Fever Consensus Top 25: #3

[EvanAparra]

#2 vote:

Cobb - 57.69%
Mays - 21.15%
Williams - 7.69%
Wagner - 7.69%
Mantle - 3.85%
Bonds - 1.92%
Hornsby - 1 write in vote


So Cobb takes the spot under Ruth rather convincingly...


1. Babe Ruth
2. Ty Cobb

Added to the poll (Hornsby, Gehrig, Speaker)

[mwiggins]

Honus Wagner. Both he and Mays were complete players, but I give Wagner the edge mostly because, as a SS, he was more valuable defensively than Mays.

[Captain Cold Nose]

I'm sticking with the consensus vote thus far, which matches my list.
Evan, are you going to add a new name each time, so we'll always have ten names to vote for?

[Wade8813]

Well, if I think Hornsby deserved to be number 2, I certainly think certainly deserves to be number 3 if he can't be number 2.

[538280]

Wagner/Mays is a tough one, but I would give it to Mays, his hitting edge is a rather signifcant one IMO once you take LQ into account, and while Wagner was better defensively Mays was one of the best all time at his position so it's not like that's a weak point.

[mwiggins]

Wagner's edge on defense is much greater than Mays' edge in LQ adjusted hitter, IMO. I have Mays only about 5% better as a hitter than Wagner after LQ adjustment. Not his edge as a defensive player, but his edge in importance of position and in versitility. Enough that he just squeaks by Mays. I have them virtually even.

[ChrisLDuncan]

Even though Mays will win this, I'm voting Aaron nice career value always consistent...solid player.

[538280]

Wagner's edge on defense is much greater than Mays' edge in LQ adjusted hitter, IMO. I have Mays only about 5% better as a hitter than Wagner after LQ adjustment.

If you go by OPS+ Mays is already a 4% better hitter than Wagner (156/150=1.04). You're only giving Mays a 1% advantage? I'd say that's far too small. I'd call Mays about a 10-15% better hitter after LQ, if we're just using OPS+.

[mwiggins]

I'm not just going by career OPS+. If I was I'd have Mays about 14% above Wagner.

[538280]

Whare are you going by? EqA has Mays 7% better than Wagner (.328 to .307).

[Windy City Fan]

Mays is a slam dunk here.

Wagner has a positional and defensive edge, but Mays makes up for it with his bat. Wagner dominated a really weak NL in 1900's.

[mwiggins]

Whare are you going by? EqA has Mays 7% better than Wagner (.328 to .307).

For strictly hitting I'm looking peak OPS+ seasons, career OPS+, and a little career relative BA. I also have a career PA factor that helps regulate career hitting rate stats. Including that, I show Mays to be 6.5% better as a hitter. Wagner's defense is just enough to close that gap.

[KCGHOST]

To me it is a coin flip on Mays, Aaron, and Wagner, so flip a coin I did. It came up Wagner.

[mwiggins]

Wagner has a positional and defensive edge, but Mays makes up for it with his bat. Wagner dominated a really weak NL in 1900's.

He dominated a weaker league, heck he dominated all of baseball for about a decade. Mays played in a better league, but he could not dominate it, and even during his prime, he wasn't the best player in baseball.

[Wee Willie]

Mine was Mays last time, but I've been leaning more to Ted lately - so he gets my vote this time.

[Windy City Fan]

Do me a favor. Look at the NL leader boards from 1904 - 1909. Wagner dominates the league, that much is clear. But look at who is finishing behind him. How many of those guys are HoFers?

1904 HOFers on the leader boards:
Honus Wagner
Jake Beckley
Roger Bresnahan
Frank Chance
Joe Kelley
Joe Tinker

5 other HoFers, but most are borderline candidates. None of them grace many top 100 lists.

1909
Wagner
Fred Clarke
Johnny Evers
Joe Tinker

Two mistakes in Tinker and Evers (thanks to a poem) and Fred Clarke, a solid HOFer, but a guy who doesn't make many top 50 or even top 100 lists. I don't know if any other top teir HOFer ever had his peak with so little contemporary competition. Imagine how Mays could've dominated his league if Aaron, Snider, Banks, Mathews, and Robinson were all in the AL.

Then of course the issue of overall league depth. The segregated and depleted NL of the 1900's that had all of their top stars (except Wagner) jump ship to the AL vs the rapidly integrated NL of the 1950's.

[mwiggins]

Sherry Magee SHOULD be in the Hall...but yes, I agree with you that Mays' leagues were stronger than Wagner. Mays would have dominated Wagner's league as much as Wagner did, and Wagner would have been about as successful as Mays was against his league - except that his peak years would have been more of a competition for Mantle.

[ChrisLDuncan]

I'd call Mays about a 10-15% better hitter after LQ, if we're just using OPS+.

Aren't you big on PAs Chris? And shouldn't the PA put Wagner above Mays?

[Skin & Bones]

Mays played in a better league, but he could not dominate it, and even during his prime, he wasn't the best player in baseball.

Mays wasn't the best player in baseball?

Besides leading the National League in OPS+ six times, Bill James in his New Historical Baseball Abstract gives Mays's Seven MVP's by his WinShares system. I fail to see how Mays was never the best player in the league.

Anyway, I voted for Mays - He should of won the last poll, but nothing can be done about that now. I'll just have to keep voting for Mays until he gets his due.

[mwiggins]

Mantle was the best player in baseball for most of the 50's and early 60's, IMO. Mays only surpassed him when Mantle declined after the '62 season. I rank Mays ahead, but only because he was able to sustain his greatness a longer than Mantle. Mays probably was the best player in baseball for a few years in the mid 60's, 1963-1965, until he declined enough for guys like Robinson and Yaz to pass him.

Mays was the best player in the NL during his prime, though. But Aaron was very close to him, and later Frank Robinson. Mays trumps them primarily because of his defense, as hitters there's not much seperation.

[Skin & Bones]

Well, for what it's worth, James using his system does rate Mays ahead in 51, 54, 59, and 60 - He also has them dead even in 58. We also don't know what Mays could of done in 52-53 when he was in the army - So those could of been more years where Mays outperformed Mantle. It also could of been the other way around - We'll never really know. And the same reason you use to rank Mays ahead of Mantle should also be the same reason you rank Cobb over Mantle - Because longevity is what puts Cobb over Mantle. Mantle's peak was easily better, and this is without a league quality adjustment - Add one in, and their peaks aren't even close. Atleast when comparing Mays to Mantle, LQ is in his favor - That's not the same when comparing Cobb to Mantle.

[leecemark]

Even though Mays will win this, I'm voting Aaron nice career value always consistent...solid player.

--Aaron and Mays were almost exactly the same hitter, but Mays has a significant advantage in defense and baserunning. Noty that Aaron was bad at those things. Hank will be my choice as soon as Mays get selected.
--Mays and Wagner are the two most complete players in history. I go with Mays though since he dominated slightly more against a much tougher league. The LQ is bigger than the PA in this case.

[mwiggins]

Atleast when comparing Mays to Mantle, LQ is in his favor - That's not the same when comparing Cobb to Mantle.

Not exactly sure what you mean by that last part, but I do have Cobb ahead of Mantle. I have Cobb 2nd and Mantle 5th.

[Skin & Bones]

Not exactly sure what you mean by that last part, but I do have Cobb ahead of Mantle. I have Cobb 2nd and Mantle 5th.

Generally when Mays and Mantle get compared to each other many say that Mays only rates ahead because of longevity - While peak easily favors Mantle. That's also definitely true for Ty Cobb, but some of his supporters ( not saying you) rate his peak over Mantle's, and even the best all-time.

[plask_stirlac]

I think Mays was the best in 1954 and 1955, plus we'll never know about 52-53 as has been stated. Not being as good as Mantle in 56-57 isn't a knock on anyone (or Williams in 1957). Mays was pretty dominant in the 1957 NL

I would take Williams for #3 over Mays and others, but mostly Willlie. Raws go for Williams even with more war time suppressing counting stats, OPS+ goes for Williams by 34 taking in park and higher offense in Ted's day to some degree, WARP3 factors in defense and league quality and Ted is still ahead in that per game (closely). I actually used 3240 games and it was about a 9% edge for Ted. I suppose there could be more LQ adjustment or preference for Mays playing nearly everyday after age 30, but at some point it looks like Williams wins especially since offense is key to me. I don't think Willie's running, defense, and other attributes can make up.

[mwiggins]

Generally when Mays and Mantle get compared to each other many say that Mays only rates ahead because of longevity - While peak easily favors Mantle. That's also definitely true for Ty Cobb, but some of his supporters ( not saying you) rate his peak over Mantle's, and even the best all-time.


No, I don't. I rank Mantle's peak ahead of anybody but Ruth. Mantle's peak vs. Mays doens't easily favor him, but I do think in their primes, Mantle was the best - even with Mays defense figured in. Mays production post 1962 (and credit for the years he lost to WWII) are enough, for me, to more than make up that. I have Mays only one spot ahead of Mantle, but there's a sizable gap between them.

And I don't mean that Mantle was better every year from 1951/4 to 1962, just that in general during that time, he was the more talented and productive player. If you asked the question "who's the best player in baseball", I think Mantle would be the answer.

[leecemark]

--That actually a hotly debated topic when both were active. It was only much later when the value of walks started getting more attention that most people concluded mantle had the better peak. 56-7 and 61 are better than any Mays seasons, but on a year for year comparison Mays matchs up very well. I've got it;
1951: Mays
1954: Mays
1955: Mays
1956: Mantle
1957: Mantle
1958: push
1959: push
1960: Mantle
1961: Mantle
1962: Mays
1963: Mays
1964: Mays
1965: Mays
1966: Mays
1967: Mays
1968: Mays
--Mantle wins 52-3 due to Mays being in the Army. but Mays wins 1969-73 due to Mantle being out of baseball.

[mwiggins]

That seems pretty reasonable. Based on that I'd say Mantle was the better player in the 1954-1962 time frame, both because was better more years and because his BEST years were so much better. After that Mays pulled ahead.

[leecemark]

--I think your inclusive years are way too long. Mays started off better (51-55, less his miltary time) and ended much better (62-68 plus 5 additonal years). Mantle was better in the middle (56-61).

[mwiggins]

You're right. I was using those because they were the years they competed against each other in their prime. The intent was to say that if you took 1951-1962 (excluding 52 & 53), Mantle was the better player. But that's mostly because his incredible seperation from Mays when Mantle was at his best (56, 57, 61).

[leecemark]

--If you take the 10 year period period when both were consecutively active then the best Mantle fares is 4 years for him, 4 for for Mays and 2 too close to call. That would be 54-63. Other than his military years, Mays was better in the years before and after this period. Unless you really tilt toward peak and define it pretty narrowly, then its pretty hard to argue Mantle was the better player.

[538280]

Aren't you big on PAs Chris? And shouldn't the PA put Wagner above Mays?

Well it doesn't. Like was said earlier for me at least the LQ outweighs the PA in this case.

[Bill Burgess]

My mine Wagner. Wagner/Mays will be the gut-wrencher of this poll/survey.


A Word on Wagner:

Honus Wagner, 1897-1916, was the greatest fielder in the MLs, the greatest hitter in the league, the greatest basestealer and baserunner in the league for around over 10 years.

John McGraw said that they could never determine his highest point of superiority, his hitting, running or fielding. He said that if he had a hitting weakness, they never discovered it.

Wagner was called the greatest player ever by:
McGraw, Bill Klem, Sam Crawford, Ed Barrow, John Gruber, George Moreland, Branch Rickey, Lou Gehrig, Johny Evers, Bill McKechnie, Max Carey, Fred Clarke, Jimmy Burke, Jimmy Sheckard, Tommy Leach, Babe Adams, Ed Roush, Paul Waner, Ralph Davis, Barney Dreyfuss, Jim Long. I haven't found quotes from Mathewson, Mordecai Brown, Frank Chance, Ginger Beaumont, Johnny Kling, Grover Alexander, Joe McGinnity, Joe Tinker, and others of his peers.

Honus won 8 BA. titles, 6 SLG. titles, 5 SB titles, 5 RBI titles, 7 Total Bases titles, and 4 OBA titles.

Many such as Joe McCarthy and Cobb called him a perfect player. This meaning that there were no skills on a ballfield that he lacked. And to an extreme degree. And temperamentally, Wagner was as sweet-natured as they come. And on top of it all, he was a shortstop without weaknesses. He could go into the hole behind 3rd or 2nd, go aloft, and had a rifle for an arm (he pitched 2 games), and was death on grounders, bunts or liners anywhere near him.

But it doth my heart glad to hear an enlightened few give up the props and render forth to Honus that which belongs to Wagner.

Three places where Hans has received his due credit are:

1. Bill James' Historical Abstract. 1988, pp. 384-385.

2. Baseball's All Time Dream Team, by John P. McCarthy, Jr., 1994, pp. 64.

3. The Diamond Appraised, by Craig R. Wright and Tom House, 1989, pp. 367-409. The Wagner segment is taken by Craig R. Wright.

In the 3rd book, it's alleged that Honus was once timed in 3.4 seconds, going from home to 1st, from the right-handed batters box.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its April 2, 1942 edition, Sporting News conducted its own survey, of those who HAD seen them all, and Ty got 61 votes, Honus 17 and Babe 11, Hornsby 2, 10 players received 1 vote each: Delahanty, Gehrig, Speaker, DiMaggio, Ott, Sisler, E. Collins, Johnson, Mathewson, Jerry Denny.

This survey supported the 1936 Hall of Fame vote:
Original Hall of Fame vote, Feb. 2, 1936, votes counted at the Commissioner's office in Chicago, IL. 226 Total Voters; Cobb 222, Wagner 215, Ruth 215, Mathewson 205, Johnson 189, Lajoie 146, Speaker 133, Young 111, Hornsby 105, Cochrane 80, Sisler 77, E. Collins 60, J. Collins 58, Alexander 55, Gehrig 51.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wagner over Mays:

From 1900-1910, Wagner achieved an almost impossible feat. On the whole, he was the best hitter, fielder and runner in his league. Others may have had a better year than he did in one of the skills, but overall - he was dominant.

Now, I am fully informed that someone will immediately post that the only reason Honus could do that was due to the chronic weakness in the NL, due to the incessant AL raids. And they may be quite right on that. But does anyone doubt that Hans couldn't have done that even if his league had stayed strong? Holding a man responsible for the inherent weakness of his competition is so wrong.

Many players only play as good as they have to to win, and can improve their game if their rivals push them. Like Cobb/Jackson, 1911-13, or Ruth/Gehrig, '27.

In hitting, Wagner led his league so many more times than Willie in hitting categories that it isn't even funny. Now I am also aware, that Willie had to contend with a level of competition in the 1950-60's, mostly in the form of fellow black players, that Hans didn't face.

Honus may have appeared easy-going, but beneath the Lincolnesque facade, burned an intensely competitive spirit. Could he have remained supreme, if John "Pop" Lloyd had been in the NL? I think he could have, and if you know me, I'm saying a mouthful! So that is how highly I regard Wagner!

Fielding: I must consider Wagner much the better fielder, because the best SS is better defensively than the best CF. Mays had rivals in Ashburn. Even considering Richie's fly-ball throwing pitching staff. Mays had a much bigger OF turf to patrol in the Polo Ground, which allows more flys to be caught, up to '57. If Mays was as good a fielder, he'd have been an infielder. No one good enough to handle the infield, especially SS, is assigned the gardens. You put your sluggish sluggers there. Willie wasn't sluggish, by any means, but not agile enough to handle an infield post, surely not SS.

To those who cry foul, at comparing a SS with an OF, let me remind you, that SS is a far more demanding post than CF, and requires more defensive talent.

I wouldn't call Honus the best fielding SS of his day. Bobby Wallace was probably better, but not by a lot. Very slight margin.

Running: Again, I must rate Hans over Willie. Yes, Willie ran very well, but Hans was one of the all time runners. Willie was not. And when a SS runs that well, that is something. Simply because we lack SB% in his era, we can't assume that Wagner was a poor % runner. Hans was expected to run, while Willie was not. So I do give Mays extra bonus points, but not nearly enough to overcome Wagner's SB totals. Hans is still 10th all time, with 722 SB. Hans was leading a league of base stealers 5 times, while Willie was leading a league of non-runners 4 times.

--------------------------BA---Hits--2B---3B---HR----R----RBI---TB---OBA--SLG.--SB
Wagner----Led league------8-----2----7----3----0----2------5-----7----4-----6---5
Mays------Led league------1-----1----0----3----4----2------0-----3----2-----5----4

Although Willie led his league in homers 4 times, Honus finished in the top 5 in homers 4 times. It is easy to see at a glance that in hitting, both super-stars are among the elite hitters. Their stats cut across the board, in the same way as Cobb, Hornsby, Bonds and several others. They didn't merely bunch their good numbers in a few power categories, but cuts across the boards.

And they both star at both ends, actually are triple threats. But Wagner edges Willie in defense/running, and holds him to a draw in hitting. Hans weaker league is compensated for, by leading it much more often, as he needed to do, given the discrepancy in league strength.

Summary: Honus in all 3 categories. We cannot assume that Wagner would have been found wanting in power, had he been accorded his chances.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Wee Willie]

I suppose there could be more LQ adjustment or preference for Mays playing nearly everyday after age 30, but at some point it looks like Williams wins especially since offense is key to me. I don't think Willie's running, defense, and other attributes can make up.
I agree. When I give Williams full war credit, I calculate Ted playing about 2940 total games, posting about 740 Win Shares, and about a 233.0 WARP1 (instead of using WARP3, I make my own league quality adjustments). Neither Willie nor Honus can overcome those numbers, IMO, even after league quality adjustments are made. Ted's league quality is closer to Willie's than it is to Wagner's.
Even if I issue 50% or 60% war credit for Ted, he still comes out ahead in the numbers when you combine the rate and counting stats. Both Willie and Wagner obviously are more complete players, but Ted's hitting advantage is just too great for me to discount.

[mwiggins]

Other than his military years, Mays was better in the years before and after this period. Unless you really tilt toward peak and define it pretty narrowly, then its pretty hard to argue Mantle was the better player.


I'm not arguing that he was a better player, or should rank higher, just that I think Mantle was better than Mays when they were both in their prime years. Both in production and talent. Mantle was just a flat out better player, but Mays was able to stay much healthier, so I've got to put him above Mantle. But that's not a slight to Mays. I think Mantle had more talent than any other player who ever lived, other than Ruth. And that's only because of Ruth's pitching talent.

[wu-tang clan]

To me it is a coin flip on Mays, Aaron, and Wagner, so flip a coin I did. It came up Wagner.
arent there only two sides of a coin????

[ChrisLDuncan]

Well it doesn't. Like was said earlier for me at least the LQ outweighs the PA in this case.

Gotcha, I don't see how Mays can be this good when he's my 5th best CF...that's all...thanks for clearing it up.

[torez77]

Willie Mays is now my #3 all-time player. I used to rank Ted Williams #3, because his hitting made him statistically the 3rd most dominant player ever, but therein lies the problem with Teddy. His greatness is based exclusively on hitting. He wasn't good in other areas of the game, nor did he try to be, and that bothers me. I may rank him as low as #6.

Mays dominated in all phases of the game. His stat sheet doesn't look as awesome as Teddy's, but that's because stat sheets focus primarily on offense, where Teddy beats Mays, but Mays was so much better defensively and on the basepaths that it's laughable to compare them in those areas. Mays is one of those players whose total greatness can't be accurately measured statistically.

I do know that Williams, Wagner and Mantle are the next 3 upcoming players in my rankings, but I'm not yet sure in exactly what order.

[ChrisLDuncan]

--Aaron and Mays were almost exactly the same hitter

Yeah on that with Aaron and Mays were "almost exactly" the same hitter thing, in the words of Lee Corso NOT SO FAST MY FRIEND

Aaron's OPS+: 155
Mays': 156

Okay that's vitrtually the same, but when it's that close I look to my good friend counting stats in which case I'll take Aaron's extra 100 HRs 500 hits 200 runs created and 400 RBIs

Aaron's top five OPS+ seasons 194, 181, 179, 178, 177
Mays' top five OPS+ seasonjs 185, 176, 175, 175, 173

Aaron takes him in peak hitting aswell.

Aaron's average line .305/37/113...keep in mind that he stayed past his prime, he should have realistically retired 3 years earlier, but he wanted to break the most duanting record in all of sports

Mays' career average line .302/36/103

Also Aaron actually showed up in the postseason where as Mays choked it up. If you look at the regular season clutch stats, Aaron handles Mays there too. RBIs may not be the most indicative stat of actual performace...but if you're the career leader in RBIs I'd say you're delievering. Mays never did lead the league in RBIs, Aaron did it four times.

So I would say that Aaron was the superior hitter...alot of people also tend to underrate RF too. If a RF has a good arm, which Aaron did, they can prevent a runner on first from going to third on a basehit keeping runners out of scoring. Yes CF is more valuable, however it's also easier to read a ball in CF and making it easier to get a jump on the ball...it requires more athletic prowlice, but it is easier to play.

[torez77]

I agree that Mays and Aaron aren't as far apart as most people think. Aaron may very well be my #7 player. The gap between #3 and #7 in my rankings isn't that big at all.

[ChrisLDuncan]

I'm not arguing that he was a better player, or should rank higher, just that I think Mantle was better than Mays when they were both in their prime years.

...Hmmm, so you're saying that it's Mays' career value that gives him the edge, I guess that's okay...but where do you have Aaron. I would venture to say that as far as career value goes NO ONE had more than he did.

p.s. Mantle's health problems weren't as much his fault as everyone would speculate.

[mwiggins]

Yes.

No, I agree that they weren't all his fault. But his body, while more talented than Mays, just wasn't was durable. That's got to be a knock against him. If it would have been, and he would have taken care of himself better, and not be AS focused on hitting tape measure HR's all the time; he'd be in the Ruth/Cobb stratosphere.

I have Mays 4th, Mantle 5th, and Aaron 9th. With some war credit for Mays, I have him with more career value than Aaron, though not a lot more. Aaron has more hitting career value, but when you include defense and baserunning, Mays has more.

[Blackout]

Mays started off better (51-55, less his miltary time) and ended much better

well i dont think you can say Mays "ended better", he just kept drawing walks and stayed on passed his prime

[leecemark]

Yeah on that with Aaron and Mays were "almost exactly" the same hitter thing, in the words of Lee Corso NOT SO FAST MY FRIEND

--If you credit Mays for the two years missed to military serice the counting numbers would be as much as wash as the rate stats.

[leecemark]

well i dont think you can say Mays "ended better", he just kept drawing walks and stayed on passed his prime

--That is true of Mays last couple years, but Willie was a dominating player for 4-5 years while Mantle was missing alot of games and had become a defensive liability (1965 was probably Mays best year and 61-65 was probably his best 5 year run). After that he was a very good player for several more when Mantle couldn't run or play the field at all (he was out there, but would definately have been a DH had the option been available). THEN he hung on as a pretty good player for 4 more years after Mantle was out of the game, before the last year when Mays should have been out of the game too.

[JRB]

Honus had a career relative batting average of 122.0, a career relative slugging average of 132.8, and a career relative on base percentage of 117.8. Wagner's combined relative batting numbers are 372.6, which ranks #19 all time.

Willie had a career relative batting average of 114.8, a career relative slugging average of 139.2, and a career relative on base percentage of 116.7. Mays' combined relative batting numbers are 370.7, which ranks #24 all time.

Wagner and Mays are very close as hitters, with Wagner having a big edge in relative batting average, and a slight edge in relative on base percentage, and Mays having the edge in relative slugging average. Wagner lead the league in batting average 8 times, while Mays did it once. Mays lead the league in home runs 4 times, which Wagner never did. However, Wagner lead the league in RBI's 5 times, something which Mays never did.

Mays is one of the all time great fielders at his position. Wagner is probably the greatest all around fielder in baseball history. Wagner was a great base runner. Mays was good at base stealing for about 5 or 6 years early in his career, however he greatly reduced this aspect of his game the remainder of his career. Wagner was a great base runner and base stealer throughout his entire career.

Wagner was the greatest all around National League player of the first half of the 20th century, and Hornsby was the second best. Mays was the greatest all around National League player of the second half of the 20th century, and Aaron was the second best.

Based on the foregoing, I have to go with Honus Wagner as the third greatest position player in baseball history, however I currently rate Mays just behind him as the fourth greatest position player in baseball history.

c JRB

[ChrisLDuncan]

--If you credit Mays for the two years missed to military serice the counting numbers would be as much as wash as the rate stats.

NOT SO FAST MY FRIEND, look at the career averages...Aaron was the more productive player. Better career value too, broke a record that broke every other man that tried to break it.

[brett]

I agree that batting average is important but it also factors into both on-base% AND slugging% already. Still, I have them very close on total relative offense, and I would tend to say that including position, Wagner was more valuable than Mays. It was a close call, and I went with Mays in the end based on 2 factors. 1) Wagner really did play in a weak league and Mays played post integration. 2) I do give Mays a small amount of credit for his military years.

They are really about as close in terms of being "all time greats" as there is.

Now as for this poll, we are heading down a tough road. I voted Ruth #1 and Cobb #2, and I think a case could be made for Bonds on value, but his ranking will always be ambiguous if we do not clearly define how to evaluate him. Are we to project what he would have done after '98 if he never took PED's? Are we to just give him some arbitary CUT because I suppose some people will leave him off altogether.

For me, Mays, Bonds and Wagner, along with Ruth and Cobb are way ahead of the rest of the pack on value. I will vote for Wagner next but then it really gets crowded. Williams is clearly next on offensive value, but gives away a lot in position and defense and I really think that after number 4, the list needs to expand to include at least 15 guys.

[538280]

Aaron's OPS+: 155
Mays': 156

Okay that's vitrtually the same, but when it's that close I look to my good friend counting stats in which case I'll take Aaron's extra 100 HRs 500 hits 200 runs created and 400 RBIs

If you give Mays credit for his year and a half in the military, the differential in counting stats is not huge. Mays' had a higher OPS+ and was a bit better on the bases-based on career rates he is the better offensive player, and with war credit the longevity edge Aaron has is EXTREMELY slight.


Aaron takes him in peak hitting aswell.

I will give you this one. Aaron was a little bit better than Mays at his peak. BUT, I would give Mays an edge based on the rates of his career, and maybe even a little bit for career value.


Aaron's average line .305/37/113...keep in mind that he stayed past his prime, he should have realistically retired 3 years earlier, but he wanted to break the most duanting record in all of sports

Mays' career average line .302/36/103

Also Aaron actually showed up in the postseason where as Mays choked it up. If you look at the regular season clutch stats, Aaron handles Mays there too. RBIs may not be the most indicative stat of actual performace...but if you're the career leader in RBIs I'd say you're delievering. Mays never did lead the league in RBIs, Aaron did it four times.

Triple crown stats really have nothing to do with value on the field. I have said that a number of times. BA does have a relation to scoring runs, but it onlky gives a very small part of the picture, and there are much better and more important measures. HR are an indicator of power/advacing baserunners ability, but they are not really as good as SLG which takes into account all bases generated by the hitter. RBI are a situational statistic which has just as much to do with teammates and lineup position as it does with the player's actual hitting ability. Look at BA/OBP/SLG as your "triple crown" if you need three statistics (but still don't limit your perception to just those three).


So I would say that Aaron was the superior hitter...alot of people also tend to underrate RF too. If a RF has a good arm, which Aaron did, they can prevent a runner on first from going to third on a basehit keeping runners out of scoring. Yes CF is more valuable, however it's also easier to read a ball in CF and making it easier to get a jump on the ball...it requires more athletic prowlice, but it is easier to play.

The CFer is the outfielder who has the most range 95% of the time. While throwing arm can be very important, the main job of an outfielder is to catch the balls that are hit out there. The CF is the guy deemed the best at catching the balls that go out there. The CF is the best outfielder 95% of the time, it is silly to suggest that CF is easier than RF.

[Surge]

I agree that batting average is important but it also factors into both on-base% AND slugging% already. Still, I have them very close on total relative offense, and I would tend to say that including position, Wagner was more valuable than Mays. It was a close call, and I went with Mays in the end based on 2 factors. 1) Wagner really did play in a weak league and Mays played post integration. 2) I do give Mays a small amount of credit for his military years.

They are really about as close in terms of being "all time greats" as there is.

Now as for this poll, we are heading down a tough road. I voted Ruth #1 and Cobb #2, and I think a case could be made for Bonds on value, but his ranking will always be ambiguous if we do not clearly define how to evaluate him. Are we to project what he would have done after '98 if he never took PED's? Are we to just give him some arbitary CUT because I suppose some people will leave him off altogether.

For me, Mays, Bonds and Wagner, along with Ruth and Cobb are way ahead of the rest of the pack on value. I will vote for Wagner next but then it really gets crowded. Williams is clearly next on offensive value, but gives away a lot in position and defense and I really think that after number 4, the list needs to expand to include at least 15 guys.

What about Stargell scmidt and mantle??????? all used greenies. whynot dock them?

[Sultan_1895-1948]

The CFer is the outfielder who has the most range 95% of the time. While throwing arm can be very important, the main job of an outfielder is to catch the balls that are hit out there. The CF is the guy deemed the best at catching the balls that go out there. The CF is the best outfielder 95% of the time, it is silly to suggest that CF is easier than RF.

It is extremely apparent in this case, as it has been in others, that you have very little actual ballplaying experience Chris. Not only do you lack the on-field experience to draw conclusions such as this, but you're looking at it all wrong anyway.

Do centerfielders generally have the best range (most speed), sure they do. Is that all there is to fielding? No, of course not. More important than sheer speed is the ability to get great jumps, take proper angles, and most importantly, catch the ball. Can sheer speed make up for bad jumps and negate the occasional bad angle, sure. And if a guy has speed along with these things, he will most likely be a great centerfielder. But what makes you think center is harder in general though? Think about it. Is swimming hard for a fish? Is covering ground hard for a centerfielder?

Center is not a difficult position if you have what it takes to be one, in fact, its much easier imo. Center offers unique angles and perspective. Good centerfielders will take every little thing into account and are able to do so BECAUSE of this perspective. This does not make the position hard. Who is on the mound for your team and what kind of stuff does he have? What kind of stuff does he have that day? What approach are hitters taking? What kind of stance does the hitter have? What did he do in his last AB and on what pitch of what count? Is the wind blowing? Which direction? Where are the corner outfielders positioned? Are they in the right spot? What are their abilities? These are things to consider before the pitch. As the pitch is on its way, you know what the pitch is and where it is, along with the angle and timing of the swing. Before the ball even makes contact with the bat, you could freeze time and call out where the ball will go. Then add to that the sound as it comes off. A cake-walk.

I know many centerfielders, myself included, who would not want anything to do with left or right field. Different perspective. Different action on the ball. Different responsibilities. Center being harder than right is in the eye of the beholder. If a guy is suited better for right field...average to good speed with a great arm and equal glove, then he should get no deductions when judging fielders imo. Move that speedy centerfielder with no arm to right and not only is his speed somewhat negated, but his lack of arm hurts much worse, and who knows how the different ball action would affect his fielding.

[leecemark]

--CF may not be more difficult, but you do need a better outfielder playing there than in the corners. The CFer is required to cover significantly more ground than RF/LFers. Any CFer can handle a corner spot. Most corner outfielders would be woefully inadequte in CF and none would be as good as the best CFers.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

--CF may not be more difficult, but you do need a better outfielder playing there than in the corners. The CFer is required to cover significantly more ground than RF/LFers. Any CFer can handle a corner spot. Most corner outfielders would be woefully inadequte in CF and none would be as good as the best CFers.

Completely wrong.

[leecemark]

Completely wrong.

--Compelling arguement.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

--Compelling arguement.

I already explained why and it didn't make a dent. If a guy has been blessed with the general gifts of a centerfield and has played that position his whole life, he is conditioned to see the field and react from a certain perspective. If he is suddendly thrown into a foreign environment with a foreign viewpoint and foreign angles, there is no guarantee he will be a solid corner fielder. Its a whole new ballgame out there compared to center, and not just in how the ball reacts off the bat, but the pre-contact viewpoint, which will affect reaction time not to mention overall confidence. Its not as simple as saying "any CFer could play a good corner outfielder."

[brett]

I already explained why and it didn't make a dent. If a guy has been blessed with the general gifts of a centerfield and has played that position his whole life, he is conditioned to see the field and react from a certain perspective. If he is suddendly thrown into a foreign environment with a foreign viewpoint and foreign angles, there is no guarantee he will be a solid corner fielder. Its a whole new ballgame out there compared to center, and not just in how the ball reacts off the bat, but the pre-contact viewpoint, which will affect reaction time not to mention overall confidence. Its not as simple as saying "any CFer could play a good corner outfielder."


Playing right field certainly presents certain challenges. There is a huge slice on many line drives which make many of them deceptive.

Larry Walker is an example of a guy who played centerfield very well from time to time, but who was generally kept at RF because he handled the slice, and fould territory well and had a great arm. I don't think a guy like him should get penalized for playing RF. If anything, he deserves some of the credit for what his centerfielder did.

Still, centerfielders field about 2x as many balls on average as a corner outfielder, but I always felt that a lot of that was due to CF being the guy who calls off the others. Many of the CF's extra chances are really "tweeners" (balls hit between fielders) and the guy with the better arm may be assigned to be the backup on these balls in case they get by.

And I wouldn't want to see Juan Pierre in right field. Guys would be taking extra bases on him every game. Guys would be scoring from third on him each and every game.

[leecemark]

-Pierre would give up some extra bases in RF, but he would also take away some extra base hits. Not sure where you are going with the "scoring from third" comment. If it refers to tag plays the CFer will have more of them and often with longer throws. The RFers arm is more important than the CFers ONLY in regards to guys going from 1st to 3rd on singles. I wouldn't want Pierre in RF because he doesn't hit enough, but defensively I think he would be more of a plus than otherwise.

[brett]

-Pierre would give up some extra bases in RF, but he would also take away some extra base hits. Not sure where you are going with the "scoring from third" comment. If it refers to tag plays the CFer will have more of them and often with longer throws. The RFers arm is more important than the CFers ONLY in regards to guys going from 1st to 3rd on singles. I wouldn't want Pierre in RF because he doesn't hit enough, but defensively I think he would be more of a plus than otherwise.

What I remember of Pierre in Colorado is that he would make a great running catch, and guys would move up from second to third. Granted its a deep outfield.

I also remember that he would use his speed to cut off hits in the gap, but he didn't have the arm to hold base-runners after cutting the ball off.

[leecemark]

--Given a choice between a ball getting down in the gap or that ball being caught but a runner tagging and moving up I think the choice is pretty clear. Even if some guys move up on balls that a less rangy outfielder would still have caught I'll trade 2 SF for one double saved anytime.

[ChrisLDuncan]

The CFer is the outfielder who has the most range 95% of the time. While throwing arm can be very important, the main job of an outfielder is to catch the balls that are hit out there. The CF is the guy deemed the best at catching the balls that go out there. The CF is the best outfielder 95% of the time, it is silly to suggest that CF is easier than RF.

CF is usually the best athelete. However in CF it's easier to get a read on the ball, and it's more speed and athletisim th at is required. In right field it is harder to get a decent reed on a ball, plus it requires more "baseball skill" a stronger arm, ususally, and a more accurate gun to the bases. A CF just needs to be able to get to balls, not exactly get the best reed.


Triple crown stats really have nothing to do with value on the field. I have said that a number of times. BA does have a relation to scoring runs, but it onlky gives a very small part of the picture, and there are much better and more important measures. HR are an indicator of power/advacing baserunners ability, but they are not really as good as SLG which takes into account all bases generated by the hitter. RBI are a situational statistic which has just as much to do with teammates and lineup position as it does with the player's actual hitting ability. Look at BA/OBP/SLG as your "triple crown" if you need three statistics (but still don't limit your perception to just those three).

I think RBIs are grotesquely underrated here, RBIs are the delievery stat...when there's runners driving them in is the key to winning games. Aaron always showed up in the clutch when it mattered, can't say the same about Mays. I also appreciate how someone who to my knowledge has never played baseball on a competitive organized level tells people how do judge "on field" performance. I appreciate you taking your opinion as dogmatic baseball fact.


--CF may not be more difficult, but you do need a better outfielder playing there than in the corners. The CFer is required to cover significantly more ground than RF/LFers. Any CFer can handle a corner spot. Most corner outfielders would be woefully inadequte in CF and none would be as good as the best CFers.

Compelling argument that is totally coherent.

They do need to cover more ground, true, but they need to cover more ground. You are right about "most" corner OFs not being able to play center, but there are some that are fantanstic with the glove and can play great D...and have a certian amount of "baseball skill" on the defensvie side of the ball that some CF's athletic abilities are able to mask.

[plask_stirlac]

RBIs are team dependent, in 1986 Mattingly hit better (up in pretty much everything but HR) but since Rickey Henderson wasn't getting on base as much as in 1985, he had 32 fewer RBI. I think they're closely related, and it has little to do with Mattingly.

They're good to have, but kind of a gilded stat in comparing two players or performance from year to year, like Ruben Sierra in 1987 and 1989.

[mwiggins]

I think RBIs are grotesquely underrated here, RBIs are the delievery stat...when there's runners driving them in is the key to winning games.

That's true, but RBI's don't show you how many times they had a chance drive in runners. And they also include the times they drove themselves in on HR's, which has nothing to do with driving in runners. Just because a player had more RBI's, that doesn't mean they're better at driving in runners. A high level of RBI's does tell you a play is good at driving in runs. But if one player has 132 RBI's and the other player has 113, that doesn't mean the first player is better than driving in runs.

For example, Howard had more RBI's than Pujols, but he also had many more opportunities to drive in runs, so Pujols probabaly actually had the better year driving in runners.

[538280]

It is extremely apparent in this case, as it has been in others, that you have very little actual ballplaying experience Chris. Not only do you lack the on-field experience to draw conclusions such as this, but you're looking at it all wrong anyway.

Do centerfielders generally have the best range (most speed), sure they do. Is that all there is to fielding? No, of course not. More important than sheer speed is the ability to get great jumps, take proper angles, and most importantly, catch the ball. Can sheer speed make up for bad jumps and negate the occasional bad angle, sure. And if a guy has speed along with these things, he will most likely be a great centerfielder. But what makes you think center is harder in general though? Think about it. Is swimming hard for a fish? Is covering ground hard for a centerfielder?

When did I talk about just pure speed, Sultan? I said range. Range is a player's ability to get to balls hit near him. Positioning and taking the proper angle is all a part of range. The outfielder who is best at getting to balls hit in the outfield is the CFer. You say best range then put most speed in parenthesis. You can't do that, range and speed are not the same things and I did not mean speed by saying range.


Center is not a difficult position if you have what it takes to be one, in fact, its much easier imo. Center offers unique angles and perspective. Good centerfielders will take every little thing into account and are able to do so BECAUSE of this perspective. This does not make the position hard. Who is on the mound for your team and what kind of stuff does he have? What kind of stuff does he have that day? What approach are hitters taking? What kind of stance does the hitter have? What did he do in his last AB and on what pitch of what count? Is the wind blowing? Which direction? Where are the corner outfielders positioned? Are they in the right spot? What are their abilities? These are things to consider before the pitch. As the pitch is on its way, you know what the pitch is and where it is, along with the angle and timing of the swing. Before the ball even makes contact with the bat, you could freeze time and call out where the ball will go. Then add to that the sound as it comes off. A cake-walk.

Probalby what I meant by "hard" is that it takes the most skill. Like I said, the outfielder with the most range (NOT just pure speed) will be the CFer. CF takes more outifield skill than the other positions. I do not buy into the notion that a good CF could not be eventually made into a great corner OF. Yes, it is true that there are different angles to judge, and it is true that RFers generally need a stronger arm. But, with practice and teaching, the CFer could get used to the new dynamics and reads he has to make on the ball in RF and use that great range he has to get to a ton of balls out there. As far as the arm, he may give up a few bases with that, but he'd also save a lot more possible hits with his range than many, slower, RFers would do.


I know many centerfielders, myself included, who would not want anything to do with left or right field. Different perspective. Different action on the ball. Different responsibilities. Center being harder than right is in the eye of the beholder. If a guy is suited better for right field...average to good speed with a great arm and equal glove, then he should get no deductions when judging fielders imo. Move that speedy centerfielder with no arm to right and not only is his speed somewhat negated, but his lack of arm hurts much worse, and who knows how the different ball action would affect his fielding.

A guy is better suited to right field BECAUSE a CFer is suited to center. If you had played RF your whole life, you would probably be an elite RFer, if you already play a really good CF. When you've played CF your whole life, I would agree it would be harder in RF, just because there is a whole new dynamic, different reads, and you wouldn't be used to it. But if you had played it your whole life and gotten used to it (and the only reason you haven't is because you're a good enough outfielder to play CF), then you would be a very good RF.


CF is usually the best athelete. However in CF it's easier to get a read on the ball, and it's more speed and athletisim th at is required. In right field it is harder to get a decent reed on a ball, plus it requires more "baseball skill" a stronger arm, ususally, and a more accurate gun to the bases. A CF just needs to be able to get to balls, not exactly get the best reed.

Getting a good read on the ball is a huge part of getting to balls, Chris. A RF usually has a stronger arm than a CF but that does not make it a more important position. Elinating hits and runners on base is more important than taking away a few bases a year with a cannon arm. The arm is very important, but getting to the ball is always the chief responsiblity of an outfielder. That is what they do that contributes the most to the team winning the game.


I think RBIs are grotesquely underrated here, RBIs are the delievery stat...when there's runners driving them in is the key to winning games. Aaron always showed up in the clutch when it mattered, can't say the same about Mays.

RBI don't take into account how many chances a player had to drive someone in. That's the problem, and that's why they're generally very unreliable. I don't understand why RBI are generally considered so much more important than runs scored either. A run scored is half the job, driving him in is the other half. I wouldn't look much at either as they are both heavily situational, but they should be just as important as each other.


I also appreciate how someone who to my knowledge has never played baseball on a competitive organized level tells people how do judge "on field" performance. I appreciate you taking your opinion as dogmatic baseball fact.

You know nothing about my personal life, and I don't know you outside of BBF, so I don't know how you feel confident to say anything about me personally. I don't know where I said that what I think is a absolute fact. But if you want to look at statistics which do not focus on the performance of teammates and have to do with why teams actually score runs you're better off looking at BA/OBP/SLG than BA/HR/RBI.

[ChrisLDuncan]

But if you want to look at statistics which do not focus on the performance of teammates and have to do with why teams actually score runs you're better off looking at BA/OBP/SLG than BA/HR/RBI.

Last I checked baseball is a team game and being able to drive in the guys besides you by what ever means neccessary to win, and that includes HRs, I do look at your line aswell...however it was so close and Aaron went through a huge decline the last few seasons, so I looked at BA/HR/RBI and I think Aaron pretty handidly takes that conisdering his decline aswell.


Getting a good read on the ball is a huge part of getting to balls, Chris. A RF usually has a stronger arm than a CF but that does not make it a more important position. Elinating hits and runners on base is more important than taking away a few bases a year with a cannon arm. The arm is very important, but getting to the ball is always the chief responsiblity of an outfielder. That is what they do that contributes the most to the team winning the game.

It is, but a CF such as Mays can mask his ability of reading balls by his great athletic prowlice. In right field it's usually hard to get a read on ball which effects your jumb, it's also harder to judge who should go run down the ball you or the CFer. CF is more important I wasn't denying that all I was saying that it is easier to do your job because the reed is easeir to get, RF is a more challenging position.


Probalby what I meant by "hard" is that it takes the most skill. Like I said, the outfielder with the most range (NOT just pure speed) will be the CFer. CF takes more outifield skill than the other positions.

Well Chris, I don't know where you are picking this up or what persepctive you had but AGAIN, a CF takes more athletic ability...you get the easiest reed on the ball and after that athletic ability takes over. RF is a harder positiont to play, if you get a sliced line drive to RF usually it means a hit, first you can't get the best reed in RF so you have to already judge where it's going to land get there fast enough to keep the runner out of scoring.



RBI don't take into account how many chances a player had to drive someone in. That's the problem, and that's why they're generally very unreliable. I don't understand why RBI are generally considered so much more important than runs scored either. A run scored is half the job, driving him in is the other half. I wouldn't look much at either as they are both heavily situational, but they should be just as important as each other.

Well they aren't it just depends where in the line up you are hitting, for example with Aaron it was more important to drive in runs, whereas for a player like Rickey Henderson it's more important to score them. Also Runs scored are a far more team dependent stat, there's a few guys who get themselves into scoring position extremely well...Rickey Henderson was probably the best I've ever seen at that.


That's true, but RBI's don't show you how many times they had a chance drive in runners. And they also include the times they drove themselves in on HR's, which has nothing to do with driving in runners. Just because a player had more RBI's, that doesn't mean they're better at driving in runners. A high level of RBI's does tell you a play is good at driving in runs. But if one player has 132 RBI's and the other player has 113, that doesn't mean the first player is better than driving in runs.

For example, Howard had more RBI's than Pujols, but he also had many more opportunities to drive in runs, so Pujols probabaly actually had the better year driving in runners.

Well look at Aaron's line with runners on, he got the job done. Well it depends on games played aswell, since every other offensive statistic was basically the same I chose to use HRs/RBIs as a stat to judge the offensive prowlice

In the Howard example, Pujols went down for a good chunk of the season, he also slumped a bit and lost his power surge. Pujols also had a far better BA, and SLG aswell than Howard. So I think you have to look a little bit more closely.

As I have allready demonstrated in previous posts if you look at other stats you would think that Aaron and Mays are virtually the same. Also you have to consider Aaron's decline when judging his value as a player, the Henry Aaron that broke the HR record was not the great Henry Aaron that I am selecting.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

When did I talk about just pure speed, Sultan? I said range. Range is a player's ability to get to balls hit near him. Positioning and taking the proper angle is all a part of range. The outfielder who is best at getting to balls hit in the outfield is the CFer. You say best range then put most speed in parenthesis. You can't do that, range and speed are not the same things and I did not mean speed by saying range.


Range has nothing to do with positioning or angles in and of itself. Range has everything to do with speed or the ability to cover ground. Now, can proper positioning, great pre-contact analysis, and superb jumps increase someones's range, sure it can. Can sheer speed (range) also make up for a fielder lacking in these areas, sure it can. The point is, that a right-fielder may very well do all of these things at a higher level than a CFer (and offer and much stronger arm), which makes him a better fielder. But because the centerfielder has the speed, better on-field perspective, more balls are hit to him, and he has priority, you say he is more valuable. More valuable I could buy because he is responsible for more put-outs, but to say he's automatically the better fielder is assuming too much imo.



I do not buy into the notion that a good CF could not be eventually made into a great corner OF.


Nobody said "eventually." We're talking about taking a centerfielder and just placing him in a corner spot. You'd be surprised how many great centerfielders would feel like a fish out of water in that position, despite being the "better athlete."

[Mariano_Rivera]

We can make #4 now.

[ChrisLDuncan]

Juan Pierre in right? Doesn't exactly get the best jumps but in center you can get a late reed and with his speed he can run down most balls.

[538280]

Last I checked baseball is a team game and being able to drive in the guys besides you by what ever means neccessary to win, and that includes HRs, I do look at your line aswell...however it was so close and Aaron went through a huge decline the last few seasons, so I looked at BA/HR/RBI and I think Aaron pretty handidly takes that conisdering his decline aswell.

Seriously, don't look at BA/HR/RBI. If they're so close offensively that you can't break the tie, then just call them tied offensively and move on to other areas. Going to BA/HR/RBI IMO is just going to give you false ideas about the player's real value. The Triple crown statistics don't give you any more than a scratch in the surface of how players contribute runs to their team, and they can even lead you totally astray.


It is, but a CF such as Mays can mask his ability of reading balls by his great athletic prowlice. In right field it's usually hard to get a read on ball which effects your jumb, it's also harder to judge who should go run down the ball you or the CFer. CF is more important I wasn't denying that all I was saying that it is easier to do your job because the reed is easeir to get, RF is a more challenging position.

No, the need of athletic ability is a much more demanding thing that getting a read on a ball. The CF makes twice as many plays as both the corner OF. Having twice as many balls hit towards you (or maybe more like 1.5 times becaus the CF tends to call off the corner OFs) makes for a more demanding job that the read you get on the ball perhaps being tougher.


Well Chris, I don't know where you are picking this up or what persepctive you had but AGAIN, a CF takes more athletic ability...you get the easiest reed on the ball and after that athletic ability takes over. RF is a harder positiont to play, if you get a sliced line drive to RF usually it means a hit, first you can't get the best reed in RF so you have to already judge where it's going to land get there fast enough to keep the runner out of scoring.

I see what you're saying. The balls take tougher angles in RF and thus it is harder to catch them. You're right, but IMO that does not make the position more demanding, having more balls hit towards you overcompensates for that. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.


Well they aren't it just depends where in the line up you are hitting, for example with Aaron it was more important to drive in runs, whereas for a player like Rickey Henderson it's more important to score them. Also Runs scored are a far more team dependent stat, there's a few guys who get themselves into scoring position extremely well...Rickey Henderson was probably the best I've ever seen at that.

Runs scored aren't more team dependant. You need to get on to score a run. You need to get a hit (or if the bases are loaded perhaps a walk) to drive in a run. That is what makes you get a run scored or an RBI. You need to have someone drive you in to get a run scored, but then to get an RBI you have to have someone get on before you.


Range has nothing to do with positioning or angles in and of itself. Range has everything to do with speed or the ability to cover ground. Now, can proper positioning, great pre-contact analysis, and superb jumps increase someones's range, sure it can. Can sheer speed (range) also make up for a fielder lacking in these areas, sure it can. The point is, that a right-fielder may very well do all of these things at a higher level than a CFer (and offer and much stronger arm), which makes him a better fielder. But because the centerfielder has the speed, better on-field perspective, more balls are hit to him, and he has priority, you say he is more valuable. More valuable I could buy because he is responsible for more put-outs, but to say he's automatically the better fielder is assuming too much imo.

Range is your ability to get to balls hit out there, the ground you cover. Absolutely getting a read on the ball and positioning has a lot to do with that. Cal Ripken didn't have great speed or quickness, but he had such great positioning and read the ball so well that he still made a ton of plays. He had range despite the lack of speed. Range has to do with a lot more than just speed. Range does not mean speed. I've never seen someone refer to range as just speed. If you thought I was just referring to speed earlier then I guess we're just using the same term (range) to mean different things. To you it means just pure speed, to me it means someone's ability to get to balls by any means, be it speed, positioning, whatever.


Nobody said "eventually." We're talking about taking a centerfielder and just placing him in a corner spot. You'd be surprised how many great centerfielders would feel like a fish out of water in that position, despite being the "better athlete."

I would agree that if you just took a guy who's been a CF and just put him in RF for a game he would be lost. I think if he played there for a while and learned the positiont though he'd eventually become a great RF.

[csh19792001]

Cal Ripken didn't have great speed or quickness, but he had such great positioning and read the ball so well that he still made a ton of plays. He had range despite the lack of speed. Range has to do with a lot more than just speed. Range does not mean speed. I've never seen someone refer to range as just speed. If you thought I was just referring to speed earlier then I guess we're just using the same term (range) to mean different things. To you it means just pure speed, to me it means someone's ability to get to balls by any means, be it speed, positioning, whatever.


Did Pipken make far more plays in comparison to the average shortstop of his day, though? I didn't know that.

A big part of Ripken's sucess at short was attributable to his arm, which was truly outstanding, especially in his youth. I remember Bill James himself noting that he watched Ripken in his youth quite closely, and that he was amazed at the arm strength. James has been to hundreds of games, seems to know quite a bit about how the game is played, and I'd say he would be a credible expert eyewitness as a result. Ripken was able to play very deep because of his arm....and got to more balls, so it might appear on paper that he had outstanding range. Of course that would (again) be the numbers lying. His positioning had nothing to do with range.

I'd be interested to read some articles from credible sources that say that Cal Ripken had great range....because from everything I've read and heard, he certainly did not. I have heard the opposite, though.

[538280]

Did Pipken make far more plays in comparison to the average shortstop of his day, though? I didn't know that.

A big part of Ripken's sucess at short was attributable to his arm, which was truly outstanding, especially in his youth. I remember Bill James himself noting that he watched Ripken in his youth quite closely, and that he was amazed at the arm strength. James has been to hundreds of games, seems to know quite a bit about how the game is played, and I'd say he would be a credible expert eyewitness as a result. Ripken was able to play very deep because of his arm....and got to more balls, so it might appear on paper that he had outstanding range. Of course that would (again) be the numbers lying. His positioning had nothing to do with range.

I'd be interested to read some articles from credible sources that say that Cal Ripken had great range....because from everything I've read and heard, he certainly did not. I have heard the opposite, though.

I think it depends on how you define range, again. If Ripken was able to play deep because of his great arm and thus get to more balls because he played so deep, I consider that range-he is getting to more balls hit in his direction. If you are defining range as quickness, running to the ball from where you are standing to where it was hit, I don't think Ripken was great. But I think his arm was so strong and his positioning so good that he made up for that and made the plays plenty well enough. If you want statistical justification of that James noted in Win Shares that Ripken does very well in assists as a percentage of team assists (which is valid becauase team assists are a good measure of groundballs and thus groundball tendency).

[ChrisLDuncan]

Seriously, don't look at BA/HR/RBI. If they're so close offensively that you can't break the tie, then just call them tied offensively and move on to other areas. Going to BA/HR/RBI IMO is just going to give you false ideas about the player's real value. The Triple crown statistics don't give you any more than a scratch in the surface of how players contribute runs to their team, and they can even lead you totally astray.


Yeah, I'm not going to totally disregard BA/HR/RBIs just becaues some fourteen year old boy told me too. I'm pretty sure if you've won a triple crown than you have contributed alot to your team...if your the career leader in RBIs chances are you've contributed to winning...pretty sure that Aaron did

[yanks0714]

Yeah, I'm not going to totally disregard BA/HR/RBIs just becaues some fourteen year old boy told me too. I'm pretty sure if you've won a triple crown than you have contributed alot to your team...if your the career leader in RBIs chances are you've contributed to winning...pretty sure that Aaron did

If ya don't wanna listen to a 14 year old boy, how 'bout a 54 year old man?

The TC is great. Nobody says it isn't. But that is what the sportswriters have termed the TC for someone leading the league in BA/HR/RBI for all intents and purposes. I, too, used to be mesmermized by RBIs....until I did study on my own of the stats that lead to runs scored which, generally, lead to wins.

RBIs are virtually totally team dependent except when you drive yourself in with a HR. I'm pretty sure Aaron was sure glad those teammates were on-board so he could drive them in. A good example is Mickey Mantle. Look at his RBIs for the years that Tony Kubek and Bobby Richardson, two guys that had horrible OBP, hit ahead of him.

BA is fine but I prefer OBP of which BA is a major part along with BBs.

Ya can't drive them in unless they're on-base in the first place.

To me the reall TC is HR/SLG/OBP.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

The 20s/30s had higher runs per game than any era in history, including the modern 1994-present era.

Due to hitting approach, field size, and inferior fielding equipment, yes.

[ChrisLDuncan]

If ya don't wanna listen to a 14 year old boy, how 'bout a 54 year old man?

The TC is great. Nobody says it isn't. But that is what the sportswriters have termed the TC for someone leading the league in BA/HR/RBI for all intents and purposes. I, too, used to be mesmermized by RBIs....until I did study on my own of the stats that lead to runs scored which, generally, lead to wins.

RBIs are virtually totally team dependent except when you drive yourself in with a HR. I'm pretty sure Aaron was sure glad those teammates were on-board so he could drive them in. A good example is Mickey Mantle. Look at his RBIs for the years that Tony Kubek and Bobby Richardson, two guys that had horrible OBP, hit ahead of him.

BA is fine but I prefer OBP of which BA is a major part along with BBs.

Ya can't drive them in unless they're on-base in the first place.

To me the reall TC is HR/SLG/OBP.

Ahh yes, he told me to not look at the triple crown at all. There's a big difference when some punk kid is going around telling ME how to go through my judgements and how to form my opinions, than from someone suggesting that I am wrong.. Now if a major league player came here or someone who has actually been associated with the game for some time and told me how to judge players; perhaps I would be wont to listening to him. Now yes RBIs are team dependant I am not doubting that they are in one of my earlier posts I looked at their collective offensive numbers, they were very very very close and even with the fact that Aaron stuck around to break the record that broke every man that came before him, and stayed way past his physical prime to do it, the numbers were still close. So I was about to call it a tie, but something in me called upon to look at further investigation. I looked at the other stats that I think are overrated by the general public, but underrated here. I noticed that Aaron had a higher BA/HR/RBI total than Mays but about the same OPS+ even after staying past his prime. Since I do not punish guys who stay a bit past their prime to accomplish something amazing, I think it is unfair to penalize Aaron for the years he stayed to break the record. Due to the virtual identical OPS+ numbers I decided to use the traditional triple crown to break the tie, putting Aaron ahead of Mays.

Now I have been aware of the fact that RBIs were totally team dependant because I was by far and away the best hitter in a league of mine but was not getting any RBIs because the people ahead of me couldn't get into scoring position. I also cite 2005 where David Ortiz had about 15-18 (I can't remember the actual number) of RBIs more than Alex Rodriguez and some people said that Ortiz deserved the MVP over A-Rod because of that. After countless explanations of going over these people that A-Rod mostly batted 2 and 5 not exactly the high RBI count that the three hitter gets with Damon ahead of him.

So I agree with you on RBIs to an extent, I use them as a tie breaker as I mentioned before. You mention that OBP is more important than BA, for a lead off hitter I would agree with you as well as some other circumstances. For example David Ortiz again had a BA of about .280 however his OBP was around .400 and he led the AL in RBIs, so he was contributing to his team winning. I like OBP, but if it's the bottom of the eigth and there's a man on second and you're down a run or tied, you can't take a walk unless you have Big Papi, Reggie Jackson, or DJ behind you...you need to get that hit to give you the lead or tie the game. So that is one instance where I think that BA is better than OBP.

I do not know you very well I am sorry but I can not specifically recall any of your posts, however you are a Yankees fan and that gets you points with me. I would think that you and I would agree on many things.

[Windy City Fan]

Chris: If you want to break the OPS+ tie between Mays and Aaron how about looking at the other aspects of the game? Mays was a superior runner and a more valuable fielder. Of course, Aaron was no slouch in either department, but I don't think he was in the same class as Willie Mays.

As to the CF vs corner outfield debate, I'd have to say that center is the more important position. A center fielder may feel uncomfortable at the corners, but in time most fielders could adjust to the different read they get on the ball. However, most corner outfielders just don't have the range to play center - if they did they would be in center.

The question of which position is harder is frankly irrelevant. There is a difference in the angle and the read, but it's minimal compared to the difference between say two infield positions or the infield and outfield. Center is unquestionably the more valuable or important position.

[ChrisLDuncan]

Chris: If you want to break the OPS+ tie between Mays and Aaron how about looking at the other aspects of the game? Mays was a superior runner and a more valuable fielder. Of course, Aaron was no slouch in either department, but I don't think he was in the same class as Willie Mays.

As to the CF vs corner outfield debate, I'd have to say that center is the more important position. A center fielder may feel uncomfortable at the corners, but in time most fielders could adjust to the different read they get on the ball. However, most corner outfielders just don't have the range to play center - if they did they would be in center.


Well I wanted to break the tie between who was the better Hitter. Since I deem RF to be the harder position to play that requires more "skill" I give Aaron points for that, while Mays was still the better fielder I think it's closer than what people think. As for baserunning I give Mays the slight edge since both grounded into quite a few double plays and they have the exact same stealing percentage...but Mays stole more bases so he gets the tie breaker there. However, Aaron's durablility in my views gives him the edge over Mays. Yes Mays lost time due to Korea, but had he played those years the wear on his body would have been greater aswell. So with War credit still Aaron's durability gives him the edge in my book.

[brett]

Well I wanted to break the tie between who was the better Hitter. Since I deem RF to be the harder position to play that requires more "skill" I give Aaron points for that, while Mays was still the better fielder I think it's closer than what people think. As for baserunning I give Mays the slight edge since both grounded into quite a few double plays and they have the exact same stealing percentage...but Mays stole more bases so he gets the tie breaker there. However, Aaron's durablility in my views gives him the edge over Mays. Yes Mays lost time due to Korea, but had he played those years the wear on his body would have been greater aswell. So with War credit still Aaron's durability gives him the edge in my book.

A lot of people posit that Dimaggio's war experience caused more "wear and tear" physical/mental than he would have had playing those years. I don't really see it as a nice relaxing vacation.

[mwiggins]

Well I wanted to break the tie between who was the better Hitter. Since I deem RF to be the harder position to play that requires more "skill" I give Aaron points for that, while Mays was still the better fielder I think it's closer than what people think. As for baserunning I give Mays the slight edge since both grounded into quite a few double plays and they have the exact same stealing percentage...but Mays stole more bases so he gets the tie breaker there. However, Aaron's durablility in my views gives him the edge over Mays. Yes Mays lost time due to Korea, but had he played those years the wear on his body would have been greater aswell. So with War credit still Aaron's durability gives him the edge in my book.


It's funny how you don't mention that part of war credit when you talk about DiMaggio, Chris. You really don't like Mays, do you?;)

[ChrisLDuncan]

It's funny how you don't mention that part of war credit when you talk about DiMaggio, Chris. You really don't like Mays, do you?;)

No DiMaggio had heel problems and injuries ended his career, Mays' didn't end like that...lil different comparing those two players. For the record I'm not that big on Mays, I think he's one of the most overrated players in baseball history..I don't even see him as top three as his position, so I can't even fathom how people say he's top three...let alone the greatest of all time. So I guess my underrating is a harsh overraction to the overrating that I see...I guess it's kind of like how some people are with Jeter.



A lot of people posit that Dimaggio's war experience caused more "wear and tear" physical/mental than he would have had playing those years. I don't really see it as a nice relaxing vacation.

Ehh, I don't put much on career value but you have a fair point; I would say that WWII was harder than Korea though.

[mwiggins]

No DiMaggio had heel problems and injuries ended his career, Mays' didn't end like that...lil different comparing those two players. For the record I'm not that big on Mays, I think he's one of the most overrated players in baseball history..I don't even see him as top three as his position, so I can't even fathom how people say he's top three...let alone the greatest of all time. So I guess my underrating is a harsh overraction to the overrating that I see...I guess it's kind of like how some people are with Jeter.



Ehh, I don't put much on career value but you have a fair point; I would say that WWII was harder than Korea though.


Do you have Aaron ahead of DiMaggio then? OPS+ is about the same, Aaron played a lot longer, has more HR and RBI's, is about equal in baserunning, played in an integrated league, and played a tougher defensive position.

DiMaggio was hurt by YS, but Aaron put up his OPS+ number with many more PA's; so that pretty much is a tie, which you'd break with Aaron's huge edge in RBI and HR's and give Aaron the edge. DiMaggio was a better fielder, but Aaron played a more difficult position, so that's about even too. DiMaggio grounded into a few less DP's, but Aaron had ton more steals, so I'd give him a slight edge in baserunning. So you end up with:

Hitting - slight edge to Aaron
Defense - tie
Baserunning - slight edge to Aaron
Post Season - Aaron (.362/.405/.710 vs. .271/.338/.422 for Joe)

Even without an adjustment for Aaron playing post-integration, I'm guessing you'd have Aaron ahead.

[538280]

No DiMaggio had heel problems and injuries ended his career, Mays' didn't end like that...lil different comparing those two players. For the record I'm not that big on Mays, I think he's one of the most overrated players in baseball history..I don't even see him as top three as his position, so I can't even fathom how people say he's top three...let alone the greatest of all time. So I guess my underrating is a harsh overraction to the overrating that I see...I guess it's kind of like how some people are with Jeter.

So the war hurt DiMaggio because it contributed to a future injury (to you), yet it helped Mays because he got some rest? What if Mays got hurt in the war and had a much shorter career-would he be higher on your list?


Ehh, I don't put much on career value but you have a fair point; I would say that WWII was harder than Korea though.

And yet the difference between Mays and Aaron in your mind is Aaron's durability/longevity? Mays was basically the same hitter as Aaron, Chris. You even say yourself that you need a tiebreaker. Mays was a better fielder, and I think it's ridiculous to suggest Aaron had more skill because he played a position where people are placed because they can't handle CF. You're correct about the read of the ball being tougher in RF, but CFs get the most balls hit to them, and catching balls hit in the outfield is the job of an outfielder. CFers are the best outfielder 95% of the time. Saying Mays and Aaron are closer than most think because Aaron played RF and Mays CF is not a compelling or logical argument.

[leecemark]

A lot of people posit that Dimaggio's war experience caused more "wear and tear" physical/mental than he would have had playing those years. I don't really see it as a nice relaxing vacation.

--DiMaggio's "war experience" consisted of making public appearances to enhance morale and raise funds. He was never anywhere near combat. Maybe he got a little rusty, but the wear and tear would have been minimal.

[JRB]

And yet the difference between Mays and Aaron in your mind is Aaron's durability/longevity? Mays was basically the same hitter as Aaron, Chris. You even say yourself that you need a tiebreaker. Mays was a better fielder, and I think it's ridiculous to suggest Aaron had more skill because he played a position where people are placed because they can't handle CF.

Chris. I believe Aaron was a little better hitter than Mays. Aaron's career relative batting average was 116.8 which is higher than Mays' relative batting average of 114.8. Aaron's career relative slugging averge was 140.5, which was higher than Mays' relative slugging average of 139.2. Mays' had a career realative on base percentage of 116.7, which is higher than Aaron's relative OBP of 114.4. Aaron's combined relative averages in the 3 main categories total 371.7, which is 20th all time, while Mays' combined relative averages total 370.7 which is 24h all time. Also, as was pointed out to me by csh, Aaron for the first 12 years of his career had to play in one of the toughest pitcher's parks in the National League, County Stadium in Milwaukee, while Mays in his first 6 years played in a bandbox, the Polo Grounds. In addition, as I discussed on a previous thread, Mays really fattened his totals in the early 1960's on the inept expansion teams like the Mets. Mays is hardly ever mentioned by the great pitchers of his era as being one of the toughest hitters to face, while Aaron if frequently mentioned. The advantage is not large, however I do believe Aaron to be a little better hitter.

[ChrisLDuncan]

Do you have Aaron ahead of DiMaggio then? OPS+ is about the same, Aaron played a lot longer, has more HR and RBI's, is about equal in baserunning, played in an integrated league, and played a tougher defensive position.

DiMaggio was hurt by YS, but Aaron put up his OPS+ number with many more PA's; so that pretty much is a tie, which you'd break with Aaron's huge edge in RBI and HR's and give Aaron the edge. DiMaggio was a better fielder, but Aaron played a more difficult position, so that's about even too. DiMaggio grounded into a few less DP's, but Aaron had ton more steals, so I'd give him a slight edge in baserunning. So you end up with:

Hitting - slight edge to Aaron
Defense - tie
Baserunning - slight edge to Aaron
Post Season - Aaron (.362/.405/.710 vs. .271/.338/.422 for Joe)

Even without an adjustment for Aaron playing post-integration, I'm guessing you'd have Aaron ahead.

Nope Aaron is ahead of DiMaggio. Hitting I gave to DiMaggio because of the negative park effects. But pretty much I agree with you too on your assesment.

[ChrisLDuncan]

So the war hurt DiMaggio because it contributed to a future injury (to you), yet it helped Mays because he got some rest? What if Mays got hurt in the war and had a much shorter career-would he be higher on your list?



It hurt both, I don't give the war credit to contribute to career value but it contributes to peak value. If that helps at all, maybe I have been unclear




And yet the difference between Mays and Aaron in your mind is Aaron's durability/longevity? Mays was basically the same hitter as Aaron, Chris. You even say yourself that you need a tiebreaker. Mays was a better fielder, and I think it's ridiculous to suggest Aaron had more skill because he played a position where people are placed because they can't handle CF. You're correct about the read of the ball being tougher in RF, but CFs get the most balls hit to them, and catching balls hit in the outfield is the job of an outfielder. CFers are the best outfielder 95% of the time. Saying Mays and Aaron are closer than most think because Aaron played RF and Mays CF is not a compelling or logical argument.


Well no for offense it was the TC stats that gavewas the tie breaker. The fielding difference in my mind was pretty small...as for peak value Aaron takes it with EASE!!!! Baserunning Mays gets the slightest edge. However since Aaron did his thing for longer he gets my advantage.


Well you're entitled to your opinion, I don't know what perspective you have on this, or where you are getting it...but to each his own.

[ChrisLDuncan]

--DiMaggio's "war experience" consisted of making public appearances to enhance morale and raise funds. He was never anywhere near combat. Maybe he got a little rusty, but the wear and tear would have been minimal.

Well the only major leaguers that I know of that served combat were Yogi Berra, Bob Feller, and Ted Williams although I doubt neither of them actually saw combat...Berra was at D-Day but I dunno what he did...pretty cool though.

However due to DiMaggio's status as a national hero the United States government said that it would crush morale of the United States if something were to happen to DiMaggio. DiMaggio enlisted voluntarily to give baseball a good name he rose to rank of Sergent.

[mwiggins]

Ehh, I don't put much on career value but you have a fair point; I would say that WWII was harder than Korea though.

If you don't much stock in career value, then why are you comparing Mays and DiMaggio with career rates? Look at Mays first 16 seasons (14 + 3 war credit) in the bigs. His OPS+ is 163, compared to DiMaggio's 156 in his first 16 (13 + 3 war credit). Mays has a clear hitting edge of DiMaggio. DiMaggio was hurt YS, but Mays was hurt by playing in a post-integration league. Both effects probably counter each other out. DiMaggio was a little better in relative BA through 16 years as well, 1.18 to 1.17. And I believe DiMaggio hit for a better average on the road, so if anything Mays was better at hitting for average than Joe, if you take out the YS effect.

And if you want to look at peak, Mays is the better hitter their too. 177 OPS+ for his best 5 seasons, compared to 172 for DiMaggio.

So Mays peak hitting is better, his hitting though their first 16 years is better, and he was still a very good hitter for 5 more years after that. Mays also has the edge on defense and in baserunning. DiMagigio has the edge in post-season play, but neither was that great in WS play.

I know you'll say that DiMaggio was hurt by YS, but that's mostly offset by the difference in league quality. Even if you ignore the fact that Mays was able to play much longer than DiMaggio, there's still not really a case for DiMaggio being the better player.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Well the only major leaguers that I know of that served combat were Yogi Berra, Bob Feller, and Ted Williams although I doubt neither of them actually saw combat...Berra was at D-Day but I dunno what he did...pretty cool though.

However due to DiMaggio's status as a national hero the United States government said that it would crush morale of the United States if something were to happen to DiMaggio. DiMaggio enlisted voluntarily to give baseball a good name he rose to rank of Sergent.
Warren Spahn was wounded during the Battle of the Bulge. He wasn't a star yet, though.

[leecemark]

If you don't much stock in career value, then why are you comparing Mays and DiMaggio with career rates? Look at Mays first 16 seasons (14 + 3 war credit) in the bigs. His OPS+ is 163, compared to DiMaggio's 156 in his first 16 (13 + 3 war credit). Mays has a clear hitting edge of DiMaggio. DiMaggio was hurt YS, but Mays was hurt by playing in a post-integration league. Both effects probably counter each other out. DiMaggio was a little better in relative BA through 16 years as well, 1.18 to 1.17. And I believe DiMaggio hit for a better average on the road, so if anything Mays was better at hitting for average than Joe, if you take out the YS effect.

And if you want to look at peak, Mays is the better hitter their too. 177 OPS+ for his best 5 seasons, compared to 172 for DiMaggio.

So Mays peak hitting is better, his hitting though their first 16 years is better, and he was still a very good hitter for 5 more years after that. Mays also has the edge on defense and in baserunning. DiMagigio has the edge in post-season play, but neither was that great in WS play.

I know you'll say that DiMaggio was hurt by YS, but that's mostly offset by the difference in league quality. Even if you ignore the fact that Mays was able to play much longer than DiMaggio, there's still not really a case for DiMaggio being the better player.

--Chris admits to a strong Yankee bias. I think we should just attribute his Cf rankings to that and move on. And speaking of moving on, isn't it about time to start poll #4?

[brett]

--DiMaggio's "war experience" consisted of making public appearances to enhance morale and raise funds. He was never anywhere near combat. Maybe he got a little rusty, but the wear and tear would have been minimal.

I am aware of this. I only know that he never came back to his previous level and that when he was drafted, he was on a pace to produce some of the greatest career numbers ever, and he basically had any hope of that destroyed. For a guy who later basically copywrited the right to be called the greatest living player (tm) I think it was psychologically devastating to have to stop playing. He was certainly headed toward 3000 hits, and 500 HRs-and I think his unique psyche (ie nut-case) made it hard for him to ever recover.

As for Mays case, it really looks like (on paper) that it held back his development. He could have emerged as the best in baseball at a VERY young age.

[leecemark]

--DiMaggio started having injury problems almost immediately after returning from military service (which actually did include playing some baseball). Maybe he missed out on some great seasons or maybe the injury bug would have struck sooner. Hard to say. I just give extra longevity points for the lost time without speculating on what the quality of his performance might have been.
--Mays was very good as a rookie in 1951, then was the best player in baseball in 1954 after returning from 2 years of service. Hard to see how he could possibly have been helped by missing those seasons. A season of rest might be helpfull to an older player with some nagging injuries, but it sure isn't going to help a kid just getting started like Mays.

[mwiggins]

Did he have injury problems in 1942? He never matched his 1939-1941 peak post-WWII, other than in 1949, but for most of his post-war career he put up better numbers than he did in the rest of his pre-war career.

[Disgruntaledmarinerfan]

I have somewhat of an unique opinion about #3 of all time, I stray from the popular oppinion this time. I went with Rogers Hornsby.

[ChrisLDuncan]

If you don't much stock in career value, then why are you comparing Mays and DiMaggio with career rates? Look at Mays first 16 seasons (14 + 3 war credit) in the bigs. His OPS+ is 163, compared to DiMaggio's 156 in his first 16 (13 + 3 war credit). Mays has a clear hitting edge of DiMaggio. DiMaggio was hurt YS, but Mays was hurt by playing in a post-integration league. Both effects probably counter each other out. DiMaggio was a little better in relative BA through 16 years as well, 1.18 to 1.17. And I believe DiMaggio hit for a better average on the road, so if anything Mays was better at hitting for average than Joe, if you take out the YS effect.

And if you want to look at peak, Mays is the better hitter their too. 177 OPS+ for his best 5 seasons, compared to 172 for DiMaggio.

So Mays peak hitting is better, his hitting though their first 16 years is better, and he was still a very good hitter for 5 more years after that. Mays also has the edge on defense and in baserunning. DiMagigio has the edge in post-season play, but neither was that great in WS play.

I know you'll say that DiMaggio was hurt by YS, but that's mostly offset by the difference in league quality. Even if you ignore the fact that Mays was able to play much longer than DiMaggio, there's still not really a case for DiMaggio being the better player.

War credit would go to help out DiMaggio for his peak, the year before he left and after he came back weren'tthe best...I can't blame an American for being preocupied durring such a tremoltous time. Their three best OPS+ seasons were about the same. Also no one quite understands how Joe was hurt by YS, I mean you could pull a ball 425+ and have it be ran down. As far as LQ not all that big on LQ adjustments, at Joe's best he was peerless in the AL and NL...at Mays' best he was about half as good as Mantle his AL counterpart. DiMaggio was able to put up higher OPS numbers than Mays in a park that killed him. Also I think Mantle is twice as good as Mays, and every ounce of Yankee fan in me says that DiMaggio was better than Mays

[ChrisLDuncan]

--DiMaggio started having injury problems almost immediately after returning from military service (which actually did include playing some baseball). Maybe he missed out on some great seasons or maybe the injury bug would have struck sooner. Hard to say. I just give extra longevity points for the lost time without speculating on what the quality of his performance might have been.
--Mays was very good as a rookie in 1951, then was the best player in baseball in 1954 after returning from 2 years of service. Hard to see how he could possibly have been helped by missing those seasons. A season of rest might be helpfull to an older player with some nagging injuries, but it sure isn't going to help a kid just getting started like Mays.

All Yankee greats had injury problems execpt for Babe

Also Mantle was twice Mays when they were both playing

[Edgartohof]

at Mays' best he was about half as good as Mantle his AL counterpart.

I think we went over this before, if Mays was only HALF as good, his OPS+ would be only around 86. So at worst, I think he's a little closer than that.

[ChrisLDuncan]

I am aware of this. I only know that he never came back to his previous level and that when he was drafted, he was on a pace to produce some of the greatest career numbers ever, and he basically had any hope of that destroyed. For a guy who later basically copywrited the right to be called the greatest living player (tm) I think it was psychologically devastating to have to stop playing. He was certainly headed toward 3000 hits, and 500 HRs-and I think his unique psyche (ie nut-case) made it hard for him to ever recover.


He wasn't drafted he signed up.

Well yeah it would have sucked ass to be the best at something than have it take it away from you. That's what contributed to his heroism, he was competitive beyond competitive. His mother told him Dom's wedding was to take place on October 7 unless the Boston Red Sox won the pennant, then it would be delayed ten days. "Mama," DiMaggio replied. "I will personally see to it that Dom is free to marry on the seventh." His desire to win was all consuming. To have the ability taken away from you hurts...badly. Even though I'm not big on career numbers; with war credit and a bit of luck staying away from injuries I think he could easily get 600-650 HRs and 3500 hits...possibly even OPS over 1.000 and a BA around .335 and all of that while being a five tool player. That's something.

[ChrisLDuncan]

I think we went over this before, if Mays was only HALF as good, his OPS+ would be only around 86. So at worst, I think he's a little closer than that.

Well saying "half as good" is something refered to as a "figure of speech" A figure of speech, sometimes termed a rhetorical, or elocution, is a word or phrase that departs from straightforward, literal language. Figures of speech are often used and crafted for emphasis, freshness of expression, or clarity. However, clarity may also suffer from usage.

For a bit more information on rhetoric this is breif but it covers the big points

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetoric

[mwiggins]

War credit would go to help out DiMaggio for his peak, the year before he left and after he came back weren'tthe best...I can't blame an American for being preocupied durring such a tremoltous time. Their three best OPS+ seasons were about the same. Also no one quite understands how Joe was hurt by YS, I mean you could pull a ball 425+ and have it be ran down. As far as LQ not all that big on LQ adjustments, at Joe's best he was peerless in the AL and NL...at Mays' best he was about half as good as Mantle his AL counterpart. DiMaggio was able to put up higher OPS numbers than Mays in a park that killed him. Also I think Mantle is twice as good as Mays, and every ounce of Yankee fan in me says that DiMaggio was better than Mays


Look at his splits and you can see pretty much exactly how much YS hurt him. It's not that hard to understand.

[mwiggins]

As far as LQ not all that big on LQ adjustments, at Joe's best he was peerless in the AL and NL...at Mays' best he was about half as good as Mantle his AL counterpart.

Hopefully 'peerless' is a figure of speech too, Chris...though I guess you could argue that Joe wasn't good enough to be a considered a 'peer' of Musial and Williams, but that's probably selling him a little short.

[ChrisLDuncan]

Hopefully 'peerless' is a figure of speech too, Chris...though I guess you could argue that Joe wasn't good enough to be a considered a 'peer' of Musial and Williams, but that's probably selling him a little short.

Joe D's defense and how YS hurt him puts him above Musial. But him and Williams in their primes were closer than what you think look at James' early WS systems.

[mwiggins]

Joe D's defense and how YS hurt him puts him above Musial. But him and Williams in their primes were closer than what you think look at James' early WS systems.

Not sure what you mean by "James' early WS systems", but win shares show Williams best years to be far superior to DiMaggio. WS's show Williams best three years to be 22% better than DiMaggio's. Which is a bigger distance that what they show between Mantle's best 3 years and Mays' - 19%.

I do think Joe's prime years were a lot closer to Williams that that, though.

[mwiggins]

Joe D's defense and how YS hurt him puts him above Musial. But him and Williams in their primes were closer than what you think look at James' early WS systems.


Chris - if Mantle wouldn't have had his injury problems, and Joe would have played in a neutral park and not gone to war, who do you think would have had the better career?

[Minstrel]

It is extremely apparent in this case, as it has been in others, that you have very little actual ballplaying experience Chris. Not only do you lack the on-field experience to draw conclusions such as this, but you're looking at it all wrong anyway.

Do centerfielders generally have the best range (most speed), sure they do. Is that all there is to fielding? No, of course not. More important than sheer speed is the ability to get great jumps, take proper angles, and most importantly, catch the ball. Can sheer speed make up for bad jumps and negate the occasional bad angle, sure. And if a guy has speed along with these things, he will most likely be a great centerfielder. But what makes you think center is harder in general though? Think about it. Is swimming hard for a fish? Is covering ground hard for a centerfielder?

This is an invalid argument. You're essentially trying to argue that because centerfielders are more talented, the position is "easier" to play.

To respond to your questions correctly (rather than use your implied answers): It is difficult to swim like a fish. A fish is special because it has the ability to swim like a fish.

Similarly, it is very hard to cover ground like a centerfielder. Centerfielders are special because they have what it takes (speed, instincts, vision, athleticism) to cover all that ground.

Saying that IF you have all those abilities, the job isn't hard is like saying that if you have great intelligence, years of study and the right instincts, designing planes or spacecraft isn't difficult. Having those things is tough...that's the point.


Center is not a difficult position if you have what it takes to be one, in fact, its much easier imo. Center offers unique angles and perspective. Good centerfielders will take every little thing into account and are able to do so BECAUSE of this perspective. This does not make the position hard. Who is on the mound for your team and what kind of stuff does he have? What kind of stuff does he have that day? What approach are hitters taking? What kind of stance does the hitter have? What did he do in his last AB and on what pitch of what count? Is the wind blowing? Which direction? Where are the corner outfielders positioned? Are they in the right spot? What are their abilities? These are things to consider before the pitch. As the pitch is on its way, you know what the pitch is and where it is, along with the angle and timing of the swing. Before the ball even makes contact with the bat, you could freeze time and call out where the ball will go. Then add to that the sound as it comes off. A cake-walk.

Doing all of those things is difficult. Yes, after all of those things have been done, it's a cakewalk to make the catch. The vast majority of players don't have the ability to factor all of those things in, in a split-second (otherwise known as instincts, though surely there's some technique as well), nor do they have the physical abilities, which makes centerfield very difficult.

Again, it's not compelling to say that if you have every virtue of a centerfielder and you have the ability to process all the things a centerfielder processes swiftly, then the job is not difficult. Obviously a job is not difficult when you have all the necessary skills and training. The question is how hard/rare is it for someone to have all of those things, and the answer is very.

As to whether a centerfielder can play right or left, of course he can. If you shift him over between innings, and he has no experience, yes it will be difficult. If you give him a chance to learn the differences, all the abilities he brought to centerfield will serve him well in a corner. It may be tougher to get a read off the bat, but that's made up for by the area he has to cover being significantly smaller. The only thing a centerfielder may not have that a right fielder has is a powerful throwing arm. But throwing is far, far less important to an outfielder than the ability to track down fly balls.

[JRB]

I have somewhat of an unique opinion about #3 of all time, I stray from the popular oppinion this time. I went with Rogers Hornsby.

I empathize with your vote for Hornsby. I voted for Wagner as #3, and will vote for Mays #4, however Hornsby is real close.

Hornsby has a terrific OPS+ of 176 which is far higher than either Wagner or Mays, and he had a 200 plus OPS+ 4 times. Hornsby lead the league in OPS+ 12 times. Even Babe Ruth, the greatest player ever, only lead the league in OPS+ 13 times. Hornsby's relative averages are outstanding in every category. Hornsby is in the top 5 in career relative batting average at 126.9. Hornsby is in the top 5 in career relative slugging average at 147.9, and he is the top 5 in career relative on base percentage with 127.3. Overall, Hornsby's combined career relative averages in the big three batting categories is 402.1, which is third best in baseball history.

Hornsby handily beats both Wagner and Mays in career OPS+, and in all three relative batting categories. However, I believe Wagner to be the greatest all around fielder in baseball history, plus one of the all time greatest base runners. I also believe that Mays was one of the all time great fielders, and was also an outstanding base runner. Although, Hornsby was a better hitter than either Wagner or Mays, both Wagner and Mays were still great hitters, and that fact coupled with their all time great status as fielders, and great base running skills, were enough to persuade me at present to give them a slight edge overall. However, Hornsby is an underrated fielder himself, and there are probably at least 5 seasons where Hornsby's fielding was such that it was likely he would have earned a gold glove if they were awarded in those days (1917, 20, 21, 22, 29) , and he also was an excellent fielder in other seasons (i.e. 1927). In addition, Hornsby had great leadership skills, as evidenced by the great job he did as player-manager in 1925, 1926 (Pennant and world championship), and 1931, and his leadership as a player in 1929 (lead team to pennant). So its real close. I believe Hornsby deserves to at least be considered the 5th or 6th greatest position player in baseball history. Ted Williams may have been a slightly better all around hitter than Hornsby (only Ruth and Williams have that honor), so I believe the question comes down to whether to chose Williams or Hornsby for #5, with Williams having a slight batting edge, and Hornsby having a fielding, leadership, and speed edge (Hornsby's speed was often described as comparable to that of the young Mickey Mantle before he got hurt).

c JRB

[Minstrel]

Since I deem RF to be the harder position to play that requires more "skill" I give Aaron points for that, while Mays was still the better fielder

If right field were harder to play, managers would put their best fielder there.

I think you're making an unnecessary differentiation between "difficulty" and "skill." You appear to be trying to argue that center can be played by fewer people but right field is "harder" skills-wise. Even if that were true, the position that fewer people can play is the one that carries more defensive value. Because fewer people can play it, finding a premium hitter at that position is tougher than finding a premium hitter at a position more people can play. That makes the premium hitter in the former pool more valuable than the premium hitter in the latter pool.

As for whether right field actually does take more skill, there's no way to prove it one way or the other on a message board, but such an opinion flies directly in the face of established baseball experience and belief. You're hanging your hat on the fact that it's harder to read the ball off the bat, but that isn't established and that isn't the only issue. Tracking a ball over a smaller range of field takes less skill. Fewer balls overall are hit to right fielders than to centerfielders. All of this leads to the fact that you can somewhat hide a poor fielder in a corner, but you can't hide a poor fielder in centerfield.

[EvanAparra]

Hornsby handily beats both Wagner and Mays in career OPS+, and in all three relative batting categories. However, I believe Wagner to be the greatest all around fielder in baseball history, plus one of the all time greatest base runners. I also believe that Mays was one of the all time great fielders, and was also an outstanding base runner. Although, Hornsby was a better hitter than either Wagner or Mays, both Wagner and Mays were still great hitters, and that fact coupled with their all time great status as fielders, and great base running skills, were enough to persuade me at present to give them a slight edge overall. However, Hornsby is an underrated fielder himself, and there are probably at least 5 seasons where Hornsby's fielding was such that it was likely he would have earned a gold glove if they were awarded in those days (1917, 20, 21, 22, 29) , and he also was an excellent fielder in other seasons (i.e. 1927). In addition, Hornsby had great leadership skills, as evidenced by the great job he did as player-manager in 1925, 1926 (Pennant and world championship), and 1931, and his leadership as a player in 1929 (lead team to pennant). So its real close. I believe Hornsby deserves to at least be considered the 5th or 6th greatest position player in baseball history. Ted Williams may have been a slightly better all around hitter than Hornsby (only Ruth and Williams have that honor), so I believe the question comes down to whether to chose Williams or Hornsby for #5, with Williams having a slight batting edge, and Hornsby having a fielding, leadership, and speed edge (Hornsby's speed was often described as comparable to that of the young Mickey Mantle before he got hurt).

c JRB

Great post, JRB. I've long thought that Hornsby's fielding went very underrated in baseball circles, when, at times, he was the best fielding 2nd baseman in the league. I've also had trouble with who to put higher, Hornsby or Williams -- But I think I might have to end up going with Hornsby. Hitting like he did, leading the league as he did, from his position was amazing... all while being a player/manager. I hope he gets more support than I know he will around here, i'm guessing he's not even in the top 10 when it's all said and done.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

If right field were harder to play, managers would put their best fielder there.

I think you're making an unnecessary differentiation between "difficulty" and "skill." You appear to be trying to argue that center can be played by fewer people but right field is "harder" skills-wise. Even if that were true, the position that fewer people can play is the one that carries more defensive value. Because fewer people can play it, finding a premium hitter at that position is tougher than finding a premium hitter at a position more people can play. That makes the premium hitter in the former pool more valuable than the premium hitter in the latter pool.

As for whether right field actually does take more skill, there's no way to prove it one way or the other on a message board, but such an opinion flies directly in the face of established baseball experience and belief. You're hanging your hat on the fact that it's harder to read the ball off the bat, but that isn't established and that isn't the only issue. Tracking a ball over a smaller range of field takes less skill. Fewer balls overall are hit to right fielders than to centerfielders. All of this leads to the fact that you can somewhat hide a poor fielder in a corner, but you can't hide a poor fielder in centerfield.

Keep in mind this is coming from a centerfielder... Speed is not a skill. It is a trait. Most centerfielder possess that trait and that makes the position easy, even though there is more ground to cover. There is less action on the ball coming out to center and you have the opportunity to get the best reads out there. Center is definitely more valuable but passing corner outfield spots off as easy is a mistake. If a fielder has a cannon for an arm, is solid with the glove, and is fast but by no means a burner, where are his skills best utilized? Well, if he doesn't have troubles with the lackluster angle/perspective and can deal with curving balls and ricochets off the wall, then right field is where he belongs. While speed can help hide some fielding flaws, there's much more to fielding than speed. Just because a guy plays center doesn't make him a better fielder. Center is easier imo. I will add that in this day and age, all outfield spots have become much easier than they used to be. The shrinking fields, the perfectly manicured fields and the large gloves make it so. The corner outfield spots have become easier than ever with non-aggressive baserunners and the shorter fields. If a guy can mash but sucks at fielding, he is probably best suited for a corner spot in todays game. As long as he gets to the expected doubles down the line without bobbling it and letting the guy get a triple, and he gets over to the expected doubles in the gap without doing the same, he blends right in without harm.

[Mark H.]

I just discovered this board and realize I'm too late for the poll.
If we ignore the steroid controversy,Barry is easily the best of the bunch.HIs OBP is astonishing.Adjusted OPS is a great measure of a hitters ability but we should keep in mind that 3[OBP]+SLU is even better.Differences in OBP are 3 times more important than differences in slufgging.
Ted Williams becomes an even better hitter and keep in mind he missed 5 peak years due to military service.Lou Gehrig is among the top 5 hitters of all time.From my studies Mantle at his peak was much better than Mays.
Honus is the dominant shortstop of all time

[Minstrel]

Speed is not a skill. It is a trait. Most centerfielder possess that trait and that makes the position easy

Speed is a part of talent, as is the amount one can develop a skill.

Is quantum physics "easy" because it takes a lot of intelligence, which is a trait and not a skill? Rare traits make jobs that require those traits more difficult. It's not valid to try and divorce certain parts of the package from "difficulty."

Difficulty is measured by how many people can do a thing, or have the potential to do a thing. The fewer people who can do something (or have the potential to do it), the more difficult it is. Speed, instincts, intelligence, athleticism, learned skills...all of these things limit the number of people who can do a job, which makes all of those things related to the difficulty.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Speed is a part of talent, as is the amount one can develop a skill.

Is quantum physics "easy" because it takes a lot of intelligence, which is a trait and not a skill? Rare traits make jobs that require those traits more difficult. It's not valid to try and divorce certain parts of the package from "difficulty."

Difficulty is measured by how many people can do a thing, or have the potential to do a thing. The fewer people who can do something (or have the potential to do it), the more difficult it is. Speed, instincts, intelligence, athleticism, learned skills...all of these things limit the number of people who can do a job, which makes all of those things related to the difficulty.

I see your point. Speed though, is a trait. You can develop it further but how you use that speed makes it become in a sense, a skill. The point is that covering ground is not difficult when you have speed. It is not hard for a cheetah to hunt just because they use speed. Swimming ain't hard for a fish and swinging from trees ain't hard for a monkey. Maybe my sense of reality is thrown out of whack considering center has always come easy for me. I would want no part of a corner spot.

[Minstrel]

Torii Hunter and Mark Kotsay, notably, use the "deke" a lot, where they act like they're trotting in, glove raised nonchalantly, for an easy catch on a ball they know is going to fall in front of them. The idea is to make runners hesitate a moment, thinking it's going to be caught, to make it less likely they can take two bases on a single.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Torii Hunter and Mark Kotsay, notably, use the "deke" a lot, where they act like they're trotting in, glove raised nonchalantly, for an easy catch on a ball they know is going to fall in front of them. The idea is to make runners hesitate a moment, thinking it's going to be caught, to make it less likely they can take two bases on a single.

Pretty amateur-ish move that sometimes works against sub-par baserunners. Certainly worth a shot though.

[brett]

Look at his splits and you can see pretty much exactly how much YS hurt him. It's not that hard to understand.


I mentioned in another post that Dimaggio was actually among the top 3 or 4 I believe in career triples per AB which was a bit of a suprise, but makes sense considering YS.

Still I tend to think of him as being underutilized because of the stadium-value unfulfilled-through no fault of his own. If someone is going to suggest that he should get some credit for playing in a ballpark that underutilized his power, then that same person better give Mays a couple of excellent seasons for the years where he was not untilized.

Now, the argument could be made that he was just so good a defensive centerfielder that the big outfield made him even more valuable.

Also, I have stated before, that even in a "pure value" rating system, there is some value in having a right handed hitter in a left handers park.

As an example, if you had an average team full of lefty hitters (100 OPS+) and you could add a 150 OPS+ left handed hitter or a 150 OPS+ right handed hitter, the right handed hitter might be more valuable by balancing the lineup an could have a small positive effect on the offense of the rest of his lineup by providing contrast.

I have brought Dimaggio back up over the years, but his inability to produce after coming back from the war keeps him no higher than 18-20 range in my book.

[mwiggins]

I mentioned in another post that Dimaggio was actually among the top 3 or 4 I believe in career triples per AB which was a bit of a suprise, but makes sense considering YS.

Still I tend to think of him as being underutilized because of the stadium-value unfulfilled-through no fault of his own. If someone is going to suggest that he should get some credit for playing in a ballpark that underutilized his power, then that same person better give Mays a couple of excellent seasons for the years where he was not untilized.

Now, the argument could be made that he was just so good a defensive centerfielder that the big outfield made him even more valuable.

Also, I have stated before, that even in a "pure value" rating system, there is some value in having a right handed hitter in a left handers park.

As an example, if you had an average team full of lefty hitters (100 OPS+) and you could add a 150 OPS+ left handed hitter or a 150 OPS+ right handed hitter, the right handed hitter might be more valuable by balancing the lineup an could have a small positive effect on the offense of the rest of his lineup by providing contrast.

I have brought Dimaggio back up over the years, but his inability to produce after coming back from the war keeps him no higher than 18-20 range in my book.


Those missed HR's didn't all become outs. I'm gussing a lot of them became doubles or triples.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

then that same person better give Mays a couple of excellent seasons for the years where he was not untilized.


When was Mays ever hurt by a home park?

[brett]

When was Mays ever hurt by a home park?

I'm saying that I would count his being unable to perform due to military service (inability to be untilized AT ALL) before I would count a players ability to be utilized to their full capacity due to a ballpark that they could not or did not adapt to or fit.

[Windy City Fan]

When was Mays ever hurt by a home park?

May's Home line: .299/.388/.557
May's Away line: .302/.381/.544

I've been told the typical player gets a 5% boost at home. A 5% boost to May's away numbers would look like this:

.317/.400/.571

So I think it could be said that Mays may have been slightly hurt by his home parks. Candlestick Park tended to be a pitcher's park, and this was true during Mays' stay there. It had park factors of 98, 98, 94, 98, 98, 99, 102, 103, 103, 99, 100, 98, 99, 98, 101 during Mays' career.

[csh19792001]

So I think it could be said that Mays may have been slightly hurt by his home parks.

As a veteran of the site, you might have already seen this article Windy, but some may not have yet, and it relates almost directly to this topic:

Willie Mays' Homers (http://espn.go.com/mlb/columns/neyer_rob/1374309.html)

[Windy City Fan]

Interesting article, and no I have not seen it before.

I accidently included Seals Park in the park factors I listed above. Once you eliminate the 1960 season, Candlestick's park factors average out to 99.8 during Mays' stay from 1960 to 1972. Pretty neutral.

Still why is Mays' road numbers lower than what should be expected? His home OPS is higher than his road, but not by the typical 5% home bounce we expect. Any idea why? Or is this too trivial a point to really worry about?

[538280]

Also Mantle was twice Mays when they were both playing

That is a DRAMATIC overstatement. Really what Mantle had was three seasons (1956, 1957, and 1961) which were clearly superior to any seasons Mays had in his career (but still not even close to twice as good, about 19% better according to WS) After that Mantle and Mays were about the same, and Mays had a lot more good to great seasons. If you look at their top 10 WS seasons:

Mantle: 51, 49, 48, 41, 39, 36, 36, 34, 33, 32
Mays: 43, 41, 40, 40, 40, 38, 38, 38, 37, 34

After the top three seasons, as you can see, Mantle has no advantage over Mays, Mays is actually a bit ahead. It's not like Mantle was consistently, year in and year out better than Mays through his whole career. He just had three seasons that were distinctly better. Not that I discount three seasons, I think Mantle in those three seasons was as great a baseball player as there ever was and that's why I rank him higher than most (5th all time), but he wasn't really consistently better than Mays when they were both playing. Even when they were both in their prime, if you go year by year comparisons, then Mays more than holds his own. The thing is just that Mantle had those three years. That's significant, but it's not enough to overcome what Mays has on Mantle after that, which is basically everything.

[538280]

Still why is Mays' road numbers lower than what should be expected? His home OPS is higher than his road, but not by the typical 5% home bounce we expect. Any idea why? Or is this too trivial a point to really worry about?

I have read from time to time about Mays being hurt by playing in Candlestick. I wouldn't say there's much to it, most great players have a number of people always trying to give them more credit they even they deserve, and that's probably an example, but who knows, there might be something to that. I doubt it though, the differential is very small and indicates that if he was hurt by the park, it was very slightly anyway, nothing I would worry about.

[Minstrel]

Pretty amateur-ish move that sometimes works against sub-par baserunners. Certainly worth a shot though.

I equate it to the "look to third, throw to first" move by pitchers. It should never work, but it does, so it's silly not to use it.

[538280]

Great post, JRB. I've long thought that Hornsby's fielding went very underrated in baseball circles, when, at times, he was the best fielding 2nd baseman in the league.

What exactly makes you think that? You say Hornsby's defense wasn't though to be as good while he was active, you think the observers then underrated him. Well, seeing that you never saw him field, are you basing that on the statistics? Statistically, even if Hornsby did lead his league in assists a few times, every comprehensive defensive measure out there has shone him not to be much on defense. DWS has him at 3.06 per 1000 innings which is worst among all 2Bmen with 1000 or more innings. He was still an okay 2Bman, because you have to be at least okay to play 1000 innings, but he still wasn't good, he was about average according to DWS.

BP's FRAA is actually even less kind, they have him 41 runs below average. The statistical metrics don't see Hornsby being much in the field either.

[mwiggins]

I have read from time to time about Mays being hurt by playing in Candlestick. I wouldn't say there's much to it, most great players have a number of people always trying to give them more credit they even they deserve, and that's probably an example, but who knows, there might be something to that. I doubt it though, the differential is very small and indicates that if he was hurt by the park, it was very slightly anyway, nothing I would worry about.


In terms of HR's, Mays was not hurt by Candlestick. From 1960-1967, he hit 3 more HR's at home than on the road. James mentions in the first Historical Abstract that he'd often been told that too, but after getting his hands on some Mays' splits, he didn't think that was the case.

[Skin & Bones]

In terms of HR's, Mays was not hurt by Candlestick. From 1960-1967, he hit 3 more HR's at home than on the road. James mentions in the first Historical Abstract that he'd often been told that too, but after getting his hands on some Mays' splits, he didn't think that was the case.

That really doesn't prove anything. Some players just hit well anywhere - We are talking about Willie Mays here, arguably the greatest player ever, not some average Joe. The fact that Mays hit well at home doesn't prove at all that he didn't lose homeruns - Had Mays played in a better hitters environment, for all we Know Bonds could of just passed him recently, or still be chasing him. Now, it's possible that there could of been no difference at all - We'll never really know. But looking simply at career splits does NOT tell us whether or not Mays was hurt by his homepark.

[JRB]

What exactly makes you think that? You say Hornsby's defense wasn't though to be as good while he was active, you think the observers then underrated him. Well, seeing that you never saw him field, are you basing that on the statistics? Statistically, even if Hornsby did lead his league in assists a few times, every comprehensive defensive measure out there has shone him not to be much on defense. DWS has him at 3.06 per 1000 innings which is worst among all 2Bmen with 1000 or more innings. He was still an okay 2Bman, because you have to be at least okay to play 1000 innings, but he still wasn't good, he was about average according to DWS.

BP's FRAA is actually even less kind, they have him 41 runs below average. The statistical metrics don't see Hornsby being much in the field either.

Chris you are talking through your hat again. There are numerous quotes of contemporaneous opinions that Hornsby was an outstanding fielder posted on the Hornsby thread, including quotes from George Sisler, Pie Traynor, etc. I find it ironic that it is you of all people who is trying to take Evan to task for stating an opinion about a ball player who he didn't see play, when you do that all day long every day. Hornsby was almost universally considered the best player of his era at turning the double play. Pie Traynor (the greatest fielding third baseman of that era) thought Hornsby was the best ever at turning the double play, and didn't have an equal until Bill Mazeroski came along. Sisler (one of the greatest fielding first basemen) is on record as preferring Hornsby's form at second base to that of Eddie Collins. Hornsby finished first or second in one of the major fielding categories 17 times, and Hornsby is 7th all time in per game average for assists. Hornsby had to make the plays to achieve the high average he did, and in many years you will find that the only players who could compare or top Hornsby in assist per game average were part time players who were defensive specialists. In addition, Hornsby had great versatility and not only excelled at second base, but had earlier played at both shortstop and third base on a regular basis, and in 1917 as a shortstop he was the outstanding player in the National League. Hornsby was not a great fielder at every moment during his career, especially in some of the later portions of his career, as there were periods when he had to play through serious back injuries, infections, and painful heel spurs. However, any objective analysis will show that there are at least 5 seasons or more in which Hornsby's play would have earned him a Golden Glove if they had been awarded during that era, and several other seasons when he probably would have been runner up for the Golden Glove. Your quoting stats from Bill James such as DWS don't wash, as we all know that Bill James was totally biased against Hornsby, and has no objectivity or reliability whatsoever on that subject (in fact I strongly suspect that is where you picked up your extreme bias against Hornsby). However, James has apparently either recently recanted his opinions about Hornsby, or seen his viewpoints totally obliterated by other more objective experts, since James was on the recent committee that named Hornsby to the All time All Star Team at second base. So I think your negative quotes and stats about Hornsby have about as much value as confederate money.

c JRB

[ChrisLDuncan]

Chris - if Mantle wouldn't have had his injury problems, and Joe would have played in a neutral park and not gone to war, who do you think would have had the better career?

Mantle, he'd have the best career of anyone...EVER his line would be like .325/.450/.625 and he'd have about 3900 hits and probably 800 HRs.

[EvanAparra]

What exactly makes you think that? You say Hornsby's defense wasn't though to be as good while he was active, you think the observers then underrated him. Well, seeing that you never saw him field, are you basing that on the statistics? Statistically, even if Hornsby did lead his league in assists a few times, every comprehensive defensive measure out there has shone him not to be much on defense. DWS has him at 3.06 per 1000 innings which is worst among all 2Bmen with 1000 or more innings. He was still an okay 2Bman, because you have to be at least okay to play 1000 innings, but he still wasn't good, he was about average according to DWS.

BP's FRAA is actually even less kind, they have him 41 runs below average. The statistical metrics don't see Hornsby being much in the field either.

I never said Hornsby's defense wasn't thought to be as good while he was active, I said that it isn't thought to be good NOW. In his time, by almost all accounts i've read, he has an above average defender, some calling him the best defensive second baseman in the game at times. I'm not going to take a defensive statistical metric to account for a defender who many alive today never saw play, i'll take first person accounts of Traynor and the rest of his peers that said he could turn the double play like no other... ESPECIALLY over what Bill James' bias mind tells his readers.

EDIT: Didn't see JRB's post, and I pretty much just echoed what he said, you beat me to JRB -- I'm tired of what James says clogging the minds to those who read his work about Hornsby, I believe it to be incredibly inaccurate.

[ChrisLDuncan]

That is a DRAMATIC overstatement. Really what Mantle had was three seasons (1956, 1957, and 1961) which were clearly superior to any seasons Mays had in his career (but still not even close to twice as good, about 19% better according to WS) After that Mantle and Mays were about the same, and Mays had a lot more good to great seasons. If you look at their top 10 WS seasons:

Mantle: 51, 49, 48, 41, 39, 36, 36, 34, 33, 32
Mays: 43, 41, 40, 40, 40, 38, 38, 38, 37, 34

After the top three seasons, as you can see, Mantle has no advantage over Mays, Mays is actually a bit ahead.

Ummm...obivously you negelected to read the post on rhetoric, I suggest you read up on rhetoric so that you can better percieve those around you. Also you forgot that Mays' best offensive season was worse than Mantle's 5th (by OPS+ a stat that I am not big on but you are). I'm not much on WS or Bill James, more of a traditional approach to the game. I believe that James had Mantle and Mays as the best tied durring the time that Mantle played...however Mantle always seemed to succed more, and his body deteroiated alot faster than Mays' did, through no fault of his own, also Mickey Mantle was a lot better at getting on than Mays was and a more efficient hitter...however were on to fourth so I am moving on I hope you can too Chris.

[Wee Willie]

That really doesn't prove anything. Some players just hit well anywhere - We are talking about Willie Mays here, arguably the greatest player ever, not some average Joe. The fact that Mays hit well at home doesn't prove at all that he didn't lose homeruns - Had Mays played in a better hitters environment, for all we Know Bonds could of just passed him recently, or still be chasing him. Now, it's possible that there could of been no difference at all - We'll never really know. But looking simply at career splits does NOT tell us whether or not Mays was hurt by his homepark.
I think the point of bringing up the splits was to challenge the claim that biogrpahers made that he WAS indeed hurt by it. But I agree, the splits don't give a definitive answer either way.

[538280]

Ummm...obivously you negelected to read the post on rhetoric, I suggest you read up on rhetoric so that you can better percieve those around you. Also you forgot that Mays' best offensive season was worse than Mantle's 5th (by OPS+ a stat that I am not big on but you are). I'm not much on WS or Bill James, more of a traditional approach to the game. I believe that James had Mantle and Mays as the best tied durring the time that Mantle played...however Mantle always seemed to succed more, and his body deteroiated alot faster than Mays' did, through no fault of his own, also Mickey Mantle was a lot better at getting on than Mays was and a more efficient hitter...however were on to fourth so I am moving on I hope you can too Chris.

Mantle does have better OPS+, Chris, but OPS+ only factors offense and is a rate stat-it has nothing to do with how much a player plays. WS includes defense and how much a player plays, and both those things are advantages for Mays. I have no problem, really, with someone favoring Mantle over Mays. If you place a HUGE amount of weight on how good the player was in his absolute best seasons, I can certainly see Mantle ahead. I just object to what you said about Mantle being better than Mays every year when they played or twice as good, he was not, he had three seasons that were definitely better than Mays' best and that is where his advantages start and end.

[538280]

Chris you are talking through your hat again. There are numerous quotes of contemporaneous opinions that Hornsby was an outstanding fielder posted on the Hornsby thread, including quotes from George Sisler, Pie Traynor, etc.

Okay, and yes I have heard people such as yourself cite those quotes in the past. It sounded to me that Evan's post when he said "baseball circles" was referring to contemporary observers. Apparently I misunderstood.


I find it ironic that it is you of all people who is trying to take Evan to task for stating an opinion about a ball player who he didn't see play, when you do that all day long every day.

I said that he can't judge Hornsby's fielding through personal observation. Judging someone's fielding through observation has nothing to do with evaluating the total value/ability of a player. It is part of that, but not in total.


Your quoting stats from Bill James such as DWS don't wash, as we all know that Bill James was totally biased against Hornsby, and has no objectivity or reliability whatsoever on that subject (in fact I strongly suspect that is where you picked up your extreme bias against Hornsby).

So are you saying that James would take his Win Shares system, and purposely bias it from the beginning with Hornsby in mind? I think that is TOTALLY ridiculous. You can buy a copy of the book Win Shares, and in that book it spells out for you totally EXACTLY how the defensive Win Shares is calculated. IF you want me to give you a brief overview for 2Bmen, I will say that it is based on the following four factors, with the most important listed first: Double Plays versus expectation (and he explains how to estimate expected double plays in the book), Assits as a percentage of the team total (because team assists are a good stand in for groundballs and thus the ground ball tendency of the staff), ]fielding percentage, and putouts as a percentage of team infield putouts.

And even if you want to leave DWS out because you think James is biased, then you can look at other statistical metrics not made by James. BP's FRAA, as I mentioned, also has Hornsby as a below average 2Bman.


However, James has apparently either recently recanted his opinions about Hornsby, or seen his viewpoints totally obliterated by other more objective experts, since James was on the recent committee that named Hornsby to the All time All Star Team at second base. So I think your negative quotes and stats about Hornsby have about as much value as confederate money.

c JRB

Why is that team evidence that James has changed his mind? It was a commitee that voted on the selections, James could have easily not voted for Hornsby, and yet Hornsby still was elected. I have come to understand that the consensus is that Hornsby is the #1 2Bman, I just don't agree with it.

[westfield]

espn.go.com/mlb/columns/neyer_rob/1424690.html

[westfield]

eek - the candlestick mays post above was pulled from espn -it was some kind of baseball survivor island contentest done with some SABR members.
They mention research that suggests that candlestick depressed Home runs for right-handed hitters by about 10% from 1960 thru 1971(and increased home runs for lefties by 25%.)