280]

It's now clear from the above chart why Dick Allen can compete in Slug./OPS+ with Mays/Aaron, etc. He batted so fewer times. If he had as many PA as those below him, he would not rank so highly.

This is true-but I am not claiming Dick Allen was Willie Mays or Hank Aaron or Stan Musial. I'm claiming that Dick Allen is well above the HOF standard, and those guys are not the HOF standard. Allen had 7295 PA. This is not a long career for the HOF, but it is not so short that it should deprive a guy who was unquestionably top tier in peak and per game value of the HOF.

In addition, despite his short career, Allen is HOF quality in career VALUE. He had 342 career Win Shares-this is 97th all time (and that includes pitchers). According to WS, his career value (not just longevity) is in the top half of the HOF.

By all rights, we must rank him FAR below Mays, Aaron, Musial, F. Robinson, Speaker, Lajoie, Ott, Schmidt, Wagner, Crawford. His lack of a decline deprived him of many PA which would have logically dropped his stats. Hope this logic doesn't infuriate you, Chris. You have fought hard.

No, this logic is correct, and I do not rate him as good as those guys. Those guys are all well above the standard of the HOF though. Dick Allen towers above the real standard of the HOF.

[538280]

Chris,

Don't you think you're over-focusing on OPS+ just a little. How many times have the others always cautioned to not allow a single stat to dominate one's thinking.

I have shown many different stats on this thread. You can check if you want. OPS+ is not like Win Shares or something like that though, where there are a lot of flaws and subjective decisions within it that may make you not trust it. OPS+ does exactly what it is supposed to do-it compares a player's OBP and SLG to the league average at his time. OPS+ is a hard stat. There are no subjective decisions within it, and it is context adjusted. This is what makes it such a good tool for evaluating hitters.

No stat, not even OPS+, is the deciding, determining factor. Just as ERA+ doesn't make Pedro #1, so OPS+ doesn't make Dick a Top 20 all time hitter. We can't allow a hitter with 7295 PA to outrank one with a similar OPS+ with thousands more. It just wouldn't be fair, reasonable or logical. Every thousand PAs should drop Dick about 10 places lower. If he had lasted longer, his logical decline would have dropped his OPS+ lower, and lower, and . . .

This comparison misses one key element-peak performance. Dick Allen's peak performance as a hitter was every bit as good as his career OPS+ was. To give you a break from OPS+, let's look at Win Shares for his peak. Allen's best three Win Share seasons are 41, 40, and 35. This is 2nd all time among 1Bmen, behind only Gehrig. It is ahead of Jimmie Foxx, Frank Thomas, Jeff Bagwell, Eddie Murray, Johnny Mize, Willie McCovey, Harmon Killebrew, it is literally MILES ahead of your boy George Sisler (33, 29, 29). His five year consecutive peak is third among 1Bmen, behind only Gehrig and Foxx (only 3 WS behind Foxx).

[64Cards]

I have a friend named Jack Carney from my childhood. He was one of our gang in the old neighborhood. We played ball in his back yard for years. He was a good player, and was obsessed with the Phillies. Never stopped talking about them, telling us what they did the day before, and went to a huge number of their games at Connie Mack Stadium. He later became a sports writer in the local area.

He got to know Dick Allen. I wrote him and ask him if Dick was a Hall of Famer for him. Below is the email he wrote me today.
------------------------------------------
Hey Bill,

Good to hear from you again. I swapped an email with your lovely sister just the other day. Tell her I said hello.
Now for your quandary. Tough one for me, because Allen was my favorite player growing up, and I got to know him when I was writing during his second stint with he Phillies. My heart says yes. My head says no.
The talent was there and I believe Allen would have easily had the numbers to reach Cooperstown if the Phillies had not screwed him over as a prospect and throughout his initial stay with the club under that drill Sergent manager Gene Mauch.
Having Allen become the first player of color to "integrate" their AAA team in Little Rock, Ark. in the early '60s was a major blunder that changed him forever. Then, when he got into the altercation with the racist Frank Thomas, the club practically made Allen look like the guilty party when they released Thomas. Allen was never the same after that.
The guy was awesome. He had speed, power, hit for average. I'm convinced if he had come up in a better environment (Cardinals, Dodgers, etc.) we wouldn't even be having this discussion. His numbers would have been off the chart.
But the Hall of Fame is what it is and when it comes to power hitters, guys with less than 500 homers are a long shot and compounding that shortcoming, Allen was afflicted with an attitude problem, thanks in a big part to he Phillies' mishandling of him.
If he came up today with his talent, he'd be the toast of baseball. Unfortunately, today is not his time and the Hall of Fame is not his destiny.
But other than that, I love the guy.
Hey, take care friend and keep in touch.

Jack

P.S. Now for your next Hall of Fame discussion (unless I missed out on this one): Larry Bowa. He has the highest fielding average of any shortstop in history and finished with more than 2,000 hits. The guy belongs in Canton. Check out the numbers of several shortstops already there. Bowa was better. Period. Take care.

Bill, I think your friend absolutely hit the nail on the head re Richie. I don't know about Bowa, he didn't play football, so unless he wants to work in a steel mill, I don't think he belongs in Canton either. Or Cooperstown, NY either.

As far as Allen goes, I did see him play at lot of baseball, his career pretty much covered the time when I really followed the game. I remember when the Cards picked him up from the Phils, the town was thrilled to get a big bat.. Richie was coming into a perfect situation, it was a team that was willing to give guys who had, for whatever reasons, been considered malcontents, a new life. [Maris, Cepeda] There were no racial barriers, Brock and especially Gibson were the team leaders and ran the clubhouse. Gibson was tired of not having a big bat in the lineup. He was playing for Red Schoendienst, who had rep as a manager of being one of the easiest guys in the game to play for. When Rich was introduced on Opening Night, he received an incredible ovation that lasted for 3 minutes. He hit 34 HR's and drove in 101 by mid-august, then had a hamstring injury and didn't play much the rest of the way. Turned out he didn't bother very much with the physical therapy, he preferred going over to the track in Illinois. Also when he was playing he was known to show up about .30 minutes before the game. At the end of the season, despite the fact that Allen's prescence had considerably boosted attendance, they were willing to part with Allen, traded to LA for Ted Sizemore, an average 2bman. Everyone in STL was furious, but my guess was Sizemore was the most they could get [although I don't recall hearing the other players complain.] The Cards, who had been in the WS in 67,68 and won 86 in 69, only won 76 in 70 with Allen, won 90 the next year without him. In LA, once again he was in an organization friendly to black players, an easy-going manager in Alston, yet he only lasted 1 season after a good, but hardly great season. Traded to the Chisox, he had Mgr. Chuck Tanner kissing his ass and he had an MVP season in 72, missed a big chunk of 73 and was traded after 74 for A PLAYER TO BE NAMED LATER [Jim Essien???] Wouldn't report to Atlanta, finally went to back to Philly and found that after 10 years of hard living, his superb skills weren't what they used to be and went into a severe career decline. My guess is that Richie did it pretty much on raw talent, if he had been willing to really work at his craft, he could have cut down on his enourmous amount of strikeouts and really put up some numbers that would rank with the best ever.

From his time period there 4 guys who really were intimidating guys at the plate, based on their size and strength. Besides Richie, it was Stargell, McCovey and Frank Howard. The 2 Willie's had the career longevity numbers for HOF, whether Allen or Howard do is questionable. Hondo's career numbers are pretty similar to Allens and neither did much on defense.

I like Richie Allen, still have a framed SI issue of him from 70 in his Cards uniform. Wish he had come up with us in 64.

[538280]

An advantage Dick Allen had over deadballers was that they didn't have the liveball/HR to help them separate from their contact-hitting brethren.


This logic has been widely debunked on this forum and you know it. The deadball era did not have that many HRs, but this had absolutely no effect on how much they separated from the league, simply because the standard deviation of batting averages in that time was FAR higher than it would be at any other point in history.

[Bill Burgess]

This comparison misses one key element-peak performance. Dick Allen's peak performance as a hitter was every bit as good as his career OPS+ was. To give you a break from OPS+, let's look at Win Shares for his peak. Allen's best three Win Share seasons are 41, 40, and 35. This is 2nd all time among 1Bmen, behind only Gehrig. It is ahead of Jimmie Foxx, Frank Thomas, Jeff Bagwell, Eddie Murray, Johnny Mize, Willie McCovey, Harmon Killebrew, it is literally MILES ahead of your boy George Sisler (33, 29, 29). His five year consecutive peak is third among 1Bmen, behind only Gehrig and Foxx (only 3 WS behind Foxx).
Chris,
It's not that I don't like your work. I do. But I am not comfortable with your over-reliance on OPS+/Win Shares. I like a wider, broader spectrum of hard stat evidence for my evaluations.

For example: I would feel a lot more comfortable, if when you show your standard OPS+ listing, to also give the PA right in the next column. That would give us a broader context with wich to muse a little.

Also, I have a hard time getting past putting a player into the Hall with only 8 full seasons. Now I know what your response will be. You will list those hitters with less or comparable PA as Dick Allen. But how do you know if I support those players in the Hall either.

For the longest time, they kept Addie Joss out of the Hall due to too short a career. I think you need 10 seasons, and he died after his 9th. But I think they finally let him in in 1978, via the Veterans Committee 'back door'. 42 years after the Hall's 1st election.

Bill Lange can even be considered due to only 7 seasons. I think one must have 10 seasons to be considered for the Hall. 10 seasons x 500 AB = 5,000 ABs. Dick has almost 7,300. Very light for Hall standards. Now to be honest, Lange isn't going in anyway due to sub-par Hall standards of hitting. Understood, and I have no problems with his exclusion. He only had 3609 PA.

[Bill Burgess]

This logic has been widely debunked on this forum and you know it. The deadball era did not have that many HRs, but this had absolutely no effect on how much they separated from the league, simply because the standard deviation of batting averages in that time was FAR higher than it would be at any other point in history.
Wrongo from the Congo. Yes, the deadball sluggers are considered sluggers in their own different way, but no one can tell me that Wagner, Crawford, Lajoie, Brouthers, Delahanty would not have separated much better. I am adamant on this point. My feet are in concrete on this. And the lack of the HR weapon also denied at least some of them of their much higher Walk totals. Not Wagner, of course. He wasn't going to wait for a hittable pitch anyway, and probably neither would Lajoie. They simply weren't the walking, patient type of hitter.

But the deadball slugger had suppressed power stats, and also OBP+ than they would have if they had player ball later on. You are just wrong, wrong, wrong on this point, Chris. And I don't care how much you protest/insist to the contrary.

I just won't listen to you on this one. I'm not hearing you. You know less that I do on this point & I can't hear you. On this finally, I will not back down this time.

If Killebrew/Kiner had played deadball, they would not have gotten nearly as many walks, due to not being as feared. They got a much higher Onbase % due to the fear their HRs inspired. The only debunking you've done was extremely limited.

[Chisox]

Wrongo from the Congo. Yes, the deadball sluggers are considered sluggers in their own different way, but no one can tell me that Wagner, Crawford, Lajoie, Brouthers, Delahanty would not have separated much better. I am adamant on this point. My feet are in concrete on this. And the lack of the HR weapon also denied at least some of them of their much higher Walk totals. Not Wagner, of course. He wasn't going to wait for a hittable pitch anyway, and probably neither would Lajoie. They simply weren't the walking, patient type of hitter.

You both are right, but each in your own way. There is no possible way on the planet that deadball/pre-modern era home-run hitters would have seperated more than they already did ratio wise. There is a reason why nearly every high home run relative number is from that era. It did prevent them from seperating total wise. Even if you have a % of .020 while the rest of the league is .002 for a relative % 10X higher, over the course of 5,000AB you'll still only wind up with 100 HR, while the average player would have 10 over the same span, a difference of only 90. Convert that to a live-ball era where a league might average .020, a % of .100 would be only 5 times as great. However, the player with a % of .100 would equal 500HR over 5,000AB, but the average player would still only hit 100, a difference of 400HR. Of course, the recent average is .035, so even the best ratios of .070 for a career is only going to be 2:1 and the difference is going to be 350-175, a difference of 175, which is still more than the deadball/pre-modern era.

[538280]

Wrongo from the Congo. Yes, the deadball sluggers are considered sluggers in their own different way, but no one can tell me that Wagner, Crawford, Lajoie, Brouthers, Delahanty would not have separated much better. I am adamant on this point. My feet are in concrete on this. And the lack of the HR weapon also denied at least some of them of their much higher Walk totals. Not Wagner, of course. He wasn't going to wait for a hittable pitch anyway, and probably neither would Lajoie. They simply weren't the walking, patient type of hitter.

Apparently you've missed Matt's posts in which he basically proved this wrong. To start off, the relative HR numbers from the deadball era are actually MUCH higher than any other era, never mind the tremendously large standard deviation in batting average that contributed to separation there. This is just a false assumption. It has been proven to be so.

But the deadball slugger had suppressed power stats, and also OBP+ than they would have if they had player ball later on. You are just wrong, wrong, wrong on this point, Chris. And I don't care how much you protest/insist to the contrary.

They had suppressed RAW power stats. Not suppressed relative power stats.

I just won't listen to you on this one. I'm not hearing you. You know less that I do on this point & I can't hear you. On this finally, I will not back down this time.

I know less than you do on this matter? I find that to be amusing. You have nothing but subjective feelings here, when there is concrete proof to the contrary.

If Killebrew/Kiner had played deadball, they would not have gotten nearly as many walks, due to not being as feared. They got a much higher Onbase % due to the fear their HRs inspired. The only debunking you've done was between your ears.

I do agree with this. Killebrew and Kiner would not have adapted well to the deadball game, when speed was such a huge part of power. A player like that would not have succeeded. This has nothing to do with the way they should be evaluated.

[Bill Burgess]

Relative Stats:

courtesy of David Kent:

Pre-1920 hitters are high-lighted in red.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rel Rel Through 2003, over 5,000 PA, indexed and park adjusted.
Pro+ OBA Slg Rel Rel
Rank Rank Rank Player PA Pro+ OBA Slg
----------------------------------------------------------------

1 2 1 Babe Ruth 10504 207.0 134.5 172.5
2 1 2 Ted Williams 9786 189.5 134.6 154.9
3 11 3 Lou Gehrig 9554 180.4 126.4 154.0
4 3 4 Barry Bonds 10963 180.0 131.6 148.4
5 8 5 Rogers Hornsby 9259 174.7 127.4 147.3
8 16 6 Joe Jackson 5559 168.7 123.9 144.8
16 102 7 Hank Greenberg 6061 157.3 113.5 143.9
6 5 8 Mickey Mantle 9895 172.1 128.3 143.8
11 40 9 Mark McGwire 7657 162.8 119.0 143.8
13 43 10 Jimmie Foxx 9599 161.6 117.9 143.7
21 122 11 Joe DiMaggio 7657 155.6 112.7 142.9
17 78 12 Johnny Mize 7351 157.0 114.9 142.1
7 4 13 Dan Brouthers 7656 170.9 129.4 141.4
9 10 14 Ty Cobb 12777 168.4 127.0 141.4
22 83 15 Hank Aaron 13919 155.2 114.6 140.6
18 54 16 Dick Allen 7295 156.7 116.8 140.0
20 53 17 Willie Mays 12480 156.0 116.8 139.2
25 52 18 Mike Piazza 6007 154.7 117.0 137.7
14 24 19 Stan Musial 12677 158.2 121.1 137.1
38 192 20 Willie Stargell 9017 147.1 110.0 137.1
19 36 21 Manny Ramirez 5910 156.5 119.8 136.7
26 41 22 Frank Robinson 11726 154.0 118.5 135.5
12 9 23 Frank Thomas 8167 162.6 127.3 135.3
10 6 24 Pete Browning 5315 163.2 128.0 135.3
15 18 25 Tris Speaker 11679 157.4 123.0 134.3
23 25 26 Mel Ott 11228 155.0 120.9 134.1
48 215 27 Albert Belle 6669 142.9 108.9 134.0
33 60 28 Nap Lajoie 10239 150.0 116.1 133.9
35 86 29 Ralph Kiner 6247 148.0 114.4 133.7
40 111 30 Mike Schmidt 10046 146.8 113.2 133.6
41 131 31 Sam Thompson 6497 145.4 111.9 133.5
29 42 32 Ed Delahanty 8340 151.5 118.1 133.4
42 159 33 Ken Griffey Jr. 8161 144.0 110.9 133.1
32 48 34 Honus Wagner 11518 150.4 117.6 132.9
36 77 35 Willie McCovey 9681 147.7 114.9 132.9
43 153 36 Alex Rodriguez 5671 143.9 111.1 132.7
24 21 37 Roger Connor 8834 154.9 122.2 132.6
46 158 38 Sam Crawford 10353 143.5 110.9 132.5
93 514 39 Juan Gonzalez 7014 133.3 100.8 132.5
49 163 40 Frank Howard 7346 142.8 110.7 132.2
57 226 41 Jeff Heath 5540 140.4 108.6 131.8
64 272 42 Wally Berger 5636 138.8 107.2 131.6
39 66 43 Harry Heilmann 8683 147.0 115.7 131.2
30 35 44 Jim Thome 6420 150.9 119.8 131.0
27 20 45 Jeff Bagwell 8626 153.4 122.3 131.0
44 118 46 Hack Wilson 5454 143.7 112.8 130.9
50 125 47 Harry Stovey 6832 142.8 112.5 130.3
58 165 48 Babe Herman 6134 140.2 110.6 129.6
66 205 49 Darryl Strawberry 6325 138.6 109.3 129.3
102 419 50 Sammy Sosa 8462 132.4 103.1 129.3



Rel Rel
Pro+ OBA Slg Rel Rel
Rank Rank Rank Player PA Pro+ OBA Slg
----------------------------------------------------------------
2 1 2 Ted Williams 9786 189.5 134.6 154.9
1 2 1 Babe Ruth 10504 207.0 134.5 172.5
4 3 4 Barry Bonds 10963 180.0 131.6 148.4
7 4 13 Dan Brouthers 7656 170.9 129.4 141.4
6 5 8 Mickey Mantle 9895 172.1 128.3 143.8
10 6 24 Pete Browning 5315 163.2 128.0 135.3
59 7 267 Billy Hamilton 7544 140.0 127.6 112.4
5 8 5 Rogers Hornsby 9259 174.7 127.4 147.3
12 9 23 Frank Thomas 8167 162.6 127.3 135.3
9 10 14 Ty Cobb 12777 168.4 127.0 141.4
3 11 3 Lou Gehrig 9554 180.4 126.4 154.0
192 12 582 Roy Thomas 6409 123.6 126.3 97.3
31 13 74 Edgar Martinez 8113 150.7 125.7 125.1
52 14 156 Eddie Collins 11525 142.4 124.4 118.1
28 15 53 Jason Giambi 5460 152.7 123.9 128.8
8 16 6 Joe Jackson 5559 168.7 123.9 144.8
140 17 420 Rickey Henderson 13316 128.6 123.4 105.2
15 18 25 Tris Speaker 11679 157.4 123.0 134.3
126 19 372 Wade Boggs 10711 130.0 123.0 107.0
27 20 45 Jeff Bagwell 8626 153.4 122.3 131.0
24 21 37 Roger Connor 8834 154.9 122.2 132.6
82 22 246 George Gore 6104 135.0 122.0 113.1
76 23 208 Gene Tenace 5504 136.3 121.2 115.0
14 24 19 Stan Musial 12677 158.2 121.1 137.1
23 25 26 Mel Ott 11228 155.0 120.9 134.1
232 26 531 Mike Hargrove 6649 121.0 120.8 100.2
105 27 285 Joe Morgan 11278 132.1 120.5 111.6
34 28 54 Elmer Flick 6293 149.2 120.5 128.7
56 29 118 Cap Anson 11292 140.9 120.4 120.5
60 30 137 Jesse Burkett 9525 139.5 120.3 119.2
37 31 60 Gary Sheffield 8026 147.5 120.1 127.4
419 32 705 Eddie Stanky 5332 109.0 120.0 88.9
143 33 351 Topsy Hartsel 5697 127.9 119.9 108.0
120 34 300 Rod Carew 10422 131.0 119.9 111.1
30 35 44 Jim Thome 6420 150.9 119.8 131.0
19 36 21 Manny Ramirez 5910 156.5 119.8 136.7
103 37 260 John Olerud 8360 132.3 119.6 112.7
81 38 194 Arky Vaughan 7605 135.4 119.5 115.9
107 39 254 Ken Singleton 8529 132.1 119.2 112.9
11 40 9 Mark McGwire 7657 162.8 119.0 143.8
26 41 22 Frank Robinson 11726 154.0 118.5 135.5
29 42 32 Ed Delahanty 8340 151.5 118.1 133.4
13 43 10 Jimmie Foxx 9599 161.6 117.9 143.7
99 44 209 Tony Gwynn 10187 132.6 117.8 114.8
47 45 71 Chipper Jones 6064 143.2 117.8 125.4
388 46 649 Richie Ashburn 9624 110.9 117.8 93.1
111 47 226 Jackie Robinson 5698 131.7 117.7 114.0
32 48 34 Honus Wagner 11518 150.4 117.6 132.9
167 49 345 Roger Bresnahan 5262 126.0 117.5 108.5
118 50 229 Ross Youngs 5214 131.3 117.4 113.9
__________________
Dave Kent
-------------------------------------------------------------------
There. I think I've proven my point rather succinctly. Only 11 out of 50 in the top Relative Slug. (22%) & only 15 of the top in Rel. Onbase.(30%)

Convinced now that a hitter requires their HRs to separate from the pack? And HRs are also important for a respectable Onbase, due to the walks that fear inspires.

In fact, it's even worse than it appears. The only reason that the pre-1920 hitters did even that well, is because 7 of the top slugging % Pre-1920 guys have fewer than 9,000 PAs, and 9 of the Pre-1920 Onbase hitters have fewer than 9,000!

Bill

[Ubiquitous]

There. I think I've proven my point rather succinctly.



Why do you think you have proven your point? How many players in the top 50 should be from the pre 1920's?



Before 1919 there was 87,586 games played, after there was 290,000 or so games played. That means games before live ball represent about 23% of all games played. How many players do you have on the list? 22%.

I'm also willing to bet that if we look at this question in terms of actual players and not team games we will find that the 11 player representation is going to be a higher representation then we would expect based on how many players were involved. Meaning I bet that if we figured out how many players played before 1920 and then also players that played after we wouldn't expect to see 22% of the names be from pre-1920.

[Ubiquitous]

In fact, it's even worse than it appears. They only reason that the pre-1920 hitters did even that well, is because 7 of the top slugging % Pre-1920 guys have fewer than 9,000 PAs, and 9 of the Pre-1920 Onbase hitters have fewer than 9,000!

Bill


Could that be because they played in an era in which they did not play 154 games or 162 games a year? In fact they played much much less pers season then that. A lot of these guys did play for a lot of years and would have accrued a lot of PA's in more modern schedules. So we are not talking about players who had no decline (well okay for Jackson we are) but players who had normal careers and whose decline would have the same impact on their numbers as a normal players decline would have on his numbers. Meaning if somebody who gets 12,000 PA over say 18 years has 2,000 PA in his decline then his decline phase represents 1/6th of his career. And the shorter season guy might get 9,000 PA over an 18 year career and have 1,500 PA in decline. Yes he has less decline PA's but they have the same effect on his stats as a decline for a normal guy would.

[Bill Burgess]

Yes, I know about the shorter seasons. In fact, I looked up the numbers during a debate, trying to defend Buck Ewing's few games caught. Here is what I came up with.

1883 ------- 100 games
1884, 1885 - 115 games
1886, 1887 - 125 games
1887-1891 - 135 games
1892 ------- 154 games
1893-1897 - 135 games

Your point is well made, Ubi, but it doesn't invalidate mine 100% either, I don't think. We find that the modern hitters on the Slugging list are almost exclusively comprised of 'sluggers'. Almost no contact hitters. Proving that HRs are required in separating a certain degree from the pack. The Onbase list does have a few contact hitters, but not many! Collins/Stanky.

The pre-1920's era(s) have so fewer sluggers, due to the inadvisability of being that kind of hitter. Unless one had some speed afoot. So, in those long-ago times, the contact hitters/sluggers were all bunched much closer together in terms of their Rel. Slug. %. The highest raw SA Cobb ever achieved was .621, and others never tire of reminding me that it was largely achieved on the basis of his many ISPHRs, triples, doubles.

[Ubiquitous]

To separate from the pack one doesn't need a high SLG, just merely be apart from the rest of the pack. In 1909 the average was .303. In 1996 it was .445. To be 30% better means that in 1909 one must have a SLG of .394 and in 1996 a SLG of .579. Cobb in 1909 had a SLG of .517 which is like slugging .759 in 1996 in terms of relative slugging.

[538280]

Your point is well made, Ubi, but it doesn't invalidate mine 100% either, I don't think. We find that the modern hitters on the Slugging list are almost exclusively comprised of 'sluggers'. Almost no contact hitters. Proving that HRs are required in separating a certain degree from the pack. The Onbase list does have a few contact hitters, but not many! Collins/Stanky.

What are you talking about? The modern players on the SLG list are not generally considered contact hitters because they were better at hitting for power. They all were also high on the OBP list though. These are the top 10 modern players and where they are on the relative OBP list:

Bonds: 3rd
Mantle: 5th
McGwire: 40th
Aaron: 83rd
Mays: 53rd
Allen: 54th
Piazza: 52nd
Ramirez: 36th
Robinson: 31st
Thomas: 9th

All of those guys were great OBP guys

The reason all the great sluggers pre 1920 were also great contact hitters is because BA was a more important part of SLG in the deadball era.

The pre-1920's era(s) have so fewer sluggers, due to the inadvisability of being that kind of hitter. Unless one had some speed afoot. So, in those long-ago times, the contact hitters/sluggers were all bunched much closer together in terms of their Rel. Slug. %. The highest raw SA Cobb ever achieved was .621, and others never tire of reminding me that it was largely achieved on the basis of his many ISPHRs, triples, doubles.

NO THEY WEREN'T! You just don't get it, the more I read of this the more I wonder if you even truly understand the way relative stats work. BA is an important part of SLG, especially in the deadball era. The standard deviation of BA in the deadball era was FAR higher than it ever was. This has a huge effect on SLG.

Where you would be right, Bill, is that it probably was harder to have a higher ISO (not SLG) in say 1910 than it would be today. But OPS is two parts BA (because BA is really a large part of OBP and SLG) and one part ISO. So, thinking of it that way it was easier in the deadball era in two parts, and easier today in one....this does not make it easier overall. Your entire line of thinking is wrong.

[Bill Burgess]

I think that you guys are losing your focus in this discussion. My only premise is that a hitter who hits post 1920, with access to the HR weapon, will find it much easier to pull away from his contact-hitting peers.

Such as Hornsby, 1922. Those who hit pre 1920 had to rely on their BA to separate from their rivals, spiced by many extra-base hits. That is how Cobb, Speaker, Wagner, Lajoie, Crawford, Delahanty accomplished their high Rel. SA.

Was it possible to achieve a high SA without any power? Perhaps in isolated cases, but not as a group.

But post 1920, players with power, but not much speed could register high Rel. SA. Kiner, Killebrew, Greenberg, R.Jackson, etc.

Everyone assumes that certain, select deadball hitters would have hit a lot of home runs. Wagner, Lajoie, Crawford, Delahanty, Brouthers, Anson.

My point is that the HR is the single most efficient way to achieve a high Rel. SA. The era, 1920-38, was one of the few eras where a good hitter could achieve both a high BA/Slg. at the same time. Ruth, Gehrig, Foxx, Simmons, DiMag, H.Wilson, Babe Herman, Klein, etc.

I have long been just so confused as to why so many other-wise savvy members have a problem grasping this one simple little arguing point. It doesn't seem controversial to me.

If my point on HRs been important to separating from the pack is incorrect, then why are so few contact hitters present on either all time Relative Slg./Onbase lists?

If the contact hitters are not really disadvantaged by their lack of homers, then where are they on either of the above lists? I see some on the Onbase list. Eddie Collins, Eddie Stanky, Billy Hamilton, George Gore, Carew, Gwynn, Ashburn.

I see no 'contact' hitters on the Rel. Slg. list. Why? Why indeed.

Bill

[leecemark]

--Slugging is not supposed to measure contact hitting. It is supposed to measure power. Power in the deadball era meant mostly doubles and triples and the best sluggers were generally leading the league in those categories every year. Meanwhile lesser hitters got very few extra base hits of any kind, allowing the best sluggers to separate from the pack.

[soberdennis]

I have a friend named Jack Carney from my childhood. He was one of our gang in the old neighborhood. We played ball in his back yard for years. He was a good player, and was obsessed with the Phillies. Never stopped talking about them, telling us what they did the day before, and went to a huge number of their games at Connie Mack Stadium. He later became a sports writer in the local area.

He got to know Dick Allen. I wrote him and ask him if Dick was a Hall of Famer for him. Below is the email he wrote me today.
------------------------------------------
Hey Bill,

Good to hear from you again. I swapped an email with your lovely sister just the other day. Tell her I said hello.
Now for your quandary. Tough one for me, because Allen was my favorite player growing up, and I got to know him when I was writing during his second stint with he Phillies. My heart says yes. My head says no.
The talent was there and I believe Allen would have easily had the numbers to reach Cooperstown if the Phillies had not screwed him over as a prospect and throughout his initial stay with the club under that drill Sergent manager Gene Mauch.
Having Allen become the first player of color to "integrate" their AAA team in Little Rock, Ark. in the early '60s was a major blunder that changed him forever. Then, when he got into the altercation with the racist Frank Thomas, the club practically made Allen look like the guilty party when they released Thomas. Allen was never the same after that.
The guy was awesome. He had speed, power, hit for average. I'm convinced if he had come up in a better environment (Cardinals, Dodgers, etc.) we wouldn't even be having this discussion. His numbers would have been off the chart.
But the Hall of Fame is what it is and when it comes to power hitters, guys with less than 500 homers are a long shot and compounding that shortcoming, Allen was afflicted with an attitude problem, thanks in a big part to he Phillies' mishandling of him.
If he came up today with his talent, he'd be the toast of baseball. Unfortunately, today is not his time and the Hall of Fame is not his destiny.
But other than that, I love the guy.
Hey, take care friend and keep in touch.

Jack

P.S. Now for your next Hall of Fame discussion (unless I missed out on this one): Larry Bowa. He has the highest fielding average of any shortstop in history and finished with more than 2,000 hits. The guy belongs in Canton. Check out the numbers of several shortstops already there. Bowa was better. Period. Take care.
Bowa belongs in Canton.:laugh :laugh I am sure Bowa is better than every shortstop there
I'll assume your friend means Cooperstown. But it gave me a good laugh.

[Bill Burgess]

--Slugging is not supposed to measure contact hitting. It is supposed to measure power. Power in the deadball era meant mostly doubles and triples and the best sluggers were generally leading the league in those categories every year. Meanwhile lesser hitters got very few extra base hits of any kind, allowing the best sluggers to separate from the pack.
Relative Slugging % has long been one of my favorite stats. I have used it for a long time to measure quality as a hitter. It measures quality much better and more comprehensively than Relative BA. I'm sure you'll agree with that.

I agree with you on what you said, but why don't you come to the same conclusions I did? If sluggers in the deadball cashed in on extra base hits, wouldn't it be logical that a better power ball would allow those same hitters to separate more easily from the median hitters? If you disagree, why not?

In other words, extra base hitters are the more valuable ones. And a lively ball allows extra base hitters to pull away from the following pack. And to also fatten up on their Onbase % with the attendant walks.

What's unclear in my logic here?

Bill

[jalbright]

Relative Slugging % has long been one of my favorite stats. I have used it for a long time to measure quality as a hitter. It measures quality much better and more comprehensively than Relative BA. I'm sure you'll agree with that.

I agree with you on what you said, but why don't you come to the same conclusions I did? If sluggers in the deadball cashed in on extra base hits, wouldn't it be logical that a better power ball would allow those same hitters to separate more easily from the median hitters? If you disagree, why not?

In other words, extra base hitters are the more valuable ones. And a lively ball allows extra base hitters to pull away from the following pack. And to also fatten up on their Onbase % with the attendant walks.

What's unclear in my logic here?

Bill

If you want to persuade me of your logic here, I'll propose a solid test. Power is a skill which seems to fade the least with age. Show me that your deadball guys as a group aged well in relative isolated slugging percentage, and I'll be far more receptive to your argument. If they declined relative to the pack more than we expect aging sluggers to do today, let's just say I'm more skeptical that it's a function of their batting style and competition. The reason for the use of isolated slugging percentage (slg-BA) is your argument is they should have been able to do that.

Jim Albright

[538280]

Relative Slugging % has long been one of my favorite stats. I have used it for a long time to measure quality as a hitter. It measures quality much better and more comprehensively than Relative BA. I'm sure you'll agree with that.

I do agree that rel. SLG measures hitting better than rel. BA, but you'd be better off using OPS+, which includes OBP.

Better yet would be OWP (using the technical RC formula, not the basic one) or EqA (this is probably the best option, since it is available for every player in history at baseballprospectus.com), which factor in the TOTAL offensive contribution a player makes, including stealing bases and staying out of double plays. For certain players, like Rickey Henderson, Tim Raines, and Joe Morgan, this makes a huge difference in their offensive value.

I agree with you on what you said, but why don't you come to the same conclusions I did? If sluggers in the deadball cashed in on extra base hits, wouldn't it be logical that a better power ball would allow those same hitters to separate more easily from the median hitters? If you disagree, why not?

No. You still fail to realize that slugging has a real lot to do with BA. The part where it would be harder for them to separate is in ISO, and that is it. However, looking at total OPS+ this has no effect, because BA (where they are hugely boosted by era) really counts twice in OPS+, which ISO only counts once.

In other words, extra base hitters are the more valuable ones. And a lively ball allows extra base hitters to pull away from the following pack. And to also fatten up on their Onbase % with the attendant walks.

This is not true either. HRs do not bring walks. Power does. If power in the deadball era was doubles and triples, then those players will get the same amount of extra walks, because they were just as good power hitters.

What's unclear in my logic here?

There is nothing unclear. It's just wrong.

[Bill Burgess]

Jim,

I'm not certain I even understand your question. Are you saying that deadball sluggers should have declined more than modern sluggers?

If they did, that is not exactly related to my point. My point is simple.

Extra base hits are more valuable than singles. Those hitters who can deliver them are more valuable hitters than those who can't.

The live ball lets extra base hitters deliver the goods easier. The modern hitters had it, and used it well. The deadball sluggers didn't, and had to make it up with speed-based EBHs.

Deadball sluggers lacked an essential tool of their trade - the lively ball/HR. Would have made their hitting so much easier. It did buoy the stats of Cobb, Speaker, Collins, Wheat, Roush in the 1920's, and softened their natural decline phases. Their declines would have been a good deal uglier without it.

That's all I'm saying here. Am I not being clear here?

Bill

[jalbright]

Bill,

I suspect they did, for the reason you state in your post--a lot of the "isolated power" shown by deadball guys came from speed, which is not a skill which tends to age well. So, I don't think they would have separated from the pack as well as you suppose. The evidence is there in the records of those guys as they aged. Show me my supposition is wrong for those players as a group, and I'm far more receptive to your argument.

As 538280 says, a key flaw in using slugging percentage is that average is a major portion of the calculation rather than power. Take out the average aspect, and then you're dealing with pure power. Averages rose with the end of the deadball era, and we don't want that issue clouding the analysis.

Jim Albright

[Bill Burgess]

This is not true either. HRs do not bring walks. Power does. If power in the deadball era was doubles and triples, then those players will get the same amount of extra walks, because they were just as good power hitters.



There is nothing unclear. It's just wrong.

Since you believe that deadball sluggers would walk as well as anyone else, than why is it that the following chart disagrees with you so comprehensively. True, the deadball sluggers WERE true sluggers, speed or no speed. They walloped AND ran, not just ran! But without the fear that one swing could change the complextion of a game, the pitchers didn't have to fear pitching them.

So, even though we've had this exchange before, apparently we've having it again, because you can't grasp that deadball sluggers got no extra walks out of fear of power. The only ones who did were the contact guys like McGraw or Miller Huggins who worked the pitchers with patience.

And in those cases, era didn't matter. Miller Huggins/Joe Sewell/Nellie Fox. Waiting out a pitcher is not the topic under discussion. Power in deadball/liveball is.


Lajoie:------60, 47, 35, 33
Wagner:------67, 66, 59, 59,
Cobb:-------118, 85, 78, 66, 65 (85, 66, 65 were all post '20)
Crawford:----69, 66, 61, 52, 50
Brouthers:---99, 87, 84, 1, 68
Delehanty:---86, 77, 65, 62
Cravath:-----86, 83, 70, 64, 55

Now, look at post '20.

Ruth:-------170, 148, 144, 144, 140
Gehrig:-----132, 130, 122, 122, 117
Foxx:-------119, 116, 114, 111
Greenberg:--119, 104, 102, 93, 91

The simple point is that the pre live ball sluggers were every bit a great as those who came after, (see above), but due to not getting the extra walks to pad their OBP, you'd never know it. So their OBPs look punk by comparison.

Absolutely PUNK. And it wasn't their fault, and their OBP is SCREWED. Totally distorted. Totally skewed.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another interesting aspect is that when the ball was hyper-juiced, 1920-38, the hitters got a lot more RBIs. When they de-juiced the ball after 1938, the hitters couldn't produce 150 RBI seasons like clockwork anymore. The following chart shows the difference in offensive era productivity with the eras after 1938.

RBIs With Respect to Era; 1920's - 1930's vs. Other Era's

3. Mantle and Musial's highest RBI totals were respectively, 130 & 131, while the following lesser hitters recorded these RBI totals in the hit-happy '20 & '30's.


Klein, -----------170, 1930
Hal Trosky, ------162, 1936
Ken Williams,---- 155, 1922
Joe Medwick,----- 154, 1937
Mel Ott,--------- 151, 1929
Klein,----------- 145, 1929
Earl Averill,---- 143, 1931
Don Hurst,------- 143, 1932
Hal Trosky,------ 142, 1934

Convinced of stat deception? No?! Well, consider the following comparitively low numbers of RBIs in other eras by MUCH better hitters.

Top RBI seasons:
Aaron,-------- 132, 130, 128, 127
Mays,--------- 141, 127, 123
Mantle,--------130, 128, 111, 102, 99
Clemente,----- 119, 110, 94, 91
Kiner,-------- 127, 127, 123, 118, 116, 109, 87
F. Robinson,---136, 125, 124, 122, 113, 100
Rose,-----------82, 81, 76
Oliva,---------107, 101, 98, 94
Yaz,-----------121, 111, 102, 102, 95
B. Williams,---129, 122, 108, 98
Musial---------131, 126, 123, 113, 109
Williams-------159, 145, 137, 127, 126, 123

[538280]

Since you believe that deadball sluggers would walk as well as anyone else, than why is it that the following chart disagrees with you so comprehensively. True, the deadball sluggers WERE true sluggers, speed or no speed. They walloped AND ran, not just ran! But without the fear that one swing could change the complextion of a game, the pitchers didn't have to fear pitching them.

So, even though we've had this exchange before, apparently we've having it again, because you can't grasp that deadball sluggers got no extra walks out of fear of power. The only ones who did were the contact guys like McGraw or Miller Huggins who worked the pitchers with patience.

And in those cases, era didn't matter. Miller Huggins/Joe Sewell/Nellie Fox. Waiting out a pitcher is not the topic under discussion. Power in deadball/liveball is.


Lajoie:------60, 47, 35, 33
Wagner:------67, 66, 59, 59,
Cobb:-------118, 85, 78, 66, 65 (85, 66, 65 were all post '20)
Crawford:----69, 66, 61, 52, 50
Brouthers:---99, 87, 84, 1, 68
Delehanty:---86, 77, 65, 62
Cravath:-----86, 83, 70, 64, 55

Now, look at post '20.

Ruth:-------170, 148, 144, 144, 140
Gehrig:-----132, 130, 122, 122, 117
Foxx:-------119, 116, 114, 111
Greenberg:--119, 104, 102, 93, 91

The simple point is that the pre live ball sluggers were every bit a great as those who came after, (see above), but due to not getting the extra walks to pad their OBP, you'd never know it. So their OBPs look punk by comparison.

Absolutely PUNK. And it wasn't their fault, and their OBP is SCREWED. Totally distorted. Totally skewed.


Bill, this shows nothing. We're talking about walks in relative terms. There were less walks in the game overall prior to 1920. The reason for this is not relevent when we are talking about relative stats, because all it is doing is comparing the player's relative BB rate. Here (http://home.istar.ca/~mbein/Baseball/slide_frame.html) is a graph of walks per game in major league history. There were less walks prior to 1920, but this has nothing to do with the way relative stats portray the walk rates of these players.

[Bill Burgess]

Bill, this shows nothing. We're talking about walks in relative terms. There were less walks in the game overall prior to 1920. The reason for this is not relevant when we are talking about relative stats, because all it is doing is comparing the player's relative BB rate. Here (http://home.istar.ca/~mbein/baseball.html) is a graph of walks per game in major league history. There were less walks prior to 1920, but this has nothing to do with the way relative stats portray the walk rates of these players.
Gee, Christopher. Nothing shows anything unless it supports whatever you're arguing about. I looked at that chart and how/why it doesn't support my point that walks were less issued prior to 1920 is a mystery only you can decipher.

The deadball didn't encourage the issuance of walks. But this is a detour to the argument which you lost royally. Which is that deadball sluggers were disadvantaged in EBHs. And that hampered their Relative Slug.%. The original argument was that deadball sluggers had a harder time separating from the pack than modern sluggers. I bet you had already forgotten that argument that you lost big time.

Will you ever, can you ever admit to losing an argument? Have you ever done that since you got here? Only acknowledging things you already believe is not a recipe for advancing growth/learning.

[538280]

Gee, Christopher. Nothing shows anything unless it supports whatever you're arguing about. I looked at that chart and how/why it doesn't support my point that walks were less issued prior to 1920 is a mystery only you can decipher.

Less walks were given out prior to 1920. This does not have anything to do with the player's relative stats.

The deadball didn't encourage the issuance of walks. But this is a detour to the argument which you lost royally. Which is that deadball sluggers were disadvantaged in EBHs. And that hampered their Relative Slug.%. The original argument was that deadball sluggers had a harder time separating from the pack than modern sluggers. I bet you had already forgotten that argument that you lost big time.

No argument was lost. Let's go over this again...the part in which deadball players have a harder time in is Isolated Power. This is counted once in OPS+, in the difference between BA and SLG. They have a much easier time separating in BA. That is counted TWICE in OPS+, as a part of OBP and SLG. There is no way that that makes it harder for deadball players to separate in OPS+. I have been saying that all along, you have never provided any argument to this point.

Will you ever, can you ever admit to losing an argument? Have you ever done that since you got here? Only acknowledging things you already believe is not a recipe for advancing growth/learning.

You know what, Bill? You have done nothing on this thread but make me frustrated. All these things make we wonder if you even understand the way relative stats work. First you say Dick Allen's 112 rel. BA and 118 rel. OBP is not even close to HOF cailber. This shows nothing but ignorance at the performance scales of these two measures. Then you say Dick Allen hardly ever walked, which is a conclusion that is just flat contradicted by the statistical record. Then you say that deadball sluggers had a harder time separating from the pack in OPS+. No one has shared in this assessment but you, yet you continuiously claim that you have won the argument. Then you claim that it was harder for deadball players to separate in relative walk rate, and to illustrate this you show their raw walk totals??? :confused: :confused:

[ElHalo]

About Joe Jackson, I was thinking a bit about Dick Allen recently and I realized that most of the people who support Joe Jackson going into the HOF are also those who oppose Dick Allen going in. Personally, I would consider Allen ostensibly superior to Jackson only on his playing credentials, but that's another story. My issue is that the main case against Allen, of course, is his clubhouse diviseiveness, being a jerk with teammates, and that sort of off the field stuff. It stikes me as extremely contradictory to make such an argument against Allen, then turn around and defend Joe Jackson, whose crime against the game was FAR worse and more serious than anything Allen did.

Sure, Allen may have been a jerk, and if you want to keep him out of the HOF for that then okay, but there's no way you should be supporting Joe Jackson when you take that position with Allen.

I actually think you might be on to something here. Not about Allen's credentials being better than Jackson's; Jackson was on of the top half dozen hitters to ever lace up spikes, and Allen, while a fantastic hitter, wasn't. I'd have no problem at all with Allen in the Hall. My case against Allen wasn't that he was a jerk; it was more along the lines of: "I'd been a baseball fan for almost two decades before I ever even heard of this guy." But then again, the same was true of Joe Morgan, and I let him in my Hall. So I guess you could be going somewhere here.

[jalbright]

Bill,

OK, the deadball sluggers didn't walk as much. How much did they walk relative to their peers? There's an important issue here--what was their batting style? Some sluggers in the home run era have come up flailing away, trying to hit the ball hard. They don't walk a lot, for obvious reasons. Others try to wait for a pitch they can drive. They tend to walk a fair amount. Both groups strike out a fair amount. It was almost a sin to strike out in deadball. So, absent some proof to the contrary, I tend to think the deadball sluggers had somewhat different approaches at the plate which at least partially account for these differences in walks.

Jim Albright

[ElHalo]

No argument was lost. Let's go over this again...the part in which deadball players have a harder time in is Isolated Power. This is counted once in OPS+, in the difference between BA and SLG. They have a much easier time separating in BA. That is counted TWICE in OPS+, as a part of OBP and SLG. There is no way that that makes it harder for deadball players to separate in OPS+. I have been saying that all along, you have never provided any argument to this point.


Do some math, Chris, and I think you'll find this argument innacurate, at best.

Think about it. The best BA season of the deadball era, Ty Cobb's 1911, gave him a BA+ of 146. The SLG season of the liveball era, Barry Bonds' 2001, gave him a BA+ of 205. You can separate far more, relatively, in slugging than in BA or OBP. And since a player's SLG is almost always higher than their OBP, the gap is much wider in real terms as well.

It's impossible to have a BA twice as good as the league. It's relatively easy to hit twice as many homers as the league, and, last I checked, a single gave you an OPS of 2.000 while a homer gave you a 5.000. Strictly numerically speaking, leaving talent levels and whatnot aside, it's much harder to separate from the pack in a deadball era than in a home run era.

[Ubiquitous]

How many players have had seasons like Bonds? 10? 20? 30?

Well we got Babe Ruth and we got Barry Bonds. That is it basically. Bonds separated himself from the pack so greatly because he is anomaly. I'm not sure what you can prove using Bonds as a baseline or as the guy who you compare everything else too.

How do the top 1% compare? How does the top 10%? Top 20%?

[ElHalo]

How many players have had seasons like Bonds? 10? 20? 30?

Well we got Babe Ruth and we got Barry Bonds. That is it basically. Bonds separated himself from the pack so greatly because he is anomaly. I'm not sure what you can prove using Bonds as a baseline or as the guy who you compare everything else too.

How do the top 1% compare? How does the top 10%? Top 20%?

Let's look at the 30th best SLG season of the liveball era. Lou Gehrig's 1934. He had a 176 SLG+.

The 30th best BA season of the deadball era? Tris Speaker, .363 in 1913. 135 BA+.

What does a 135 SLG+ look like? Seven major leaguers did it last year. Ten in 2004. 11 in 2003. That almost totals how many players did the same for BA in the entire deadball era.

[Bill Burgess]

Bill,

OK, the deadball sluggers didn't walk as much. How much did they walk relative to their peers? There's an important issue here--what was their batting style? Some sluggers in the home run era have come up flailing away, trying to hit the ball hard. They don't walk a lot, for obvious reasons. Others try to wait for a pitch they can drive. They tend to walk a fair amount. Both groups strike out a fair amount. It was almost a sin to strike out in deadball. So, absent some proof to the contrary, I tend to think the deadball sluggers had somewhat different approaches at the plate which at least partially account for these differences in walks.
Jim,
I wasn't intending to argue walks/era. I was trying to argue that it was easier to separate from the pack with a lively ball to assist one's EBHs. That was my original point.

Concerning walking, it is usually received by either fear/patience. Ruth/Williams.

In the deadball, sluggers received no more walks due to fear. They could only receive them in high amounts if they earned them by working the pitcher.

In liveball context, no patience is required. Gehrig, Foxx, Greenberg, Kiner, Killebrew, R.Jackson were not especially patient. But their power didn't make it necessary.

I am not trying to complicate this discussion beyond where it already is.

[leecemark]

Let's look at the 30th best SLG season of the liveball era. Lou Gehrig's 1934. He had a 176 SLG+.

The 30th best BA season of the deadball era? Tris Speaker, .363 in 1913. 135 BA+.

What does a 135 SLG+ look like? Seven major leaguers did it last year. Ten in 2004. 11 in 2003. That almost totals how many players did the same for BA in the entire deadball era.


--I'm not sure why you are comparing BA+ for deadballers to SLG+ for modern players. If you look at the SLG+ for deadballers you'll find there were at least a few guys who were at 150 or greater in SLG + every season. That is not much different than in the live ball period. How they achieved those high relative slugging totals changed, but they were getting them just the same.

[ElHalo]

--I'm not sure why you are comparing BA+ for deadballers to SLG+ for modern players. If you look at the SLG+ for deadballers you'll find there were at least a few guys who were at 150 or greater in SLG + every season. That is not much different than in the live ball period. How they achieved those high relative slugging totals changed, but they were getting them just the same.

Just saying that one home run gives you as many extra bases as three doubles, so it's much easier to separate from the pack when you have that weapon. Chris countered by saying that it was easier to separate in BA in the deadball era, which, while true, doesn't make up for the sheer magnitude of distance you can put between you and the pack in slugging.

[Bill Burgess]

--I'm not sure why you are comparing BA+ for deadballers to SLG+ for modern players. If you look at the SLG+ for deadballers you'll find there were at least a few guys who were at 150 or greater in SLG + every season. That is not much different than in the live ball period. How they achieved those high relative slugging totals changed, but they were getting them just the same.

If you want to compare Relative stats between eras, I thought this older chart might assist enlightening us. I high-lighted the pre-1920 seasons, for our convenience.


Some of the Greatest Hitting Seasons Ever: Listed according to PCA.


----------------Rel.SLG-Rel.OBP--Rel.BA.-OPS+-INK--PCA-----WS--TPR
Ruth, 1920-------2.08----1.47-----1.27---256---16--28.83---51--10.0
Ruth,1921--------2.07----1.43-----1.29---239---16--24.79---53---9.8
Mantle,1956------1.78----1.36-----1.35---210---18--22.96---49---8.8
Ruth, 1923-------1.96----1.55-----1.39---239---16--22.2----55--11.2
Williams, 1941---1.88----1.61-----1.52---235---16--22.1----42---8.8
Bonds, 2004------1.83----1.76-----1.32---260---09--21.8----53--12.5
Bonds, 2001------2.04 ---1.57-----1.27---262---09--20.82---54--12.2
Ruth, 1924-------1.86----1.43-----1.30---220---16--20.8----45---8.5
Cobb,1911--------1.73----1.38-----1.53---196---22--20.74---47---6.4
Bonds, 2002------1.96----1.77-----1.45---275---09--20.6----49--11.2
Hornsby,1922-----1.78----1.31-----1.37---207---23--20.37---42---9.2
Musial,1948------1.83----1.35-----1.44---200---20--20.30---46---7.3
Cobb, 1917-------1.78----1.39-----1.54---209---16--19.7----46---8.4
Lajoie, 1901-----1.53----1.38-----1.73---200---23--18.94---42---7.4
Foxx,1932--------1.85----1.35-----1.31---205---14--18.54---40---7.2
Wagner,1908------1.76----1.38-----1.48---205---19--18.42---59--10.2
Speaker, 1912----1.44----1.39-----1.54---188---06--18.13---51---7.1
Medwick, 1937----1.37----1.24-----1.42---180---24--17.47---40---5.2
Cash, 1961-------1.41----1.46-----1.37---201---07--17.30---42---8.3
T.Williams,1949--1.71----1.38-----1.30---192---19--17.24---40---6.6
Gehrig,1927------1.91----1.34-----1.30---221---07--17.17---44---9.1
J.Jackson, 1911--1.49----1.38-----1.49---193---00--17.13---39---6.8
Yaz,1967---------1.77----1.38-----1.38---195---21--16.81---42---6.5
F.Robinson, 1966-1.28----1.31-----1.68---199---18--16.48---41---6.8
H.Duffy, 1894----1.42----1.26-----1.58---177---20--16.44---33---4.0
Delahanty, 1899--1.44----1.33-----1.59---189---16--16.36---41---5.4
Babe Herman,1930-1.51----1.26-----1.29---170---00--16.26---32---3.5
Wagner, 1900-----1.36----1.28-----1.56---175---10--16.05---34---4.3
Hack Wilson,1930-1.61----1.26-----1.17---178---13--15.81---35---4.9
Carew, 1977------1.45----1.35-----1.40---178---10--15.74---37---6.3
Vaughan, 1935----1.38----1.48-----1.31---190---09--15.72---39---7.6
Kiner, 1951------1.18----1.31-----1.60---184---12--15.64---35---5.1
Sisler,1920------1.63----1.29-----1.43---181---08--15.40---33---7.6
Al Rosen, 1953---1.28----1.23-----1.60---180---14--15.33---42---6.5
Burkett, 1901----1.42----1.35-----1.49---181---11--15.21---38---5.8
Aaron, 1959------1.36----1.24-----1.59---181---10--15.21---38---7.2
Mize, 1937-------1.33----1.24-----1.55---172---00--14.95---34---3.3
Terry, 1930------1.32----1.25-----1.38---158---07--14.46---32---5.5
Klein,1930-------1.53----1.21-----1.27---159---06--14.17---28---5.6
Sisler, 1922-----1.49----1.34-----1.47---170---13--14.08---29---5.2
Zimmerman, 1912--1.36----1.19-----1.54---169---16--13.16---34---5.0
Ott, 1929--------1.11----1.22-----1.49---165---02--13.15---31---5.8
Simmons,1930-----1.68----1.20-----1.32---176---07--12.94---36---4.5
Averill, 1936----1.30----1.16-----1.48---159---04--12.86---27---4.0
DiMaggio,1937----1.62----1.16-----1.32---168---07--12.78---39---5.9
Clemente, 1967---1.13----1.24-----1.52---170---07--12.59---35---5.6
Brett, 1980------1.44----1.38-----1.66---202---07--12.43---36---7.4
Greenberg, 1937--1.19----1.22-----1.60---172---04--12.38---33---5.5
Snider, 1954-----1.28----1.20-----1.58---170---03--12.33---39---4.2
J.Robinson, 1949-1.30----1.23-----1.35---159---06--12.22---36---6.5
Heilmann, 1921---1.34----1.24-----1.51---167---07--12.13---28---3.4
Mays, 1954-------1.30----1.22-----1.63---175---08--12.11---40---6.8
Rose, 1969-------1.39----1.27-----1.38---158---07--11.94---37---3.7
B.Williams, 1970-1.24----1.10-----1.49---147---07--11.88---29---3.5
O'Doul, 1929-----1.35----1.30-----1.46---159---07--11.83---31---5.1
T.Davis, 1962----1.31----1.13-----1.34---148---11--11.70---36---3.6
Crawford, 1911---1.38----1.23-----1.46---163---00--11.49---32---2.2
Keeler, 1897-----1.42----1.28-----1.49---164---07--11.28---32---4.0
Manush, 1928-----1.34----1.15-----1.44---154---00--11.08---35---2.9
Lindstrom, 1930--1.25----1.07-----1.28---132---00--10.78---32---4.7
Z.Wheat, 1924----1.32----1.25-----1.40---163---00--10.67---35---4.5
Z.Wheat, 1925----1.22----1.13-----1.30---142---00--10.61---27---2.5
P.Waner, 1927----1.27----1.22-----1.33---155---13--10.45---36---3.4
Gehringer, 1936--1.22----1.15-----1.31---142---02--10.37---34---5.9
Reiser, 1941-----1.32----1.18-----1.54---165---13--10.22---34---4.7
Colavito, 1961---1.13----1.17-----1.46---157---01--10.10---33---4.0
J.Rice, 1978-----1.20----1.08-----1.55---158---17--10.08---36---4.0
KiKi Cuyler,1930-1.13----1.15-----1.17---133---03---9.82---29---3.0
Trosky, 1936-----1.14----1.01-----1.46---148---04---9.66---21---1.9
Oliva, 1964------1.30----1.10-----1.45---150---12---9.43---27---3.2
K.Williams, 1922-1.16----1.13-----1.57---164---08---8.95---30---4.3
J.Tobin, 1921----1.20----1.05-----1.19---119---02---8.24---25---0.5
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Away Games Only, indexed to League Averages.

--------------------Rel.SLG-------Rel.OBP---------Rel.BA.
Musial,1948----------2.03----------1.43------------1.59
Gehrig,1927----------2.01----------1.39------------1.38
Ruth,1921------------1.89----------1.34------------1.21
Hornsby,1922---------1.73----------1.31------------1.36
Wagner,1908----------1.71---------no-data----------1.38
DiMaggio,1937------- 1.71----------1.11------------1.23
Mantle,1956----------1.68----------1.33------------1.28
Foxx,1932------------1.68----------1.22------------1.23
Cobb,1911----------- 1.67----------1.36------------1.54
Yaz,1967-------------1.61----------1.34------------1.36
T.Williams,1949------1.56----------1.32------------1.27
Klein,1930-----------1.45----------1.18------------1.19
Sisler,1920----------1.29----------1.13------------1.20

Wilson,1930---------no-data-------no-data----------no-data
Simmons,1930--------no-data-------no-data----------no-data
Babe Herman,1930----no-data-------no-data----------no-data
Bonds, 2001---------no data-------no data----------no data
-----------------------------------------------------------

name, yr.-----------home HRs-----away HRs------home Slg-----away slg.
Ruth, 1920------------29-------------25----------.985----------.736
Ruth, 1921------------32-------------27----------.929----------.772
Ruth, 1923------------19-------------22----------.805----------.728
Gehrig, 1927----------24-------------23----------.722----------.805
Hornsby, 1922---------24-------------18----------.741----------.703
Sisler, 1920----------15--------------4----------.760----------.503
DiMaggio, 1937--------19-------------27----------.631----------.711
Klein, 1930-----------26-------------14----------.794----------.578
Foxx, 1932------------31-------------27----------.820----------.682
Mantle, 1956----------27-------------25----------.746----------.664
Cobb, 1911-------------5--------------3----------.640----------.602
Williams, 1949--------23-------------20----------.710----------.595
Ott, 1929-------------20-------------22----------.575----------.692
Musial, 1948----------16-------------23----------.618----------.780


The home/away splits were located at Total Baseball, Vol. 1, ed. by
John Thorn & Pete Palmer with David Reuther, 1989, pp. 2200-2213.

[Bill Burgess]

I think this shows that one required their HRs to separate from the pack. Observe the Relative Slugging %. Pre-1920 hitters are high-lighted in red for our convenience.

Some of the Greatest Hitting Seasons Ever: Listed according to Relative Slugging %.


----------------Rel.SLG-Rel.OBP--Rel.BA.-OPS+-INK--PCA-----WS--TPR
Ruth, 1920-------2.08----1.47-----1.27---256---16--28.83---51--10.0
Ruth,1921--------2.07----1.43-----1.29---239---16--24.79---53---9.8
Bonds, 2001------2.04 ---1.57-----1.27---262---09--20.82---54--12.2
Ruth, 1923-------1.96----1.55-----1.39---239---16--22.2----55--11.2
Bonds, 2002------1.96----1.77-----1.45---275---09--20.6----49--11.2
Gehrig,1927------1.91----1.34-----1.30---221---07--17.17---44---9.1
Williams, 1941---1.88----1.61-----1.52---235---16--22.1----42---8.8
Ruth, 1924-------1.86----1.43-----1.30---220---16--20.8----45---8.5
Foxx,1932--------1.85----1.35-----1.31---205---14--18.54---40---7.2
Bonds, 2004------1.83----1.76-----1.32---260---09--21.8----53--12.5
Musial,1948------1.83----1.35-----1.44---200---20--20.30---46---7.3
Mantle,1956------1.78----1.36-----1.35---210---18--22.96---49---8.8
Cobb, 1917-------1.78----1.39-----1.54---209---16--19.7----46---8.4
Hornsby,1922-----1.78----1.31-----1.37---207---23--20.37---42---9.2
Yaz,1967---------1.77----1.38-----1.38---195---21--16.81---42---6.5
Wagner,1908------1.76----1.38-----1.48---205---19--18.42---59--10.2
Cobb,1911--------1.73----1.38-----1.53---196---22--20.74---47---6.4
T.Williams,1949--1.71----1.38-----1.30---192---19--17.24---40---6.6
Simmons,1930-----1.68----1.20-----1.32---176---07--12.94---36---4.5
Sisler,1920------1.63----1.29-----1.43---181---08--15.40---33---7.6
DiMaggio,1937----1.62----1.16-----1.32---168---07--12.78---39---5.9
Hack Wilson,1930-1.61----1.26-----1.17---178---13--15.81---35---4.9
Lajoie, 1901-----1.53----1.38-----1.73---200---23--18.94---42---7.4
Klein,1930-------1.53----1.21-----1.27---159---06--14.17---28---5.6
Babe Herman,1930-1.51----1.26-----1.29---170---00--16.26---32---3.5
Sisler, 1922-----1.49----1.34-----1.47---170---13--14.08---29---5.2
J.Jackson, 1911--1.49----1.38-----1.49---193---00--17.13---39---6.8
Carew, 1977------1.45----1.35-----1.40---178---10--15.74---37---6.3
Speaker, 1912----1.44----1.39-----1.54---188---06--18.13---51---7.1
Brett, 1980------1.44----1.38-----1.66---202---07--12.43---36---7.4
Delahanty, 1899--1.44----1.33-----1.59---189---16--16.36---41---5.4
Burkett, 1901----1.42----1.35-----1.49---181---11--15.21---38---5.8
H.Duffy, 1894----1.42----1.26-----1.58---177---20--16.44---33---4.0
Keeler, 1897-----1.42----1.28-----1.49---164---07--11.28---32---4.0
Cash, 1961-------1.41----1.46-----1.37---201---07--17.30---42---8.3
Rose, 1969-------1.39----1.27-----1.38---158---07--11.94---37---3.7
Crawford, 1911---1.38----1.23-----1.46---163---00--11.49---32---2.2
Vaughan, 1935----1.38----1.48-----1.31---190---09--15.72---39---7
Medwick, 1937----1.37----1.24-----1.42---180---24--17.47---40---5.2
Aaron, 1959------1.36----1.24-----1.59---181---10--15.21---38---7.2
Wagner, 1900-----1.36----1.28-----1.56---175---10--16.05---34---4.3
Zimmerman, 1912--1.36----1.19-----1.54---169---16--13.16---34---5.0
O'Doul, 1929-----1.35----1.30-----1.46---159---07--11.83---31---5.1
Heilmann, 1921---1.34----1.24-----1.51---167---07--12.13---28---3
Manush, 1928-----1.34----1.15-----1.44---154---00--11.08---35---2.9
Mize, 1937-------1.33----1.24-----1.55---172---00--14.95---34---3.3
Terry, 1930------1.32----1.25-----1.38---158---07--14.46---32---5.5
Z.Wheat, 1924----1.32----1.25-----1.40---163---00--10.67---35---4.5
Reiser, 1941-----1.32----1.18-----1.54---165---13--10.22---34---4.7
T.Davis, 1962----1.31----1.13-----1.34---148---11--11.70---36---3.6
Averill, 1936----1.30----1.16-----1.48---159---04--12.86---27---4.0
J.Robinson, 1949-1.30----1.23-----1.35---159---06--12.22---36---6.5
Mays, 1954-------1.30----1.22-----1.63---175---08--12.11---40---6.8
Oliva, 1964------1.30----1.10-----1.45---150---12---9.43---27---3.2
Al Rosen, 1953---1.28----1.23-----1.60---180---14--15.33---42---6.5
F.Robinson, 1966-1.28----1.31-----1.68---199---18--16.48---41---6.8
Snider, 1954-----1.28----1.20-----1.58---170---03--12.33---39---4.2
P.Waner, 1927----1.27----1.22-----1.33---155---13--10.45---36---3.4
Lindstrom, 1930--1.25----1.07-----1.28---132---00--10.78---32---4.7
B.Williams, 1970-1.24----1.10-----1.49---147---07--11.88---29---3.5
Z.Wheat, 1925----1.22----1.13-----1.30---142---00--10.61---27---2.5
Gehringer, 1936--1.22----1.15-----1.31---142---02--10.37---34---5.9
J.Tobin, 1921----1.20----1.05-----1.19---119---02---8.24---25---0.
J.Rice, 1978-----1.20----1.08-----1.55---158---17--10.08---36---4.0
Greenberg, 1937--1.19----1.22-----1.60---172---04--12.38---33---5.5
Kiner, 1951------1.18----1.31-----1.60---184---12--15.64---35---5.1
K.Williams, 1922-1.16----1.13-----1.57---164---08---8.95---30---4.3
Trosky, 1936-----1.14----1.01-----1.46---148---04---9.66---21---1.
Clemente, 1967---1.13----1.24-----1.52---170---07--12.59---35---5.6
Colavito, 1961---1.13----1.17-----1.46---157---01--10.10---33---4.0
KiKi Cuyler,1930-1.13----1.15-----1.17---133---03---9.82---29---3.0
Ott, 1929--------1.11----1.22-----1.49---165---02--13.15---31---5.8
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Away Games Only, indexed to League Averages.

--------------------Rel.SLG-------Rel.OBP---------Rel.BA.
Musial,1948----------2.03----------1.43------------1.59
Gehrig,1927----------2.01----------1.39------------1.38
Ruth,1921------------1.89----------1.34------------1.21
Hornsby,1922---------1.73----------1.31------------1.36
Wagner,1908----------1.71---------no-data----------1.38
DiMaggio,1937------- 1.71----------1.11------------1.23
Mantle,1956----------1.68----------1.33------------1.28
Foxx,1932------------1.68----------1.22------------1.23
Cobb,1911----------- 1.67----------1.36------------1.54
Yaz,1967-------------1.61----------1.34------------1.36
T.Williams,1949------1.56----------1.32------------1.27
Klein,1930-----------1.45----------1.18------------1.19
Sisler,1920----------1.29----------1.13------------1.20

Wilson,1930---------no-data-------no-data----------no-data
Simmons,1930--------no-data-------no-data----------no-data
Babe Herman,1930----no-data-------no-data----------no-data
Bonds, 2001---------no data-------no data----------no data
-----------------------------------------------------------

name, yr.-----------home HRs-----away HRs------home Slg-----away slg.
Ruth, 1920------------29-------------25----------.985----------.736
Ruth, 1921------------32-------------27----------.929----------.772
Ruth, 1923------------19-------------22----------.805----------.728
Gehrig, 1927----------24-------------23----------.722----------.805
Hornsby, 1922---------24-------------18----------.741----------.703
Sisler, 1920----------15--------------4----------.760----------.503
DiMaggio, 1937--------19-------------27----------.631----------.711
Klein, 1930-----------26-------------14----------.794----------.578
Foxx, 1932------------31-------------27----------.820----------.682
Mantle, 1956----------27-------------25----------.746----------.664
Cobb, 1911-------------5--------------3----------.640----------.602
Williams, 1949--------23-------------20----------.710----------.595
Ott, 1929-------------20-------------22----------.575----------.692
Musial, 1948----------16-------------23----------.618----------.780


The home/away splits were located at Total Baseball, Vol. 1, ed. by
John Thorn & Pete Palmer with David Reuther, 1989, pp. 2200-2213.

[538280]

Just saying that one home run gives you as many extra bases as three doubles, so it's much easier to separate from the pack when you have that weapon. Chris countered by saying that it was easier to separate in BA in the deadball era, which, while true, doesn't make up for the sheer magnitude of distance you can put between you and the pack in slugging.

All right, let's get to the true heart of this issue here. IF it were truly harder for deadball players to separate in their time, they wouldn't have separated as much, right? And we're talking about OPS+ here as well, not SLG+, because OPS+ is really the one that is supposed to measure the player's total offensive contribution. These are OPS+ leaders in the years 1871-1919, before the HR really came into baseball:

1919 (NL AL) Rogers Hornsby+ (STL) 151 Babe Ruth*+ (BOS) 219
1918 (NL AL) Edd Roush*+ (CIN) 153 Babe Ruth*+ (BOS) 194
1917 (NL AL) Rogers Hornsby+ (STL) 169 Ty Cobb*+ (DET) 209
1916 (NL AL) Hal Chase (CIN) 154 Tris Speaker*+ (CLE) 185 Federal League OPS+
1915 (NL AL FL) Gavvy Cravath (PHI) 171 Ty Cobb*+ (DET) 185 Benny Kauff* (BTT) 182
1914 (NL AL FL) Joe Connolly* (BSN) 164 Ty Cobb*+ (DET) 190 Steve Evans* (BTT) 176
1913 (NL AL) Gavvy Cravath (PHI) 172 Ty Cobb*+ (DET) 194
1912 (NL AL) Heinie Zimmerman (CHC) 169 Ty Cobb*+ (DET) 200
1911 (NL AL) Frank Schulte* (CHC) 156 Ty Cobb*+ (DET) 196
1910 (NL AL) Sherry Magee (PHI) 174 Ty Cobb*+ (DET) 206
1909 (NL AL) Honus Wagner+ (PIT) 173 Ty Cobb*+ (DET) 194
1908 (NL AL) Honus Wagner+ (PIT) 205 Ty Cobb*+ (DET) 169
1907 (NL AL) Honus Wagner+ (PIT) 187 Ty Cobb*+ (DET) 166
1906 (NL AL) Harry Lumley* (BRO) 179 George Stone* (SLB) 192
1905 (NL AL) Cy Seymour* (CIN) 181 Elmer Flick*+ (CLE) 166
1904 (NL AL) Honus Wagner+ (PIT) 187 Nap Lajoie+ (CLE) 205
1903 (NL AL) Fred Clarke*+ (PIT) 165 Nap Lajoie+ (CLE) 169
1902 (NL AL) Honus Wagner+ (PIT) 159 Ed Delahanty+ (WSH) 186
1901 (NL AL) Jesse Burkett*+ (STL) 181 Nap Lajoie+ (PHA) 200
1900 (NL) Honus Wagner+ (PIT) 175
1899 (NL) Ed Delahanty+ (PHI) 189
1898 (NL) Billy Hamilton*+ (BSN) 162
1897 (NL) Fred Clarke*+ (LOU) 165
1896 (NL) Ed Delahanty+ (PHI) 190
1895 (NL) Ed Delahanty+ (PHI) 187
1894 (NL) Bill Joyce* (WHS) 177
1893 (NL) Billy Hamilton*+ (PHI) 169
1892 (NL) Dan Brouthers*+ (BRO) 180 American Association OPS+
1891 (NL AA) Mike Tiernan* (NYG) 160 Dan Brouthers*+ (BOS) 182 Player's League OPS+
1890 (NL AA PL) Mike Tiernan* (NYG) 156 Denny Lyons (PHA) 194 Pete Browning (CLE) 169
1889 (NL AA) Fred Carroll (PIT) 183 Tommy Tucker# (BAL) 163
1888 (NL AA) Roger Connor*+ (NYG) 176 John Reilly (CIN) 170
1887 (NL AA) Dan Brouthers*+ (DTN) 169 Tip O'Neill (STL) 211
1886 (NL AA) Dan Brouthers*+ (DTN) 206 Bob Caruthers* (STL) 200
1885 (NL AA) Dan Brouthers*+ (BUF) 201 Dave Orr (NYP) 192 Union Association OPS+
1884 (NL AA UA) Dan Brouthers*+ (BUF) 189 Dave Orr (NYP) 192 Fred Dunlap (SLM) 250
1883 (NL AA) Dan Brouthers*+ (BUF) 187 Ed Swartwood* (PIT) 184
1882 (NL AA) Dan Brouthers*+ (BUF) 199 Pete Browning (LOU) 222
1881 (NL) Cap Anson+ (CHC) 191
1880 (NL) George Gore* (CHC) 183
1879 (NL) King Kelly+ (CIN) 184
1878 (NL) Orator Shaffer* (IND) 186
1877 (NL) Deacon White* (BSN) 191
1876 (NL) Ross Barnes (CHC) 231
National Association
1875 (NA) Lip Pike* (STL) 202
1874 (NA) Levi Meyerle (CHI) 181
1873 (NA) Ross Barnes (BOS) 197
1872 (NA) Ross Barnes (BOS) 210
1871 (NA) Levi Meyerle (ATH) 241

What that is is just a copy/paste from the BBRef page. I don't really know how to make it come out any better than that. What I then did was averaged all the OPS+ leaders figures (in every league, NL, AL, AA, PL, UA, everything). The average mark for a league leader in OPS+ in the years 1870-1919 is 185.11.

Then I did the same for every year past 1920. These are the leaders in that time frame:

2005 (NL AL) Derrek Lee (CHC) 177 Travis Hafner* (CLE) 170
2004 (NL AL) Barry Bonds* (SFG) 260 Travis Hafner* (CLE) 158
2003 (NL AL) Barry Bonds* (SFG) 231 Carlos Delgado* (TOR) 160
2002 (NL AL) Barry Bonds* (SFG) 275 Jim Thome* (CLE) 191
2001 (NL AL) Barry Bonds* (SFG) 262 Jason Giambi* (OAK) 202
2000 (NL AL) Barry Bonds* (SFG) 191 Jason Giambi* (OAK) 188
1999 (NL AL) Mark McGwire (STL) 178 Manny Ramirez (CLE) 174
1998 (NL AL) Mark McGwire (STL) 217 Albert Belle (CHW) 171
1997 (NL AL) Mike Piazza (LAD) 186 Frank Thomas (CHW) 181
1996 (NL AL) Gary Sheffield (FLA) 190 Mark McGwire (OAK) 203
1995 (NL AL) Mike Piazza (LAD) 172 Edgar Martinez (SEA) 183
1994 (NL AL) Jeff Bagwell (HOU) 213 Frank Thomas (CHW) 212
1993 (NL AL) Barry Bonds* (SFG) 206 John Olerud* (TOR) 185
1992 (NL AL) Barry Bonds* (PIT) 205 Mark McGwire (OAK) 175
1991 (NL AL) Barry Bonds* (PIT) 161 Frank Thomas (CHW) 180
1990 (NL AL) Barry Bonds* (PIT) 170 Rickey Henderson (OAK) 188
1989 (NL AL) Kevin Mitchell (SFG) 192 Fred McGriff* (TOR) 161
1988 (NL AL) Darryl Strawberry* (NYM) 165 Jose Canseco (OAK) 170
1987 (NL AL) Jack Clark (STL) 176 Wade Boggs*+ (BOS) 173
1986 (NL AL) Mike Schmidt+ (PHI) 152 Don Mattingly* (NYY) 161
1985 (NL AL) Pedro Guerrero (LAD) 181 George Brett*+ (KCR) 178
1984 (NL AL) Mike Schmidt+ (PHI) 155 Don Mattingly* (NYY) 156
1983 (NL AL) Mike Schmidt+ (PHI) 156 George Brett*+ (KCR) 158
1982 (NL AL) Mike Schmidt+ (PHI) 162 Robin Yount+ (MIL) 166
1981 (NL AL) Mike Schmidt+ (PHI) 199 Bobby Grich (CAL) 164
1980 (NL AL) Mike Schmidt+ (PHI) 170 George Brett*+ (KCR) 202
1979 (NL AL) Dave Winfield+ (SDP) 165 Fred Lynn* (BOS) 176
1978 (NL AL) Dave Parker* (PIT) 166 Jim Rice (BOS) 158
1977 (NL AL) Reggie Smith# (LAD) 167 Rod Carew*+ (MIN) 178
1976 (NL AL) Joe Morgan*+ (CIN) 187 Reggie Jackson*+ (BAL) 155
1975 (NL AL) Joe Morgan*+ (CIN) 169 John Mayberry* (KCR) 168
1974 (NL AL) Willie Stargell*+ (PIT) 168 Reggie Jackson*+ (OAK) 166
1973 (NL AL) Willie Stargell*+ (PIT) 187 Reggie Jackson*+ (OAK) 161
1972 (NL AL) Billy Williams*+ (CHC) 170 Dick Allen (CHW) 200
1971 (NL AL) Hank Aaron+ (ATL) 194 Bobby Murcer* (NYY) 181
1970 (NL AL) Willie McCovey*+ (SFG) 182 Carl Yastrzemski*+ (BOS) 178
1969 (NL AL) Willie McCovey*+ (SFG) 211 Reggie Jackson*+ (OAK) 187
1968 (NL AL) Willie McCovey*+ (SFG) 175 Carl Yastrzemski*+ (BOS) 171
1967 (NL AL) Dick Allen (PHI) 174 Carl Yastrzemski*+ (BOS) 195
1966 (NL AL) Dick Allen (PHI) 181 Frank Robinson+ (BAL) 199
1965 (NL AL) Willie Mays+ (SFG) 185 Carl Yastrzemski*+ (BOS) 156
1964 (NL AL) Willie Mays+ (SFG) 172 Mickey Mantle#+ (NYY) 177
1963 (NL AL) Hank Aaron+ (MLN) 179 Bob Allison (MIN) 151
1962 (NL AL) Frank Robinson+ (CIN) 174 Mickey Mantle#+ (NYY) 196
1961 (NL AL) Frank Robinson+ (CIN) 164 Mickey Mantle#+ (NYY) 206
1960 (NL AL) Frank Robinson+ (CIN) 169 Mickey Mantle#+ (NYY) 164
1959 (NL AL) Hank Aaron+ (MLN) 181 Al Kaline+ (DET) 152
1958 (NL AL) Willie Mays+ (SFG) 165 Mickey Mantle#+ (NYY) 188
1957 (NL AL) Willie Mays+ (NYG) 173 Ted Williams*+ (BOS) 233
1956 (NL AL) Duke Snider*+ (BRO) 156 Mickey Mantle#+ (NYY) 210
1955 (NL AL) Willie Mays+ (NYG) 176 Mickey Mantle#+ (NYY) 181
1954 (NL AL) Willie Mays+ (NYG) 175 Ted Williams*+ (BOS) 201
1953 (NL AL) Eddie Mathews*+ (MLN) 171 Al Rosen (CLE) 180
1952 (NL AL) Stan Musial*+ (STL) 167 Mickey Mantle#+ (NYY) 162
1951 (NL AL) Ralph Kiner+ (PIT) 184 Ted Williams*+ (BOS) 164
1950 (NL AL) Stan Musial*+ (STL) 163 Larry Doby*+ (CLE) 154
1949 (NL AL) Ralph Kiner+ (PIT) 184 Ted Williams*+ (BOS) 192
1948 (NL AL) Stan Musial*+ (STL) 200 Ted Williams*+ (BOS) 189
1947 (NL AL) Ralph Kiner+ (PIT) 173 Ted Williams*+ (BOS) 205
1946 (NL AL) Stan Musial*+ (STL) 183 Ted Williams*+ (BOS) 215
1945 (NL AL) Tommy Holmes* (BSN) 174 Snuffy Stirnweiss (NYY) 144
1944 (NL AL) Stan Musial*+ (STL) 175 Bob Johnson (BOS) 174
1943 (NL AL) Stan Musial*+ (STL) 180 Charlie Keller* (NYY) 168
1942 (NL AL) Mel Ott*+ (NYG) 165 Ted Williams*+ (BOS) 217
1941 (NL AL) Pete Reiser* (BRO) 165 Ted Williams*+ (BOS) 235
1940 (NL AL) Johnny Mize*+ (STL) 176 Joe DiMaggio+ (NYY) 173
1939 (NL AL) Johnny Mize*+ (STL) 178 Jimmie Foxx+ (BOS) 188
1938 (NL AL) Mel Ott*+ (NYG) 178 Jimmie Foxx+ (BOS) 182
1937 (NL AL) Joe Medwick+ (STL) 180 Lou Gehrig*+ (NYY) 177
1936 (NL AL) Mel Ott*+ (NYG) 178 Lou Gehrig*+ (NYY) 190
1935 (NL AL) Arky Vaughan*+ (PIT) 190 Jimmie Foxx+ (PHA) 182
1934 (NL AL) Mel Ott*+ (NYG) 168 Lou Gehrig*+ (NYY) 208
1933 (NL AL) Chuck Klein*+ (PHI) 175 Jimmie Foxx+ (PHA) 200
1932 (NL AL) Mel Ott*+ (NYG) 174 Jimmie Foxx+ (PHA) 205
1931 (NL AL) Rogers Hornsby+ (CHC) 163 Babe Ruth*+ (NYY) 219
1930 (NL AL) Hack Wilson+ (CHC) 178 Babe Ruth*+ (NYY) 211
1929 (NL AL) Rogers Hornsby+ (CHC) 178 Babe Ruth*+ (NYY) 194
1928 (NL AL) Rogers Hornsby+ (BSN) 200 Babe Ruth*+ (NYY) 208
1927 (NL AL) Rogers Hornsby+ (NYG) 175 Babe Ruth*+ (NYY) 226
1926 (NL AL) Cy Williams* (PHI) 158 Babe Ruth*+ (NYY) 227
1925 (NL AL) Rogers Hornsby+ (STL) 210 Ty Cobb*+ (DET) 170
1924 (NL AL) Rogers Hornsby+ (STL) 222 Babe Ruth*+ (NYY) 220
1923 (NL AL) Rogers Hornsby+ (STL) 186 Babe Ruth*+ (NYY) 239
1922 (NL AL) Rogers Hornsby+ (STL) 207 Babe Ruth*+ (NYY) 182
1921 (NL AL) Rogers Hornsby+ (STL) 190 Babe Ruth*+ (NYY) 239
1920 (NL AL) Rogers Hornsby+ (STL) 187 Babe Ruth*+ (NYY) 256


There they are. Now, the average for these is 184.73. In other words, the league leading OPS+ marks have NOT changed dramatically since the liveball was brought into the game (it has been about the same).

[Ubiquitous]

Let's look at the 30th best SLG season of the liveball era. Lou Gehrig's 1934. He had a 176 SLG+.

The 30th best BA season of the deadball era? Tris Speaker, .363 in 1913. 135 BA+.

What does a 135 SLG+ look like? Seven major leaguers did it last year. Ten in 2004. 11 in 2003. That almost totals how many players did the same for BA in the entire deadball era.


From 0 AD to 1918 the top 30 in SLG compared to just his league (non park adjusted, and with pitcher removed) has a high of 155 and a low of 123. From 1919 on it is a high of 172 (Babe Ruth) to a low of 133. After Babe's 172 career the next closest is Ted at 159.

If we look at single season for pre liveball the range is 194 to 157. Liveball is 212 to 169.

Liveball is a bit tricky because 2 names take up 9 slots in the first 11 names.

In terms of BA the best in deadball season is 166 to 142. Post deadball is 147 to 136.

[Bill Burgess]

From 0 AD to 1918 the top 30 in SLG compared to just his league (non park adjusted, and with pitcher removed) has a high of 155 and a low of 123. From 1919 on it is a high of 172 (Babe Ruth) to a low of 133. After Babe's 172 career the next closest is Ted at 159.

If we look at single season for pre liveball the range is 194 to 157. Liveball is 212 to 169.

Liveball is a bit tricky because 2 names take up 9 slots in the first 11 names.

In terms of BA the best in deadball season is 166 to 142. Post deadball is 147 to 136.
Perhaps the numbers would be more intriguing if we only used one season for each player. Might give a more representative sampling. Otherwise unique talents tend to dominate. Like Ruth/Williams for slug. and Cobb for BA.

Would do you think?

[538280]

All right, earlier I showed that it is not true that players have posted lower OPS+ numbers in the deadball period that they did in later times. I also will look at OPS+, with the deadball and the 1970-1989 period. I looked at all the slugging leaders 1900-1919, and found their relative SLG, then did the same for those players 1970-1989. These are the leaders:

1919 (NL AL) Hy Myers (BRO) 0.436 125 Babe Ruth*+ (BOS) 0.657 182 1989 (NL AL) Kevin Mitchell (SFG) 0.635 170 Ruben Sierra# (TEX) 0.543 140
1918 (NL AL) Edd Roush*+ (CIN) 0.455 136 Babe Ruth*+ (BOS) 0.555 169 1988 (NL AL) Darryl Strawberry* (NYM) 0.545 148 Jose Canseco (OAK) 0.569 148
1917 (NL AL) Rogers Hornsby+ (STL) 0.484 145 Ty Cobb*+ (DET) 0.57 173 1987 (NL AL) Jack Clark (STL) 0.597 141 Mark McGwire (OAK) 0.618 150
1916 (NL AL) Zack Wheat*+ (BRO) 0.461 134 Tris Speaker*+ (CLE) 0.502 146 1986 (NL AL) Mike Schmidt+ (PHI) 0.547 134 Don Mattingly* (NYY) 0.573 141
1915 (NL AL FL) Gavvy Cravath (PHI) 0.51 148 Jack Fournier* (CHW) 0.491 145 1985 (NL AL) Pedro Guerrero (LAD) 0.577 George Brett*+ (KCR) 0.585 144
1914 (NL AL FL) Sherry Magee (PHI) 0.509 143 Ty Cobb*+ (DET) 0.513 151 1984 (NL AL) Dale Murphy (ATL) 0.547 Harold Baines* (CHW) 0.541 133
1913 (NL AL) Gavvy Cravath (PHI) 0.568 152 Joe Jackson* (CLE) 0.551 157 1983 (NL AL) Dale Murphy (ATL) 0.54 George Brett*+ (KCR) 0.562 140
1912 (NL AL) Heinie Zimmerman (CHC) 0.571 149 Ty Cobb*+ (DET) 0.584 165 1982 (NL AL) Mike Schmidt+ (PHI) 0.547 141 Robin Yount+ (MIL) 0.578 148
1911 (NL AL) Frank Schulte* (CHC) 0.534 144 Ty Cobb*+ (DET) 0.621 165 1981 (NL AL) Mike Schmidt+ (PHI) 0.644 168 Bobby Grich (CAL) 0.543 146
1910 (NL AL) Sherry Magee (PHI) 0.507 144 Ty Cobb*+ (DET) 0.551 165 1980 (NL AL) Mike Schmidt+ (PHI) 0.624 157 George Brett*+ (KCR) 0.664 166
1909 (NL AL) Honus Wagner+ (PIT) 0.489 146 Ty Cobb*+ (DET) 0.517 159 1979 (NL AL) Dave Kingman (CHC) 0.613 147 Fred Lynn* (BOS) 0.637 152
1908 (NL AL) Honus Wagner+ (PIT) 0.542 170 Ty Cobb*+ (DET) 0.475 149 1978 (NL AL) Dave Parker* (PIT) 0.585 148 Jim Rice (BOS) 0.6 149
1907 (NL AL) Honus Wagner+ (PIT) 0.513 159 Ty Cobb*+ (DET) 0.468 145 1977 (NL AL) George Foster (CIN) 0.631 152 Jim Rice (BOS) 0.593 139
1906 (NL AL) Harry Lumley* (BRO) 0.477 154 George Stone* (SLB) 0.501 156 1976 (NL AL) Joe Morgan*+ (CIN) 0.576 152 Reggie Jackson*+ (BAL) 0.502 143
1905 (NL AL) Cy Seymour* (CIN) 0.559 154 Elmer Flick*+ (CLE) 0.462 142 1975 (NL AL) Dave Parker* (PIT) 0.541 142 Fred Lynn* (BOS) 0.566 144
1904 (NL AL) Honus Wagner+ (PIT) 0.52 154 Nap Lajoie+ (CLE) 0.552 168 1974 (NL AL) Mike Schmidt+ (PHI) 0.546 141 Dick Allen (CHW) 0.563 150
1903 (NL AL) Fred Clarke*+ (PIT) 0.532 145 Nap Lajoie+ (CLE) 0.518 147 1973 (NL AL) Willie Stargell*+ (PIT) 0.646 168 Reggie Jackson*+ (OAK) 0.531 142
1902 (NL AL) Honus Wagner+ (PIT) 0.463 139 Ed Delahanty+ (WSH) 0.59 154 1972 (NL AL) Billy Williams*+ (CHC) 0.606 153 Dick Allen (CHW) 0.603 168
1901 (NL AL) Jimmy Sheckard* (BRO) 0.534 147 Nap Lajoie+ (PHA) 0.643 166 1971 (NL AL) Hank Aaron+ (ATL) 0.669 172 Tony Oliva* (MIN) 0.546 143
1900 (NL) Honus Wagner+ (PIT) 0.573 151 1970 (NL AL) Willie McCovey*+ (SFG) 0.612 151 Carl Yastrzemski*+ (BOS) 0.592 146

I'm not sure how that's going to come out, but it shows the year, the player, their SLG that year, then their rel. SLG that year. The average for 1900-1919 is 152.38, for 1970-1989 149.11. Again, it is NOT true that league leading relative SLG numbers were lower in the deadball era.