Fever Consensus Top 25: #5

[EvanAparra]

Honus Wagner is our #4.

Results:

Honus Wagner - 47.17 %
Ted Williams - 16.98 %
Barry Bonds - 11.32 %
Lou Gehrig - 9.43 %
Rogers Hornsby - 5.66 %
Henry Aaron - 5.66 %
Mikey Mantle - 3.77 %


New list --

1. Babe Ruth
2. Ty Cobb
3. Willie Mays
4. Honus Wagner
5.


New to the poll --- Josh Gibson, Stan Musial, Alex Rodriguez.

I'm going out of town tomorrow, and might not be able to get on until Jan. 1st. If this is the case, and people want to keep this going without a small delay, someone may created the poll for #6. But i'll still do my best to be on top of this. :) And a Merry X-Mas to all.

[EvanAparra]

As for who I am voting for, I may abstain until later tonight when a couple of cases are made for Williams and Hornsby. My two favorite all-time players, and very close statistically IMO. Tough choice for me, help me out guys...

[Edgartohof]

I have Williams on top here, and I believe a couple slots above Hornsby. Williams was just that good of a hitter (not that Hornsby was lacking in that department).

But it's close because of the positional adjustment for Hornsby.

[Bill Burgess]

Oscar Charleston. I hope he gets his respect. He deserves it.

[westfield]

Oscar Charleston for me as well. Buck O'Neil said Willie Mays was the best MLB player he ever saw....but he thought Oscar might be even better than Willie. Glad to see Honus Wagner at #4!
My top 5:
1. Mays
2. Ruth
3. Cobb
4. Wagner
5. Oscar Charleston

[538280]

I voted for Bonds once again. I hope he gets his support.

[Minstrel]

Barry Bonds is my selection. He was arguably the greatest speed/power combination in the history of the game. Through his athletic prime, he was one of the greatest hitters of all-time, able to do it all: smack line drives all around the park, hit for power and exercise great plate patience. He was also a fantastic base-runner and base-stealer and one of the best defenders at his position. In fact, Leyland said Bonds had the range for center; it was just his arm that limited him.

Statistically, Bonds had one of the greatest primes ever, consistently sitting between 12 and 15 WARP3 per year from 1990 through 1998. This is superior in WARP3 to the primes of Cobb, Mays and Wagner.

His steroid years barely add anything in terms of peak...he was such a great hitter and fielder previously that even his offensive explosion from 2001 through 2004 didn't generate much higher WARP3 scores, as his lowered fielding nullified most of his hitting gains. His great 1990s run was just about as valuable as his steroid seasons.

If you thought his 2001-2004 seasons, if untainted, made him close to the best ever, his 1990-1998 seasons were almost as good and warrant him being a top-five player.

[leecemark]

Hank Aaron

--1st all time in HR, RBI, Extra Base Hits and Total Bases. 2nd in Runs Created. Third in Hits and Runs. Bad Henry did all that despite playing most of his career in an extreme pitchers era (and the most competitive leagues of all time) and the first half in a pitchers park.
--The Hammer was an MVP candidate virtually every season from the mid-50s to the early 70s. In addition to being a great hitter, Aaron was an excellent defensive outfielder. He won the GG in RF over Clement in 1958, 59 and 60 (the awards were given by specific OF position in those days). Clemente only started winning because Aaron moved to CF in 1961 after the Braves traded Bill Bruton (although Roberto did keep winning them when Hank moved back to RF later). Aaron was also a very good baserunner and an outstanding ambassador for the game.

[538280]

Hank Aaron

--1st all time in HR, RBI, Extra Base Hits and Total Bases. 2nd in Runs Created. Third in Hits and Runs. Bad Henry did all that despite playing most of his career in an extreme pitchers era (and the most competitive leagues of all time) and the first half in a pitchers park.
--The Hammer was an MVP candidate virtually every season from the mid-50s to the early 70s. In addition to being a great hitter, Aaron was an excellent defensive outfielder. He won the GG in RF over Clement in 1958, 59 and 60 (the awards were given by specific OF position in those days). Clemente only started winning because Aaron moved to CF in 1961 after the Braves traded Bill Bruton (although Roberto did keep winning them when Hank moved back to RF later). Aaron was also a very good baserunner and an outstanding ambassador for the game.

I may vote for Aaron if it wasn't for Bonds, and if Bonds gets elected he may be my next guy, though it will be a tough choice for me between him and Mantle. Even before Bonds' 2001-2004 run though I think Bonds was probably destined to be better than Aaron. Already through that point he had better seasons than Aaron had in his entire career, 1992 and 1993 his OPS+ were over 200, somewhere Aaron never got his, and he was just as good a fielder (actually probably better), and a better baserunner than Aaron ever was in those years. His career OPS+ may have ended up about the same as Aaron's (though I would say higher personally-I still think Bonds is a GREAT player even if he didn't use steroids 2001-2004, just not as good, and with more time he would continue to move away from his time in the 80s which brought down his OPS+ to that point), but he would be slightly better as a fielder/runner and have peak seasons that were a lot better IMO.

[JRB]

I have Williams on top here, and I believe a couple slots above Hornsby. Williams was just that good of a hitter (not that Hornsby was lacking in that department).

But it's close because of the positional adjustment for Hornsby.

Edgartohof: I agree its very close. Williams has a career relative batting average of 124.2, a career relative slugging average of 155.0, and a career relative on base percentage of 135.4, for a career combined relative average of 414.6 which is the second highest in the history of baseball, next to Ruth. Hornsby has a career relative batting average of 124.2, a career relative slugging average of 147.9, and a career relative on base percentage of 127.3, for a combined career relative average of 402.1 which is the second highest in the history of baseball. Williams leads in career relative slugging average and career relative on base percentage, and Hornsby leads in career relative batting average. According to the Baseball encyclopedia Williams has a career OPS+ of 186, and Hornsby has a career OPS+ of 176. At his peak, Hornsby had 4 full seasons where his OPS+ was over 200, while Williams also had 4 full seasons where his OPS+ was over 200. Hornsby lead the league in OPS+ 12 times, while Williams lead the league in OPS+ 8 times. Both Williams and Hornsby each won 2 triple crowns. Hornsby won 7 batting championships and Williams won 6 batting championships. It should be noted that while Hornsby has an outstanding on base percentage, Williams' on base percentage is the highest in the history of baseball. So I have to agree with you that it appears Williams is a better hitter than Hornsby. What you have here is the second greatest all around hitter in the history of baseball matched against the third greatest hitter in the history of baseball.

Hornsby was a better fielder than Williams, and Hornsby finished first or second in the league 17 times in one of the major fielding categories, and any objective examination of the individual seasons would indicate that Hornsby would have won at least 5 gold gloves if that award had been given in that era. Hornsby also played very well for two seasons at shortstop, in addition to playing second base, and he also played two seasons at third base, so he had more versatility as a player. In addition, Hornsby played at more valuable positions than Williams. Hornsby also had considerably more speed than Williams, and was a much better base runner. Hornsby also showed great leadership as a player manager in 1925 when he took over a last place team in mid-season and finished in fourth, and as a player manager in 1926 when he lead the Cardinals to its first ever pennant and world championship in its franchise history, and as a player manager in 1931 when he lead his team to a second place finish, and as a designated player manager for 44 games in 1927 when he lead his team during McGraw's illness to a great late season charge which ended in finishing 2 games back of the pennant winners, and as a newly acquired player in 1929 when he lead the Cubs to their first pennant in 11 years.

However, Williams also missed some important years in his prime due to war service, and he would probably have posted some big seasons in those years, which would have likely added to his lead as a hitter.

All in all, I have to agree with your conclusion, and I will vote for Williams for 5th place, as I value hitting above all other skills, and next to Ruth, Williams is the greatest hitter in the history of baseball. However, Hornsby is the third greatest legitimate all around hitter in the history of baseball, and his monster bat, coupled with his periods of fielding excellence, positional importance, versatility, great speed, and pr oven leadership accomplishments makes him a solid choice for the 6th place, just behind Williams.

c JRB

[yanks0714]

Hank Aaron is my #5. Basically he was Willie Mays without Mays' flash. Very much underrated by many. Played through the most competitive era ever and excelled within that competition. A outstanding hitter during an era of depressed offenses. I look at Aaron as a level swinger much like Gehrig and Hornsby...didn't upercut and used the entire field...where HRs were more an extension of their hitter thean their forte. Sandy Koufax, in his prime, called Aaron the toughest hitter he ever faced.
Had excellent speed and decent SB numbers for the era/team (the Braves were a power team with Aaron, Mathews, Adcock, Crandall, Covington) he played in/on. I've no doubt that his Sb's would have been higher if the era/team strategy hadn't precluded them as a strategic offenseive weapon.
He D was outstanding. He rarely made a mistake in the OF, in fact, played CF when the Braves needed him to and did well. Had a strong and, more importantly, accurate arm.
I cannot think of nor remember anyone ever criticizing Aaron as a teammate or the opposition as a player. Gave back to baseball as much as it gave to him.
Others on this list:
Ted Williams' is driven solely by his offense. He gets virtually no credit, nor deserves any, for defense or base running. And was a hardass to boot. Ditto for Rogers Hornsby although Rogers deserves some credit as a 2B.
Barry Bonds had the whole package although his arm was not strong. Unlike Henry, Barry has not been known to be a good teammate.
My boyhood hero Mickey Mantle, great peak, lesser career.
Oscar Charleston may well belong in the top 5. But without being able to look at the numbers I can't rank him. No fault of his own, I doubt the NL pitching that he faced was anywhere near as strong as MLB.

[ElHalo]

Hornsby was almost, but not quite, as good a hitter as Williams, while playing a passable second base and being a decent baserunner.

As to Aaron... Aaron had two seasons with an OPS+ over 180; 181 in 1959 and 194 in 1971. Rajah had, in successive years, 187, 190, 207, 186, 222, 210, and then threw a 200 up a few years later. Aaron hit 41 points higher than his league; Hornsby hit 76 points higher than his league. Rajah hit more singles, doubles, and triples, and drew more walks; Hank was a better baserunner and home run hitter. Throw in the fact that Rajah played second base vs. Aaron's RF, and I don't see how homers and SB's are anywhere near enough to overcome the massive advantages Hornsby has in every other aspect of being a baseball player.

[Mariano_Rivera]

Finally actually one that's hard for me (I suspect the voting will be close for this to). Williams, Collins, Hornsby or Charleston. After my top 4 I don`t really gave anything set in stone. Previously I had Williams here but I made some shake-ups recently. I think I`ll need to hear the arguments for everyone here.

[Mariano_Rivera]

Hey, why isn`t Collins on this list? He's at the very least very close to Hornsby and is my #1 2B. I don`t think either of them deserve that spot anyway

[mwiggins]

I've got to go with Mantle. I have him and Williams basically equal, but today I think Mantle was the greater player.

[Mariano_Rivera]

I've got to go with Mantle. I have him and Williams basically equal, but today I think Mantle was the greater player.

Huh? Williams had a higher career WARP 3 than Mantle even without "war credit", Williams still had more MVP caliber seasons than Mantle even without "war credit", Williams had the same amount of .400 EQA seasons even without "war credit". I don`t see Mantle having any incredible intangibles to give him the edge over Williams, maybe a positional adjustment could help but no that gap, can you explain this position?

[brett]

Hey, why isn`t Collins on this list? He's at the very least very close to Hornsby and is my #1 2B. I don`t think either of them deserve that spot anyway


Collins should be up soon, along with Henderson, Schmidt, Morgan, Frank Robinson, and OK Dimaggio, maybe Bench and Berra, but my 6-10 are all on the board now for sure, so there's no rush.

[Wee Willie]

Finally actually one that's hard for me (I suspect the voting will be close for this to). Williams, Collins, Hornsby or Charleston. After my top 4 I don`t really gave anything set in stone. Previously I had Williams here but I made some shake-ups recently. I think I`ll need to hear the arguments for everyone here.
Of the 3 Major leaguers out of that group, Williams is the clear choice to me, especially if you give him any war credit. Even with no war credit at all, Williams beats Hornsby in both Win Shares and WARP3, and is pretty close to Collins in both of those despite playing in 500+ fewer games. Any reasonable amount of war credit would then put Williams way ahead of both players. Yes, Hornsby and Collins were second basemen, but their added defensive value is largely accounted for in both those metrics. Plus, Williams played in a stronger league than either Hornsby or Collins.
Charleston has a strong case for top-5, but lately I've been less comfortable about the accuracy of ranking Negro Leaguers. I'm leaning to ranking him just outside the top-10, since I can't confidently put him over guys like Aaron or Mantle.

[JRB]

Finally actually one that's hard for me (I suspect the voting will be close for this to). Williams, Collins, Hornsby or Charleston. After my top 4 I don`t really gave anything set in stone. Previously I had Williams here but I made some shake-ups recently. I think I`ll need to hear the arguments for everyone here.

Rickey: I'll refer you to my Post #10 on this thread as for the reasons I went with Williams for #5 sightly beating out Hornsby, who I think earns #6.

Here are the career relative batting averages, career relative slugging averages, and career relative on base percentages for the players you mentioned above, Wiliams, Collins and Hornsby, plus the other candidates Gehrig, Bonds, Mantle, Speaker, Musial, Foxx, DiMaggio and Aaron. The numbers for Bonds are up to the present and include all his steroid impacted seasons.

-----------------------------RELATIVE CAREER TOTALS-----------------------------------------------------------------

----------Relative BA--Relative SA-Relative OBP---Combined Relative Average

Williams-----124.2------155.0------135.4-----------414.6 (2nd all time)

Hornsby-----126.9------147.9------127.3-----------402.1 (3rd all time)

Gehrig-------119.3------153.4------125.6-----------398.3 (6th all time)

Bonds-------113.7------149.0------133.4-----------396.1 (8th all time) (Bonds totals include steroid impacted seasons)

Mantle------116.4------143.9------128.0------------388.3 (11th all time)

Speaker-----124.1------134.0------123.3------------381.4 (12th all time)

Musial-------121.7------137.0------121.6------------380.3 (13th all time)

Foxx--------112.4------144.3------118.2------------374.9 (15th all time)

DiMaggio----117.7------143.0------112.4------------373.1 (18th all time)

Aaron-------116.8------140.5------114.4------------371.7 (20th all time)

E. Collins----122.0------117.2------124.0------------363.2 (38th all time)


Both Williams and Hornsby are incredibly strong in all three categories, and Williams has the highest relative On base percentage in baseball history.

c JRB

[Erik Bedard]

It was impossibly close for me between Williams and Bonds, so I went with the definite non-juicer.

[ElHalo]

I actually rate Williams 8th; there's still three unvoted guys ahead of him in line for me... including the inexplicably as-yet-unmentioned Tris Speaker.

[csh19792001]

Merry Christmas, everyone!




Combined Relative Average

c JRB

Interesting methodology. I've never seen this approach before.

To me this seems like just another piece of evidence in favor of Tris Speaker, who was arguably the greatest defensive outfielder in history, had a very long career, and didn't hang around past his time, as many greats have. Spoke was also an outstanding tactician and player-managed for 1100+ games, leading his team to a WS title in 1920 and two other close misses (narrowly missing against the Yankees and Ruth both years). The player-managing a huge feather in his cap, and the failure on the part of many to factor this into his overall value is an egregious omission.

Dimaggio is kind of in the same boat- awesome offense couple with outstanding defense- but he had a much shorter career because of the War and constant injuries which resulted in constant pain, diffused effectiveness as a player, and an early retirement. Both of these guys should be entering the discussion in the upcoming polls- as should Collins, I agree. It's tough, because Mantle, Aaron, Musial, and a few others are right there with VERY strong cases as well, though.

Statistically speaking, just as a player and not even factoring in the player-managing, Speaker is 9th alltime in runs created, and 7th in terms of career value among position players (at least, according to Win Shares, which is the best uber stat I've seen). He also had an outstanding peak, and despite having his prime coincide almost exactly with that of Ty Cobb, he was arguably the best player in the world in 1912, 1914, and 1916. His 1912 campaign is one of the greatest single seasons in history.

This is updated through 2006.

Career Win Shares


1. Ruth 756
2. Cobb 722
3. Bonds 693
4. Wagner 655
5. Aaron 643
6. Mays 642
7. Young 634
8. Speaker 630
9. Musial 604
10. Collins 572

[csh19792001]

I actually rate Williams 8th; there's still three unvoted guys ahead of him in line for me... including the inexplicably as-yet-unmentioned Tris Speaker.

Nice timing, Jim. :)

[JRB]

Merry Christmas, everyone!



Interesting methodology. I've never seen this approach before.

To me this seems like just another piece of evidence in favor of Tris Speaker, who was arguably the greatest defensive outfielder in history, had a very long career, and didn't hang around past his time, as many greats have. Spoke was also an outstanding tactician and player-managed for 1100+ games, leading his team to a WS title in 1920 and two other close misses (narrowly missing against the Yankees and Ruth both years). The player-managing a huge feather in his cap, and the failure on the part of many to factor this into his overall value is an egregious omission.



csh: I agree with you about Speaker. He could do it all. He often seems to get unfairly overlooked. I was disappointed when he got left off the all century team a number of years ago, and it was again disappointing when he didn't get selected for the recent all time All star team. It's as if he slips through the cracks each time. Perhaps the "powers that be" have a quota system for players of a certain demographic, and Tris just seems to fall outside the quota limit. He was a great player manager in 1920, and he also did a great job in 1926 when his team finished in second to the Ruth-Gehrig Yankees. He would have undoubtedly won more pennants as a manager, but he was blackballed for any future managers posts by Commissioner Landis because of his penchant for betting on the horses. Absent some compelling arguments to change my mind, I think Speaker should be accorded the slot as the 7th greatest player of all time, just behind the all around monster bats of Williams at #5, and Hornsby at #6.

Have a merry Christmas.

c JRB

[Wee Willie]

Speaker is 7th on my list. He overtakes Hornsby for "greatest player from Texas" honors for several reasons:

1) He was great for significantly longer. He played 500+ more games than Rajah and played at almost as high a level in his 30's as he did in his 20's. The guy put up a .389 BA and a 166 OPS+ at age thirty-seven! Hornsby's last year as an everyday player was at age 33.

2)Speaker's advantage in defensive performance negates much if not all of the positional value advantage Hornsby might have. There are a lot of varying opinions on Hornsby's defense, and defensive metrics are not kind to him. Speaker, on the other hand, is universally known as one of the greatest (if not the greatest CF), and has the defensive metrics to back those opinions up.

3)The league quality seems to point to Spoke. Speaker consistently had to battle with Cobb, Collins, Jackson, Baker, Crawford, Heilmann, etc., for recognition as the league's best player. Hornsby's competition was less stout - guys like Groh, Roush, Frisch, and Hack Wilson just weren't on the same level as the AL stars of the time.

4)Hornsby's "peak value" over Speaker is marginal, if not nonexistent. In fact, Win Shares shows Speaker accumulating more WS in each player's best 3 seasons (137-Speaker, 130-Hornsby) and best 5 seasons (Speaker-212, Hornsby-208). And this doesn't take Speaker's league quality advantage into account.

5)Speaker was a better postseason performer - outhitting Hornsby and winning 2 more rings (although this is a less compelling reason than the others above).

[csh19792001]

Speaker is 7th on my list. He overtakes Hornsby for "greatest player from Texas" honors for several reasons:

1) He was great for significantly longer. He played 500+ more games than Rajah and played at almost as high a level in his 30's as he did in his 20's. The guy put up a .389 BA and a 166 OPS+ at age thirty-seven! Hornsby's last year as an everyday player was at age 33.

2)Speaker's advantage in defensive performance negates much if not all of the positional value advantage Hornsby might have. There are a lot of varying opinions on Hornsby's defense, and defensive metrics are not kind to him. Speaker, on the other hand, is universally known as one of the greatest (if not the greatest CF), and has the defensive metrics to back those opinions up.

3)The league quality seems to point to Spoke. Speaker consistently had to battle with Cobb, Collins, Jackson, Baker, Crawford, Heilmann, etc., for recognition as the league's best player. Hornsby's competition was less stout - guys like Groh, Roush, Frisch, and Hack Wilson just weren't on the same level as the AL stars of the time.

4)Hornsby's "peak value" over Speaker is marginal, if not nonexistent. In fact, Win Shares shows Speaker accumulating more WS in each player's best 3 seasons (137-Speaker, 130-Hornsby) and best 5 seasons (Speaker-212, Hornsby-208). And this doesn't take Speaker's league quality advantage into account.

5)Speaker was a better postseason performer - outhitting Hornsby and winning 2 more rings (although this is a less compelling reason than the others above).

Nice post. Logical and concise. He'll probably start getting my vote next time around.

I'd strongly encourage both of you (and anyone else hoping to enrich their historical knowledge) to read the new bio written by Timothy Gay.

Tris Speaker: The Rough-and-tumble Life of a Baseball Legend (http://www.amazon.com/Tris-Speaker-Rough-tumble-Baseball/dp/0803222068/sr=8-1/qid=1167087865/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-3833259-6743906?ie=UTF8&s=books)

I'll have to do more independent reading on my own as well, to contribute to our Speaker thread here.

[Disgruntaledmarinerfan]

Rogers Hornsby is #3 on my list, he didn't win #3 or #4 so I guess he gets my vote for #5,

[JRB]

Speaker is 7th on my list. He overtakes Hornsby for "greatest player from Texas" honors for several reasons:

1) He was great for significantly longer. He played 500+ more games than Rajah and played at almost as high a level in his 30's as he did in his 20's. The guy put up a .389 BA and a 166 OPS+ at age thirty-seven! Hornsby's last year as an everyday player was at age 33.

2)Speaker's advantage in defensive performance negates much if not all of the positional value advantage Hornsby might have. There are a lot of varying opinions on Hornsby's defense, and defensive metrics are not kind to him. Speaker, on the other hand, is universally known as one of the greatest (if not the greatest CF), and has the defensive metrics to back those opinions up.

3)The league quality seems to point to Spoke. Speaker consistently had to battle with Cobb, Collins, Jackson, Baker, Crawford, Heilmann, etc., for recognition as the league's best player. Hornsby's competition was less stout - guys like Groh, Roush, Frisch, and Hack Wilson just weren't on the same level as the AL stars of the time.

4)Hornsby's "peak value" over Speaker is marginal, if not nonexistent. In fact, Win Shares shows Speaker accumulating more WS in each player's best 3 seasons (137-Speaker, 130-Hornsby) and best 5 seasons (Speaker-212, Hornsby-208). And this doesn't take Speaker's league quality advantage into account.

5)Speaker was a better postseason performer - outhitting Hornsby and winning 2 more rings (although this is a less compelling reason than the others above).

I have already expressed my great admiration and regard for Speaker's ability in previous posts. I agree that he is the #7 all time player, however I think he is one place behind Hornsby, who deserves to ranked #6. In reading your post it seemed aimed not only at praising Speaker, but to disparage Hornsby.

In choosing Hornsby by one place over Tris I considered, among other things, the fact that Hornsby had a career relative batting average of 126.9 to 124.1 for Tris; that Hornsby had a career relative slugging average of 147.9 to 134.0 for Tris; that Hornsby had a career relative on base percentage of 127.3 to 123.3 for Tris; that Hornsby had a career combined relative average of 402.1 (3rd all time) to 381.4 for Tris (12th all time); that Hornsby has a career OPS+ of 176 to 156 for Tris. As far as peak hitting is concerned, according to the Baseball Encyclopedia Hornsby had 4 over 200 OPS+ seasons, while Speaker's highest OPS+ was 185 which Hornsby topped 7 times. Tris managed a nice 166 OPS+ as age 37, while Hornsby's last year, before focusing on being a manager and just an occasional player, at age 35 resulted in a 162 OPS+. Hornsby lead the league in OPS+12 times, Tris did it 1 time. Hornsby lead the league in batting 7 times, Tris did it 1 time. Hornsby won 2 triple crowns. Hornsby did an outstanding job as a player manager in 1925, 1926, 1927 (for 44 games during McGraw's illness), and 1931. Tris did an outstanding job as a player manager in 1920, 1921 and 1926. Tris was one of the greatest fielders who ever lived. Hornsby was an outstanding fielder in a number of years, and finished first or second in the league in one of the major fielding categories 17 times. Hornsby objectively could have won a golden glove (if they had been given in his era) in at least 5 seasons (1917, 1920, 1921, 1922, 1929, and he was also outstanding in 1927).

I don't agree with your assertions about league quality. That assertion has been trotted out before and has been substantially refuted. A detailed discussion on that subject took place on the Hornsby thread. Refutations of that position were detailed in Posts #75, 77, 79, 84, and 92 of the Hornsby thread. In some instances we got into an almost year by year breakdown of the era in which Hornsby played.

I don't think win shares, or any stat or argument derived from Bill James has any place in any objective discussion of Rogers Hornsby. At the time James developed his win shares analysis, James projected a vile personal bias against Hornsby, and any analysis to which he was a party was heavily skewed against Hornsby. Perhaps that bias has changed now that he has had his recent public falling out with his once close friend Morgan (James' revisionist anti Hornsby screed seems to have conveniently coincided with his promotion of his friend Morgan as the greatest second baseman), and I notice that James was on the committee that recently named Hornsby as the all time all star at second base, so either his prejudiced views were rejected by the others on the committee or he has modified his view now that he no longer promoting Morgan.

To summarize, Hornsby is a considerably better hitter. Both were outstanding leaders. Speaker was a better fielder, however I can't see how that difference can objectively make up for Hornsby's enormous edge in hitting. Of course if you just don't like Hornsby that's your prerogative. I've found that on this forum the term "league quality adjustment" is the code word for exercising arbitrary personal bias over objective reason.

c JRB

[538280]

JRB, I am totally against the though that James would construct all of his metrics to purposely screw Rogers Hornsby. There are a number of somewhat subjective decisions to be made within the WS system, but the system is strictly a mathematical calculation, there is no "subjective element" to WS, where James inserts his own feelings on a player. There is no evaluation of a player's character within the system, it is strictly an evaluation of the statistics a player has put up. The offensive part of the system is based on James' runs created formula, and as I explained to you earlier the defensive evaluation of 2Bmen is strictly statistical, there is NO subjective area where James can just penalize players willy-nilly if he wants to.

It is true that James feels that Hornsby was a horrible guy and a horrible clubhouse influence. But, James' personal feelings on Hornsby are not incorporated into Win Shares.

James and Morgan are not really friends either, JRB. Morgan has been very vocal as an announcer deriding statistical analysis in baseball as done by people like James, in fact he has probably been the most prominent critic of statistical analysis in baseball. When the book Moneyball came out, which explained how Billy Beane, Oakland A's GM, had used statistical analysis to find undervalued players for his own team to win, Morgan criticized Beane's statistical methology, much of which was derived from James. Ironically, Morgan's career as a player has been greatly elevated in stature from statististical methods (and NOT just from James, you also often make it seem as if Bill James is the ONLY statiscal analyst who has come to the conclusion about Morgan. That is just not true).

[JRB]

JRB, I am totally against the though that James would construct all of his metrics to purposely screw Rogers Hornsby. There are a number of somewhat subjective decisions to be made within the WS system, but the system is strictly a mathematical calculation, there is no "subjective element" to WS, where James inserts his own feelings on a player. There is no evaluation of a player's character within the system, it is strictly an evaluation of the statistics a player has put up. The offensive part of the system is based on James' runs created formula, and as I explained to you earlier the defensive evaluation of 2Bmen is strictly statistical, there is NO subjective area where James can just penalize players willy-nilly if he wants to.


Hi chris.

I've seen a number of examples of where James screwed Hornsby in awarding win shares. In one instance Hornsby had a stratospheric OPS+ of 204, and he awarded it to another player with an OPS+ of 152. There are 3 or 4 years where James screwed Hornsby out of win shares. I'd rather think for myself than blindly follow James' prejudices. Chris, admit it. Your extreme anti-Hornsby bias came straight from James. As Bill once showed on another thread, some of your statements are virtual recitals of passages from James' works.

[538280]

Hi chris.

I've seen a number of examples of where James screwed Hornsby in awarding win shares. In one instance Hornsby had a stratospheric OPS+ of 204, and he awarded it to another player with an OPS+ of 152. There are 3 or 4 years where James screwed Hornsby out of win shares. I'd rather think for myself than blindly follow James' prejudices. Chris, admit it. Your extreme anti-Hornsby bias came straight from James. As Bill once showed on another thread, some of your statements are virtual recitals of passages from James' works.

James does not "award" Win Shares himself. There is a strict mathematical formula which is followed for every player. Once again, there is no element of WS in which James inserts his personal feelings about individual players.

What Bill has pointed out in the past is that when I first came here and first was arguing for Morgan, I just quoted James a few times to prove a point. I do think I have gotten over that though and try not to just quote James's work anymore.

[csh19792001]

JRB, I am totally against the though that James would construct all of his metrics to purposely screw Rogers Hornsby.

Is it conceivable that Bill James simply hasn't learned nearly enough about Hornsby's life and career? It's quite obvious that James harbors a pretty profound loathing for the man, and indeed it colors his perception of the player.

Rogers Hornsby Thread (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=51965)

Reading through that thread- which is a pretty substantial biographical compendium in itself-I see little reason to take James' character assessment on Hornsby's seriously anymore. We have quotes from dozens of people across several decades (many of them from alltime great baseball players/managers) that provide information that flies in the face of James' cursory shots at Hornsby. And that goes for slams on both his character and his fielding. If his spreadsheet spits out Hornsby was a horrendous fielder, that is what it is- but when he invokes a few isolated quotes that happen to support his brainchild, that's pure bias.

Clearly, there were many experts that did NOT feel Hornsby was a lousy fielder; in fact, many saw him as at very least a decent fielder who actually quite deft at turning the double play.

I don't believe James did his homework on Hornsby, and I don't see how anyone reading through our entire Hornsby thread would really have grounds to disagree with this stance.

James knows a ton about a lot of players, and his books are about everyone and everything in baseball history. That doesn't mean that he can't be completely off base (or close to it) on any given player.

[538280]

Chris, I'm not talking about whether James' characterizatin of Hornsby is accurate or inaccurate. I would tend to agree that it is inaccurate to a degree, much like I have done research on Dick Allen to show that James is totally off base when it comes to Allen, What I am against is the notion that James would totally skew his entire WS system to backstab Hornsby.

[leecemark]

csh: He would have undoubtedly won more pennants as a manager, but he was blackballed for any future managers posts by Commissioner Landis because of his penchant for betting on the horses.
c JRB

--Speaker wasn't ballballed for betting on the horses. He was blackballed for betting on baseball. There was quite enough evidence to completely expell him from the game, but he was pretty clearly guilty and was never again allowed a position of authority.

[Wee Willie]

I have already expressed my great admiration and regard for Speaker's ability in previous posts. I agree that he is the #7 all time player, however I think he is one place behind Hornsby, who deserves to ranked #6. In reading your post it seemed aimed not at praising Speaker, but to disparage Hornsby. Now, now, JRB. I think you are a little too defensive when someone brings up areas where Hornsby might have fallen short versus another player. I didn't attack his character or his ability, I just tried to put things in what I think are proper context in making the one-to-one comparison. Why not just argue the case on its merits rather than questioning the motives of the poster?


As far as peak hitting is concerned, according to the Baseball Encyclopedia Hornsby had 4 over 200 OPS+ seasons, while Speaker's highest OPS+ was 185 which Hornsby topped 7 times. Tris managed a nice 166 OPS+ as age 37, while Hornsby's last year, before focusing on being a manager and just an occasional player, at age 35 resulted in a 162 OPS+. Hornsby lead the league in OPS+12 times, Tris did it 1 time. Hornsby lead the league in batting 7 times, Tris did it 1 time. If you weigh league leaderships as part of your basis for comparison, Hornsby is going to do very well against many players head-to-head. However, I again submit that Hornsby did not have to compete with Cobb, Ruth, Joe Jackson, etc., for OPS+ titles, whereas Speaker did. League quality is a big part of my evaluation process - league leaderships much less so.


Hornsby was an outstanding fielder in a number of years, and finished first or second in the league in one of the major fielding categories 17 times. Hornsby objectively could have won a golden glove (if they had been given in his era) in at least 5 seasons (1917, 1920, 1921, 1922, 1929, and he was also outstanding in 1927). I've got Hornsby as being a great fielder in 1920, 1921, 1924, 1927, and 1929. Frisch's 1927 was a fielding season for the ages, which would've kept Rajah from a GG if they had one. I think he fell short of GG seasons in 1917 and 22, though.


That assertion has been trotted out before and has been substantially refuted. A detailed discussion on that subject took place on the Hornsby thread. Refutations of that position were detailed in Posts #75, 77, 79, 84, and 92 of the Hornsby thread. In some instances we got into an almost year by year breakdown of the era in which Hornsby played. I didn't catch those posts, but I will go back and read them. Thank you for pointing those out, however - I just want to be clear that my aim is not to disparage Hornsby, rather compare the two players on their merits. Keep in mind though that I don't think Tris has a big lead quality advantage, just a slight one. Once I've read those posts, I'll let you know if I've revised my league quality assessment.


I don't think win shares, or any stat or argument derived from Bill James has any place in any objective discussion of Rogers Hornsby. At the time James developed his win shares analysis, James projected a vile personal bias against Hornsby, and any analysis to which he was a party was heavily skewed against Hornsby.While I agree that James' brought too much personal bias in his RANKING of Hornsby, I disagree that his Win Shares system reflects that. If anything, his ranking of Hornsby flies in the face of what his own system is telling him. I still think it is a pretty solid system, but not to be used exclusively.


To summarize, Hornsby is a considerably better hitter. Both were outstanding leaders. Speaker was a better fielder, however I can't see how that difference can objectively make up for Hornsby's enormous edge in hitting. Again, I just don't feel Hornsby does have an "enormous" edge in hitting - but if you do, that's fine. Speaker was a better all-around player, a great hitter in his own right, and was better for a longer period of time, IMO.

[538280]

While I agree that James' brought too much personal bias in his RANKING of Hornsby, I disagree that his Win Shares system reflects that. If anything, his ranking of Hornsby flies in the face of what his own system is telling him. I still think it is a pretty solid system, but not to be used exclusively.



That's basically what I'm saying as well. James' own ranking of Hornsby is certianly affected by his thoughts on Hornsby's personaility, but his Win Shares system is not. Win Shares is an algorithim, a mathematical formula that is really the same for every player (except for differences in the way DWs is calculted for different positions).

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Too bad we don't have more people voting. If Bonds finishes in the top ten, it won't be the end of the world, but it will say a lot (or very little) for Fever. These people are either ignoring what he did or have no comprehension of just how effective what he did and when he did it, was. A damn shame.

My vote is for Aaron.

[leecemark]

--I don't have a huge problem with Bonds in the top 10. He was having a career very similar to Hank Aaron before he got on the juice. Whether he would have ended up as good is questionable though. Very few players stayed as good as long as Bad Henry.
--If we weren't taking a discount for the Balco years this would be as low as I could see Bonds dropping and he'd have a decent case for #1. With the discount this seems a little to high for me, but top 10 is not unreasonable (I've got him 10th myself).

[538280]

Too bad we don't have more people voting. If Bonds finishes in the top ten, it won't be the end of the world, but it will say a lot (or very little) for Fever. These people are either ignoring what he did or have no comprehension of just how effective what he did and when he did it, was. A damn shame.

My vote is for Aaron.

Well, I already made the post (or shoed a link to it) showing how he would probably be 7th for me if I gave him no credit whatsoever for 2001-2004.

[Wee Willie]

I used to have Aaron behind Musial and Mantle, but now I've moved him ahead of those two, mainly due the league quality difference. I now have him 8th, behind Barry and Speaker.

[538280]

--I don't have a huge problem with Bonds in the top 10. He was having a career very similar to Hank Aaron before he got on the juice. Whether he would have ended up as good is questionable though. Very few players stayed as good as long as Bad Henry.
--If we weren't taking a discount for the Balco years this would be as low as I could see Bonds dropping and he'd have a decent case for #1. With the discount this seems a little to high for me, but top 10 is not unreasonable (I've got him 10th myself).

Personally, like I already said, I think before 2001 Bonds had already reached a definite higher peak than Aaron ever did, and he was likely to age very well, perhaps he woudn't last as long as Aaron did, you can't even project anyone to last that long, but it would probably be at least close. With or without steroids I tend to think Bonds was destined to be better than Aaron. I can see the other side though.

[Bill Burgess]

--Speaker wasn't ballballed for betting on the horses. He was blackballed for betting on baseball. There was quite enough evidence to completely expel him from the game, but he was pretty clearly guilty and was never again allowed a position of authority.
Speaker and another prominent player did indeed bet on a game. But, Landis did not know that and there was not evidence of it. The 2 letters Dutch Leonard sold to Ban Johnson, in fact, quoted Joe Wood as saying that the other prominent player did NOT bet on the game. It wasn't until October 1, 1965, that Joe Wood admitted to author Larry Ritter, doing research for The Glory of Their Times, that they had all bet $2,000. on one game of baseball. And since there had been no rule against betting, they had broken NO RULE. Can't enforce a rule retroactively.

Landis refused to ban them, because he lacked evidence, he liked the 2 players, and he knew that 1 bad error in judgment was not nearly enough to fairly expel 2 all time greats from the game.

Mark, your thirst for vengeance, a la Jackson episode is showing. But you are probably right in that those 2 players were blackballed from the administration end of the game for the future. That much you got right.

[JRB]

Too bad we don't have more people voting. If Bonds finishes in the top ten, it won't be the end of the world, but it will say a lot (or very little) for Fever. These people are either ignoring what he did or have no comprehension of just how effective what he did and when he did it, was. A damn shame.

My vote is for Aaron.

Happy Holidays Sultan:

---------------------Career Comparison of Relative Averages for Hornsby and Aaron--------------------------------------

---------------------Relative BA---------Relative SA--------Relative OBP------------Combined Relative Average

Hornsby---------------126.9---------------147.9-------------127.3---------------------402.1 (3rd all time)

Aaron-----------------116.8---------------140.5-------------114.4---------------------371.7 (20th all time)

Hornsby beats Hank in every relative category of hitting-by a lot!

-----------------------------------------Career OPS+ (baseball encyclopedia)---------------------------------------

Hornsby--------------------------------------176------------------------------------------------------------------

Aaron----------------------------------------156------------------------------------------------------------------

Not even close.

---------------------------------Five Best Peak Years OPS+ (baseball encyclopedia)------------------------------------

Hornsby---------------------------223--210--208--204--191----------------------------------------------------------

Aaron-----------------------------190--188--180--177--173-----------------------------------------------------------

Not close.

Hornsby lead league in OPS+ 12 times
Aaron lead league in OPS + 4 times

Hornsby won 7 batting titles
Aaron won 2 batting titles

Hornsby won 2 triple crowns
Aaron won 0 triple crowns

Hornsby won 2 MVP's (would have won more if they had been given earlier)
Aaron won 1 MVP

Hornsby played more defensively important position
Hornsby had more versatility as fielder (played second, short, third)
Hornsby was successful player manager especially in 1925, 1926, 1927, 1931

I think you are ranking Hornsby way too low. My impression is that because he played in the same era as the Babe you see him as some sort of threat or rival (you needn't because I and others who view Hornsby favorably see Ruth as clearly #1).

I hope it isn't due to some sort of vicarious resentment at Hornsby's team beating Ruth's team in 1926 series and Hornsby tagging Ruth out for last out when he made that attempt to steal second.

Unfortunately, the bottom line is that because we are divided on who to pick next, the Bonds people who are united, vocal, and determined to have their hero one day rated over the Babe, will likely sneak in and grab the 6th position, from which they will use it a spring board toward further advancement to the top.

c JRB

[Minstrel]

Too bad we don't have more people voting. If Bonds finishes in the top ten, it won't be the end of the world, but it will say a lot (or very little) for Fever. These people are either ignoring what he did or have no comprehension of just how effective what he did and when he did it, was. A damn shame.

My vote is for Aaron.

Bonds' 1990-1998 run was nearly as great (in terms of seasonal quality) as his 2001-2004. It's a bit of a myth that he reached levels from 2001-2004 that he didn't approach previously. While that could be said for his offense (that he reached levels from 2001-2004 that he didn't approach before), his great fielding dropped off massively to compensate.

His hitting+fielding value from 1990-98 was close to his hitting+fielding level from 2001-2004.

Therefore, I don't think top-ten, or even top-five, greatness for Bonds rests on his steroid years.

[EvanAparra]

Hey, why isn`t Collins on this list? He's at the very least very close to Hornsby and is my #1 2B. I don`t think either of them deserve that spot anyway

Because I've never seen Collins anywhere near anyone's top 5.

[yanks0714]

Hornsby was almost, but not quite, as good a hitter as Williams, while playing a passable second base and being a decent baserunner.

As to Aaron... Aaron had two seasons with an OPS+ over 180; 181 in 1959 and 194 in 1971. Rajah had, in successive years, 187, 190, 207, 186, 222, 210, and then threw a 200 up a few years later. Aaron hit 41 points higher than his league; Hornsby hit 76 points higher than his league. Rajah hit more singles, doubles, and triples, and drew more walks; Hank was a better baserunner and home run hitter. Throw in the fact that Rajah played second base vs. Aaron's RF, and I don't see how homers and SB's are anywhere near enough to overcome the massive advantages Hornsby has in every other aspect of being a baseball player.

It's called length of career. By the time Rogers career was kaput Bad Henry was still rolling on and posting great numbers.

[yanks0714]

I actually rate Williams 8th; there's still three unvoted guys ahead of him in line for me... including the inexplicably as-yet-unmentioned Tris Speaker.

I think you're right on this one {for a change}. :)

I rank Aaron 5th so I'm going to have to keep ranking him but I suspect he's going to go down in flames in this poll. I have Speaker in my top 10 easily...I rank him 7th but he's getting little consideration.

I am surprised at the support Ted Williams is getting on this. Yes, he was a fantastic hitter. But his defense and running were for the most part not even adequate. He was a marginal defensive player at the lest important position in the field! I do have him in my top 10 but not at #5! He fits in at 7 or 8 for me, with Aaron and Speaker ahead of him.

Barry Bonds I can understand the support he's getting even bypassing his steroid years although I think he's being a bit overrated as #5 or 6.

[yanks0714]

Speaker and another prominent player did indeed bet on a game. But, Landis did not know that and there was not evidence of it. The 2 letters Dutch Leonard sold to Ban Johnson, in fact, quoted Joe Wood as saying that the other prominent player did NOT bet on the game. It wasn't until October 1, 1965, that Joe Wood admitted to author Larry Ritter, doing research for The Glory of Their Times, that they had all bet $2,000. on one game of baseball. And since there had been no rule against betting, they had broken NO RULE. Can't enforce a rule retroactively.

Landis refused to ban them, because he lacked evidence, he liked the 2 players, and he knew that 1 bad error in judgment was not nearly enough to fairly expel 2 all time greats from the game.

Mark, your thirst for vengeance, a la Jackson episode is showing. But you are probably right in that those 2 players were blackballed from the administration end of the game for the future. That much you got right.

Since you won't mention him I will. It was Tyrus Raymond Cobb.

I think Landis probably felt they were guilty. But Leonard refused to come east to testify against them. This gave Landis an out. He knew that banning two of the greatest players in history would be an incredible detriment for baseball in and of itself. Landis loved the game of baseball and didn't want to ban these two for fear of the repercussions it would have. When Leonard wouldn't come east, Landis decided the worst he would do, considering that both were near the end of their playing days, would be to force them from their managerial duties for all time.

Based on what I've read, the game in question was of no consequence whatsoever to either team. In fact, Speaker had a great game. If I remember correctly, they wern't throwing the games, right? They were simply betting on which team would win. Now don't all of you come down on me thinking that betting for your team is okay. It's not but combined with the stature of these two players, Speaker and Cobb, it was the only way Landis could rule that didn't affect baseball in a major way.

[yanks0714]

I think that Speaker and Aaron both get hurt by who their direct contemps were.
Speaker played second fiddle to Ty Cobb. Aaron was in the shadow of Willie Mays. He also had to do combat with Musial in the 50's, Frank Robinson, Ernie Banks (heck, Banks won the MVP in 59 and 59) in his own league and with Williams and Mantle in the AL.
Both get overlooked because of their competition. Kind of like Tim Raines gets overlooked because of Rickey Henderson.

I am a Roger Hornsby fan. I have him #1 at 2B. I think he was a better defensive player than some rate him. From what I've read he was fast as well until he had a serious injury that robbed him of some speed. As a hitter, I think he rates among the greatest ever, right up there with Ruth, Williams, Gehrig, Cobb, Mantle, Mays, Speaker, etc.
But the reason I have him below Hank Aaron, Stan Musial, Ted WIlliams, Tris Speaker, and possibly Lou Gehrig and Mike Schmidt (and maybe Mantle) is because for all intents and purposes his career was too short. I give longevity a great deal of weight. An incredible peak, yes, but in a heavy hitting era. As well, his defense compared to his 2B competition, Collins, Morgan, Lajoie, Gehringer, Robinson looks bad becasue they were all wonderful defensive players. If he were more in line with them I might boost him a few notches.
If he had lasted longer, he was pretty much done for by 33, I would probably rank him higher. As it is, he just missed my top 10.
As for the WS, James credits him with what he deserves but then brings in a subjective bias against Hornsby to drive him down. The WS in and of themselves are not canted against Hornsby but by James' own subjective decisions. And, yes, Hornsby was not a very libable guy by any stretch of the imagination.

[leecemark]

Based on what I've read, the game in question was of no consequence whatsoever to either team. In fact, Speaker had a great game. If I remember correctly, they wern't throwing the games, right? They were simply betting on which team would win. Now don't all of you come down on me thinking that betting for your team is okay. It's not but combined with the stature of these two players, Speaker and Cobb, it was the only way Landis could rule that didn't affect baseball in a major way.

--It would have been poor judgement if Speaker and Cobb had each bet on their own team to win. That isn't what happened though. They both bet on Cleveland to win, which suggest they had agreed on the outcome ahead of time.
--If that was the lone blemish on Speaker's record perhaps it could be ignored. However, there is fairly good evidence that Speaker was also involved in throwing a World Series game in 1912 due to a dispute over payment for those games. It was done to prolong the Series rather than to actually throw it, but it still does not speak well to the man's character (assuming it is true).
--Speaker was never judged guilty of those fixes so I don't ding him too much for it. It does contribute to his being outside my top 10 though.

[yanks0714]

I'm trying to stop the runaway Williams freight train. I've posted several times why Aaron should be #5 and why Williams should not be. I have Williams at #7. My top 4 have already been elected albeit not in the order I would prefer but I can't quibble too much on it. But #5 means more to me and that is Bad Henry as Mark calls him.
Aaron is not that far behind Williams in hitting (I mean only Ruth is ahead of Ted in hitting) but is miles ahead of Ted in fielding and running. Plus, Aaron was never the lightening rod Williams could be (except when he was about to break Ruth's career HR record and that wasn't his fault).


--It would have been poor judgement if Speaker and Cobb had each bet on their own team to win. That isn't what happened though. They both bet on Cleveland to win, which suggest they had agreed on the outcome ahead of time.
--If that was the lone blemish on Speaker's record perhaps it could be ignored. However, there is fairly good evidence that Speaker was also involved in throwing a World Series game in 1912 due to a dispute over payment for those games. It was done to prolong the Series rather than to actually throw it, but it still does not speak well to the man's character (assuming it is true).
--Speaker was never judged guilty of those fixes so I don't ding him too much for it. It does contribute to his being outside my top 10 though.

You know what I find queer about that? Didn't Speaker have an outstanding game and Cobb go 0-fer? If so, that would actually be Spoke playing to lose his own bet. That should say something about Speaker?

I've read about Speaker's part in throwing the '12 WS game to extend it. I don't exonerate him for doing that...it was surely a different time and age. It was about the only recourse players had to do battle with owners though. Afterall, who wound up winning that WS?

I have Speaker in my top 10 at #7 so I don't ding him at all.

[mwiggins]

Huh? Williams had a higher career WARP 3 than Mantle even without "war credit", Williams still had more MVP caliber seasons than Mantle even without "war credit", Williams had the same amount of .400 EQA seasons even without "war credit". I don`t see Mantle having any incredible intangibles to give him the edge over Williams, maybe a positional adjustment could help but no that gap, can you explain this position?


Williams was a great hitter, better than Mantle, but he was a very one-dimensional player. I don't think his hitting edge over Mantle was enough to make up for everything else Mantle brought to the table, and everything Williams didn't.

[brett]

Williams is kind of a landmark in the rankings because he brings little else to the table, so you place him based on offensive value alone. I have thought and consulted some of the Saber guys on defensive research and here's the deal.

Williams, with war credit would have been clearly in a group of 4: Ruth, Bonds and Cobb, in pure offensive career value in all categories-above average, above replacement, above zero. That's not just hitting but total offensive value. He could very well have been #1, and probably could not have been below #2 on pure offense if you penalize Bonds at all.

But it doesn't matte just where you put him in that group. That group of 4 is over 50 games ahead of the next group in offensive only value except for Mays if he gets 2 decent years for the War, and they are still at least 35 games ahead of him.

Put another way, Williams and the other 3 were equivalent to an entire extra borderline hall of fame players career ahead of the rest of the pack in offense.

It would take basically the most extreme defensive variation in baseball history for a guy to make that up on defense alone. The only 2 of that pack who could possibly make up that difference are Wagner and Mays-if he was given war credit. Speaker could make up a lot, but without the war credit, he would have needed to be one of the 5 best defensive shortstops in history, and Williams would have had to be a poor first baseman, or the worst left fielder in history. There is just not enough value between any left fielder and any center fielder to make up that much difference, and its rather absurd to think that there could be, because it would suggest that a centerfielder could post a hall of fame career based solely on defense, if he was a dead average offensive performer. There have been many multi gold glove center fielders with average offense who never got a second look by the voters.

If you don't give Williams war credit, he is in the 15-20 range, but 5 years of .340/.480/.650 is an entire hall of fame career worth of value stacked on top of that.

[Wee Willie]

Very nice post. That's pretty much my line of reasoning also. The offensive lead is just too great to make up, especially with war credit. Although, I'd say Williams is still probably in the top 10 without any war credit. He's actually 12th all-time in Win Shares (555) and WARP3 (172.0), despite playing only 2292 games.

[csh19792001]

it was surely a different time and age. It was about the only recourse players had to do battle with owners though. Afterall, who wound up winning that WS?

I have Speaker in my top 10 at #7 so I don't ding him at all.

Exactly.

Of course, for those who have researched little to nothing on the topic and haven't read extensively on that era, they hear that Speaker might have fixed a game, and summarily dock him accordingly out of ignorance, without understanding the context of the times or the history behind what happened. They hear insinuations of a fix on a message board and that's that.

Speaker or Aaron should absolutely be next in line- I have no qualms about voting for either. Both are already overdue, IMO.

[yanks0714]

Although, I'd say Williams is still probably in the top 10 without any war credit. He's actually 12th all-time in Win Shares (555) and WARP3 (172.0), despite playing only 2292 games.

Top 10, yep....but people are picking him as the 5th best ever!

I have him in my top 10 too, but certainly not 5th....more like 6th to 8th.

[yanks0714]

Speaker or Aaron should absolutely be next in line

Absolutely right about the Speaker/Cobb fiasco.

I totally 100% agree with you about Aaron and Speaker. I have Aaron #5 and Speaker #7 but can certainly see him at 6.

[EvanAparra]

Putting Williams low can only be backed up by not giving him any war credit whatsoever, and IMO, overvaluing defense from his position and baserunning. Williams was the second best hitter in the history of the game, and for a corner outfielder, that's what matters. Putting him at 16 seems like a bias against him for some reason if you say you are not overvaluing things like baserunning.

I could easily make an argument for Williams in the top 5, since he is in my top 5. He was a better hitter than Aaron... he hit for more power, a better average, and got on base at a better pace than anyone who has ever played the game. I don't see how anyone could call them equals at the plate.

[JRB]

It's called length of career. By the time Rogers career was kaput Bad Henry was still rolling on and posting great numbers.

If you want to make duration of career the main criteria of course that's your prerogative. Hornsby had managed a team to a world championship at age 30 and he was bitten hard by the manager's bug. From reading about him its clear that that he tried to seize upon every opportunity to get further managerial opportunities and he wasn't focused on merely running up his career stat numbers. Also, in Hornsby's era managerial jobs paid even more than being a player, so if you had the skill and smarts enough to be a manager there was no economic incentive to try and hang on merely as a player. Hornsby's last year as a regular player-manager he still was able to maintain an OPS+ of 162, which was higher than Hank's career average.

If you look at the comparison chart I set forth on post 47 the relative numbers between these two players aren't even close. One might also consider the fact that Hornsby was able to still have much better relative numbers even though in many of the seasons in the second half of his career he was saddled with the burdens and pressures of being a manager. Even with that anvil tied to his back Hornsby still, in many instances, performed much better on a relative basis than Hank. In the past my only concern about career length in rating a player is over the issue of whether or not we have enough information so that we have an adequate sample from which to determine who was better. Perhaps, that is the reason I tend to rate players such as Joe Jackson, Joe DiMaggio, and Jackie Robinson higher than some people do, because I felt we had an adequate sample in their cases, and I was confident of their excellences as players. Hornsby had a much longer career than those players did, and in his case I feel that we have more than enough of an adequate sample to know that he was a much better player than Hank. If you are going to rate a player who was better than another player lower simply because the other player played at their lower level for longer, then I assume you are doing that across the board and rating players like Pete Rose in your top ten or twenty.

c JRB

[EvanAparra]

By the way, for all you voters...

If you are worried that a player that you want to vote for won't be up there, and you have put up your list in the Member's Official Opinions, than be assured that he will be up there. For Example, I might not have listed Alex Rodriguez in this or the next 7 or 8 polls, but ChrisLDuncan has him at #5 on his list, so he makes the poll.

For those of you who have not put up your top 25-50 all time players, I'd urge you to do so.

Thanks.

[mwiggins]

Williams wouldn't have been just 'hitting a TON of singles' if he'd have hit away from the shift. He would have been hitting a ton of doubles AND a ton of singles. And how many games do you think teams would have let him go 3-5 with 2 2B's before they ended the shift? He'd be giving up much of his HR power, but he'd probably be a .500 hitter with a ton of extra base hits. Even a grounder hit to where the third baseman would have normally been playing should have been enough for a 2B, if he hustled at all.

And even if he only did that in RISP situations, you don't need more than a bloop or ground ball single to drive in runners from 2nd or 3rd. A hitter of his skill should have been able to destroy teams that left such huge gaps in the defense.

I don't think other teams 'wanted' him to hit to left. They were happy to take away hits from him while he continued to pull the ball, until he proved he COULD hit to left. He continued to his HR's as he pulled the ball, but he also hit less singles and doubles than he would have prior to the shift. I'm sure they were happy he continued to play right into the hands by not taking advantage of the large gap they left exposed in left field. He was still a great hitter, but by continuing to pull the ball so much, he allowed his opponents to maximize their chances to get him out.

[csh19792001]

I may be alone in this, but I see Williams as being smart for not doing what the other team wanted him to do, I call THAT intelligence, not ego/arrogance.

That's called stubborness. IMO, you don't defeat a shift by hitting by hitting to left, you evade it. That's beating the opposing team, not the shift itself. You BEAT the shift by hitting through it, which guys like Feller Williams did for the most part anyway.

But Ted's omni pull hitting tendencies may be overplayed- over time these stories and reputations snowball. Today, it's my understanding that we have track of more or less exactly where every ball is hit. Not exactly, but a zone or region of the field, at least.

http://www.retrosheet.org/location.htm

For example, Barry Bonds has hit 330 homers to right field, and only 78 to the corresponding region in left. I don't even know if we have a breakdown of all his balls put in play (someone much more versed in statistical analysis could help with this), but we could probably estimate his production vs. out percentage on balls hit through the shift over, say, the past 5 years in comparison to balls he put in play to the left side of the field.

It's all about how specific you want to get, and what information exists.

If you want even a general idea for guys like Williams, you have to buy the PBP boxes from The Sporting News. Even ProQuest- which includes the full ledgers of the 8 largest national newspapers and APS online- does not have this kind of information. You might get an occasional narrative blurb "Williams homered to left" depending on the preceived importance of the game- but you won't get any PBP data. You won't know where the ball was hit, you might not know who the batter was facing, etc.

Interestingly enough, one of our members (JamesWest) is researching the 1948 Cleveland Indians, game by game, play by play. And he has looked at how stars like Dimaggio and Williams faired.

Ted Williams vs '48 Indians

5/9/48 @ Boston (DH)

Game 1
vs Bob Feller:
1st: Lined to P
4th: HR to center
6th: BB-forced out at second by Spence
8th: K
vs Russ Christopher:
10th: groundout to first

Game 2
vs Don Black:
1st: single to left-to third on Spence's single to righ-scores on Stephen's DP grounder
vs Lyman Linde:
3rd: to first on FC (3-6)-to second on E6-to ehird on E1
5th: HR to center
vs Ed Klieman:
7th: K
(in 4th inning: Gordon lines to Williams-Williams throws to second; doubles off Boudreau)

5/10/48 @ Boston

vs Al Gettel:
1st: single to center-scores on Spence HR
3rd: BB-second on Spence BB-forced at third when Stephens GIDP
vs Ed Klieman:
4th: BB
6th: grounds 4-6 forcing DiMaggio to end inning
8th: single to center (Gromek rel Klieman)-to second on FC-to third on WP-scores on Stpehen's GO

5/20/48 @ Cleveland (night game)

Vs Bob Lemon:
1st: grounds to second
3rd: single to right-to second on Stephen's single to right
5th: ground out 4-3
7th: K
9th: ground out 4-3

5/21/48 @ Cleveland

vs Bill Kennedy:
1st: single to center-forced at second (Stephens GIDP)
vs Al Gettel:
3rd: singel to right-to second on Stephens single to right-caught trying to steal third
4th: BB-to second on BB (Doerr)-scores on Batts single to center
vs Steve Gromek:
5th: HR to upperdeck in RF (anyone who has ever been to a game at Cleveland Stadium knows that you have to hit it a LONG way to reach the upper deck)
7th: single to CF
vs Ed Klieman:
9th: BB-to second on BB (Mele)

5/22/48 @ Cleveland

vs Gene Bearden:
1st: single to CF-to second on Stephens single to LF-to third on FC
3rd: BB-second on BB (Stephens)-to third on Doerr single to CF
5th: Flyout to LF
8th: GIDP shortstop to first

6/9/48 @ Boston

Rainout

6/10/48 @ Boston

vs Bob Feller:
1st: BB-to third on Spence double-scores on PB
3rd: single to CF-to second on FC-scores on Doerr HR
vs Bill Kennedy:
3rd: single to RF
vs Steve Gromek:
5th: popped to SS
6th: Groundout 4-3

6/15/48 @ Cleveland (night game)

vs Bob Lemon:

1st: groundout 5-3
4th: K on attempted hit and run
6th: single to CF-to second on FC-to third on WP-attempts double steal with Stephens on first; caught in rundown: 13462
7th: IW-to second on FC-to third on Stephens infield hit
9th: to second on E7-to third on FC-scores on Stephens double

6/16/48 @ Cleveland

vs Bob Feller:

1st: single to second-forced at second (Spence GIDP)
3rd: double to LF-to third on WP-scores on Spence single
5th: doubles to LF
7th: HR to LF
vs Steve Gromek:
9th: BB-to second on Stephens single-to third on E5 (attempted double steal with Stephens on first)

After this game, Williams declares that the shift is dead. Boudreau concedes that the shift is a thing of the past.

Note that at this point in the season Williams is hitting .407.

6/17/48 @ Cleveland

vs Don Black:
1st: single to center-to second on Stephens single-to third on Doerr BB-scores on Goodman BB
vs Steve Gromek:
2nd: to first on E3-to second on FC-scores on Stephens HR
4th: groundout 6-3 Boudreau makes nice play
vs Russ Christopher:
7th: double to left-to third on FC-scores on Stephens SF
8th: groundout U3

By my count Williams had very roughly (and please correct me if I'm wrong here)

Center Field

-9 balls to center (now where in center, or whether it was hit through the shift is another story). 7 singles and two homeruns

Right Field
-8? balls hit to the right side, 4 groundouts, 3 singles, and a homerun.

Left Field
-3 doubles, a single, a flyout and a homerun to left. He had a groundout and a GIDP as well.

I think what I'm trying to convey is that we can't say whether it was "intelligent" or not until we know A)where he was hitting the ball throughout his career with greater precision, B)what percentage of the time he was making outs hitting to various fields and C) his production to various fields.

Might he have been greater had he taken the ball to a wide open left side more often in his youth? Absolutely, but I think it's almost impossible to determine without a compliation of far in depth, play-by-play information.

What do you think?

[csh19792001]

Williams wouldn't have been just 'hitting a TON of singles' if he'd have hit away from the shift. He would have been hitting a ton of doubles AND a ton of singles. And how many games do you think teams would have let him go 3-5 with 2 2B's before they ended the shift? He'd be giving up much of his HR power, but he'd probably be a .500 hitter with a ton of extra base hits. Even a grounder hit to where the third baseman would have normally been playing should have been enough for a 2B, if he hustled at all.

And even if he only did that in RISP situations, you don't need more than a bloop or ground ball single to drive in runners from 2nd or 3rd. A hitter of his skill should have been able to destroy teams that left such huge gaps in the defense.

This really resonates with me, and I'd be inclined to agree (with the caveat being my previous post). Trenchant- per your usual, mw.

I think Williams probably gave away a lot, if indeed he almost invariably tried to pull every pitch he swung at to right field (esp. early on in his career) ala Jason Giambi today.

The difference is that Williams was quite arguably the greatest hitter- and had the most talent for actually hitting a baseball- of anyone who ever lived. Giambi has no choice; at this point, esp. playing in Yankee Stadium, that's pretty much the only way he'll be effective. Williams was one of the most stubborn players ever, and could have done pretty much whatever he wanted with the pitched ball in the long run.

[mwiggins]

Williams was one of the most stubborn players ever, and could have done pretty much whatever he wanted with the pitched ball in the long run.

I agree with you there. The fact that he was still so productive, despite his approach, is probably pretty good evidence that he should be considered the most talented hitter ever. He may have been so good that it didn't really matter too much if his approach was flawed. But given the few times I've seen where he DID take advantage of the shift, to great success, it seems logical that his subberness limited his success somewhat.

I would be very curious to know how often he adjusted his approach with runners in scoring position. How many games he had like the one vs. Feller that you listed above. I'd be much more including to forgive his stubborness if he wasn't making a habit of letting outside pitches go by, ones he could have fairly easily poked into LF for an RBI, while waiting for a pitch he could pull and drive. Him taking walks in those situations would be a supreme waste of his talent and the opportunities presented to him.

[yanks0714]

If you are going to rate a player who was better than another player lower simply because the other player played at their lower level for longer, then I assume you are doing that across the board and rating players like Pete Rose in your top ten or twenty.

I do tend to prefer longevity and consistency over career. That does not mean that I would put Pete Rose in my top 10 or 20. I try to take into consideration the type of hitter the player was as well. Aaron destroys Rose in that regard.
I do credit players who pulled double duty as player manager. Hornsby gets credit for the 1926 Cards and his time he spelled McGraw. That kind of thing probably gives him a slight edge over a couple other players I might have ranked him below...such as Lou Gehrig. Joe Cronin gets credit for it as well in my SS rankings.
One of the factors besides career length and consistancy that I give Aaron credit for is LQ adjustment. Now before you take me to task for that let me ask you a simple question:
Do you or do you not believe that the quality and competiveness of the NL was better in the mid-1950s to the mid-1970s as opposed to the NL from the late 1910s to the early 1930s? I do. I feel Aaron played in the most competitive era of baseball + played in an absolute pitching dominated era.
Rogers OTOH, played in a segregated league that was considered weaker than the AL in one of the highest hitting era's of baseball.
FWIW, I have Hornsby just outside of my Top 10...just outside.

[EvanAparra]

Williams wouldn't have been just 'hitting a TON of singles' if he'd have hit away from the shift. He would have been hitting a ton of doubles AND a ton of singles.

Yes, he would have been a ton of singles. Of course they are not going to ALL be singles, but since Ted couldnt run the bases all that well, thats not going to help him leg out balls down the third base line.

[csh19792001]

I'd be much more including to forgive his stubborness if he wasn't making a habit of letting outside pitches go by, ones he could have fairly easily poked into LF for an RBI, while waiting for a pitch he could pull and drive.

That's the problem. All we have is the numbers now. We can't look at the crimes of omission (i.e. letting the pitch a few inches off the plate go by with RISP to take the walk instead of trying to get a hit). We can only assess the crimes of commission.

That's the problem with stats in general. They're limited in scope in that way- no inference, just a carbon record of what happened.

Did Williams waste a significant chunk of his talent and potential with his style and consummate stubbornness? I think it's more than possible, and we can say that intuitively. But perhaps need more information to make more definitive statments, I suppose.

[EvanAparra]

I don't think other teams 'wanted' him to hit to left.

Putting out a shift is daring the hitter to hit the other way. He didn't have to prove he could hit to left, i'm sure he could if he really tried -- He wanted to hit for power, which was his job. He wasn't a singles hitter, and I doubt he wanted to become one.

I understand that pulling the ball to where there are more fielders is going to maximize your chances of hitting into an out -- But hitting to left is also going to minimize power, and drastically minimize home runs.

[csh19792001]

hitting to left is also going to minimize power, and drastically minimize home runs

Not necessarily. Think of Fenway...has always been bad for left handed power hitters (particularly home run hitters), and tremendous for right handed power hitters. A haven.

And in truth, many lefties have made a living hitting doubles off of Fenway's left field wall, which is only a short distance away. He would have been able to hit a ton of doubles (and many cheap homers) to left in that park, even without hitting the ball on the screws consistently. There's also basically no foul territory down that LF line, and it's not that deep until you get almost to CF.

Look at the splits in terms of doubles for Boggs and Yaz- both lefties, both outstanding hitters, both played for a long time at Fenway. Those are just two good examples.

What if Williams had regularly exploited LF and that short porch??? You seriously don't think that would have made him an even greater juggernaut?

:noidea

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I think you are ranking Hornsby way too low.

Well, I never said where I rate Hornsby. If you'd like to know, he is my number one second baseman and is tenth overall, just behind Ballgame. I have enjoyed your writings on him and if he moves at all, he will probably take Ballgame's spot at nine. While I use no set system, I do incorporate very slight LQ adjustments and in that area, Rogers takes a little hit. He also takes a hit from a pretty short career where his numbers don't reflect a decline.

I'm pretty surprised to hear you suggest my ranking of him has anything to do with Babe. Then you go further and suggest the CS of '26 has something to do with it because he was there to tag out Ruth? Come on JRB, you should know me, or hopefully you do now, better than that. That's nowhere near the place I'm coming from.

[brett]

Putting out a shift is daring the hitter to hit the other way.

and for an entire defense to move into a total shift I think would break a lot of their defensive rhythm. The more different thing that the defense has to be worried about executing, the more there is that can go wrong.

The shift is a sign that Williams was one of the few players (5-6)who were so good that normal baseball strategy is changed by their presence. So is a near .500 on base%, and the fact that he saw strikes on 75% of his first pitches.

And why isn't anybody bringing up Dimaggio? Why didn't he just go the other way in YS? There are certainly guys who hit a large percentage of their home-runs the other way. Why couldn't he adapt?

Anyway, I really think that there are 2 reasons why people don't want to rank Williams high. 1 is that they prefer well-roundedness even if it doesn't equate to more overall dominance and 2 is that I know that some people don't want to give him any credit for his war years.

Give him the war years, and Ozzie Smith did not defensively make up an equivalent value as Williams put on anyone out of the top 5.

Hank Aaron, for example, being the #6 all time guy in offense above average and above replacement would have been 300 runs behind Williams production above replacement or average. That is about the defensive value difference between Ozzie Smith and an average left fielder.

[538280]

I think Williams can be underappreciated when people say things like "Player X had to be better than Williams, he was more complete, a better fielder and runner". While I don't think Williams was a good fielder or runner, I think the impact of his hitting is often undervalued versus the fielding/baserunning of other players. Hitting is always by far the most important part of a player's value.

About Williams taking walks with players in scoring position as well, not adjusting his approach. Statistically, by not adjusting his approach, Williams would actually usually be doing the right thing. The exceptions to that would be 7th inning or later in a very close game. Taking a walk with runners in scoring position is usually better than making an out. Win expectancy frameworks have shown this to be true in most game situations, except again late innings of close games. Taking a walk will increase the potential for more runs, while making an out while driving in the run will give you the one run, but greatly reduce the chances of more runs. In the long run taking the walk to get on base will come out ahead the majority of the time. PBP data has shown this. If it's the late inning of a close game, Williams should be trying to just drive the runner in though.

I think Williams probably was, in all likelihood, the most talented hitter, but I do agree with others that his stubborness did cost him some, though perhaps not as much as many Boston sportswriters made it out to be.

[mwiggins]

Of course a walk is better than making an out with RISP, but is it better than putting the ball in play when you're a .344 lifetime hitter? Esp when all you really need to do is hit the ball to the left side to drive in a run (vs. the shift). Esp when you're the best hitter on the team, and the guys behind you are much less likey to be able to drive in that run than you are? If you're Johnny Pesky or Dom DiMaggio, taking a walk is probably better than trying to put a questionable pitch into play - but if you're by far the team's best hitter, I gotta think a walk in RISP situations is generally a waste.

I can understand that in most cases it would be preferable to take a walk rather than chase something outside of the zone, but do the win expectancy frameworks' show that that's true for a hitter on the level of Williams? The best hitter of his era, facing a defense with huge holes for him to exploit?


And why isn't anybody bringing up Dimaggio? Why didn't he just go the other way in YS?

That's why I don't give him a LOT of credit for YS hurting him. But the main difference would be that Williams didn't need to change his approach for good, just exploit the shift for a few games until teams stopped doing it. DiMaggio couldn't 'end' the deep LF power alley by adjusting his approach for a few games.

And DiMaggio wasn't a dead pull hitter, from what I understand. YS had a short LF line back in those days, he could have pulled the ball as a RH and hit 'cheap' HR's over the 301ft LF wall.

[Wee Willie]

I don't agree with your assertions about league quality.
Well, JRB - I've had time to read those posts on the Hornsby thread, and I'm sorry - but I still think that Speaker's AL was slightly stronger than Hornsby's NL.

First off, you begin post #75 by considering only the years 1921-25 when comparing the AL and NL. Sure, 1922, 1924, and 1925 may have been Hornsby's best years, but that span is entirely too small to get a handle on AL vs. NL strength for Hornsby's career (or the bulk of it) - which I think is much more telling than a sample of just 5 seasons. Actually, when comparing Speaker and Hornsby straight up, more accurate comparisons of league strength would be either to 1) compare the two leagues during the time their careers overlapped as full-time players (namely, the span from 1916 to 1928), or 2)compare Hornsby's 1916-1929 span (his unbroken 14-year string of being a full time player) to a similar 14-year stretch by Speaker (the years 1909 - 1922 would be the closest match, since Speaker became full time in 1909).

You then use World Series victories by each league as a measure of strength. While I think this a rather unreliable method of determining top-to-bottom league strength (because it doesn't reveal the league-wide dispersal of talent), for the sake of argument I'll go ahead and adopt that same measure. Looking at the concurrent years Hornsby and Speaker were full time(1916-28), the AL actually won 8 World Series to the NL's 5. That span featured terrific runs by the Red Sox, White Sox, Yankees, and Senators. If you extend that span to 1929 (to encapsulate Hornsby's uninterrupted span as a full-timer), the AL won 9 World Series to the NL's 5. So basically, for most of Hornsby's full-time career, the AL's best team outclassed the NL's best. Incidentally, in Speaker's 1909-22 stretch, the AL also won 9 Series.

You then use league ERA's to say that Hornsby faced tougher pitching in the NL than he would have in the AL from 1921-25. That may or may not be true, and one has to look at the circumstances behind the ERA difference. The difference could be attributed to better pitching by one league, better hitting by the other, or a little bit of both. It's true that for most of 1916-1928, the NL had the lower league ERA. However, I feel that much of that difference, is due to the AL having both the superior bats and batting philosophy. The respective league ERA's were quite similar until 1919, when Ruth came into his own. The AL seemed to be more patient at the plate, typically generating around 25% more walks than the NL throughout much of the 20's. The AL had a wealth of great hitters - Ruth, Cobb, Speaker himself, Heilmann, Collins, Goslin, Sisler. The NL had it's share - Hornsby, Terry, Zack Wheat, Waner and Ott late in Hornsby's career. I probably would say the NL pitching was a little better from 1921-25, but from 1916-28 or 1916-29, the AL's pitching was at least as good, and possibly better. The AL does have a couple more HOF pitchers included from that timeframe than the NL. Then, if you compare Speaker's 1909-22 to Hornsby's 1916-29, I think the pitching Speaker faced was better, since we would now be bringing in guys like Walsh, Plank, and Johnson at his absolute best.

All in all, I don't think there's a whole lot separating the two players as far as LQ is concerned, but my interpretation of the evidence leads me to believe Speaker enjoyed a slight lead.

[538280]

If you're Johnny Pesky or Dom DiMaggio, taking a walk is probably better than trying to put a questionable pitch into play - but if you're by far the team's best hitter, I gotta think a walk in RISP situations is generally a waste.

Williams just took his normal approach, where there was a good chance he would get a walk or a hit. What the chance he would get a hit really was does not truly matter. He should have just taken the most efficient approach at the time, which was his normal approach. Again this does change in a late, close game though.


I can understand that in most cases it would be preferable to take a walk rather than chase something outside of the zone, but do the win expectancy frameworks' show that that's true for a hitter on the level of Williams? The best hitter of his era, facing a defense with huge holes for him to exploit?

The value of an event in that situation does not change because of the ability of the hitter at the plate. A walk still has the same value whether it's Ted Williams or Mario Mendoza. So does a hit, a sac fly, everything. The shift is something that cannot be taken into account though, and like I said I think that with the shift that was probably where Williams was being stubborn.

In any case,though, it does not seem that Williams' ability to drive in runs deserves to be in question. His RBI totals are consistently amazing, he seemed to still be a huge RBI machine even with his "stubborn" approach.

[mwiggins]

The value of an event in that situation does not change because of the ability of the hitter at the plate. A walk still has the same value whether it's Ted Williams or Mario Mendoza.

A walk is the result of a choice by the hitter, and as with any choice, there's opportunity costs involved. I guess I can agree that a walk would have the same value regardless of who's at the plate, but the opportunity cost in taking a walk would change dending on who the batter is. By taking a walk, a player is giving up the chance to swing at the ball. The expected result of that swing will vary depending on the hitter. So the 'net' value of a walk will change depending on the hitter.

And with runners in scoring positions, that opportunity cost goes up, since potential events resulting from swinging the bat, like singles and deep fly outs and slow ground balls, often become more valuable than they would be otherwise.

[Minstrel]

Of course a walk is better than making an out with RISP, but is it better than putting the ball in play when you're a .344 lifetime hitter?

He was a .344 hitter with his normal approach. He may not have been as good a hitter had he abandoned his patient approach with RISP, in an effort to put the ball in play.

As 538280 says, it's probably worth doing what you can, as the team's best hitter, to try and push a runner in in a close-and-late situation, but beyond that, he probably would have become a less efficient hitter with RISP had he changed his approach to emphasize putting the ball in play.

[mwiggins]

As 538280 says, it's probably worth doing what you can, as the team's best hitter, to try and push a runner in in a close-and-late situation, but beyond that, he probably would have become a less efficient hitter with RISP had he changed his approach to emphasize putting the ball in play.

Ted vs. the shift would be an exception to that idea, though. If he puts the ball in play to the left side, he's going to be driving in the run(s) most of the time. His BA would probably be much better than .344.

And even ignoring the shift, the fact that he wouldn't have been as good a hitter if he was more agressive is beside the point. He still would have been much better than Eddie Yost or Max Bishop. The expected outcome when he puts a ball in play, rather than taking a walk, is going to be MUCH better than if a player like those two attempts to put the ball into play.

Say, instead of making an out 66% of the time and generating .634 bases per AB that he doesn't take a walk, Williams made an out 70% of the time and generated .550 bases per AB when he's trying to put a borderline pitch into play instead of taking a walk. That's still better than any of his Boston teamates in 1949, even with them taking their normal approach. Even being agressive he would give the Red Sox the best chance to drive in runners in scoring position.

Though we don't know how he changed his approach, if he did, with RISP, so it's all speculation. But if he didn't, that would make him less valuable in my mind.

[EvanAparra]

What if Williams had regularly exploited LF and that short porch??? You seriously don't think that would have made him an even greater juggernaut?

I'm a Red Sox fan, so I definately took that into consideration when making my statement. I still believe had he started hitting the other way, a huge majority of those hits would have been singles. What's the percentage of hits the other way in the majors that are for X-tra bases? I'm sure it's not all that big. The porch would have only turned doubles into singles, IMO.

[csh19792001]

Again, look at the splits of guys like Yaz and Boggs (or the right handed great, for that matter). Fenway is, and has always been, a haven for doubles.

[EvanAparra]

Yaz and Boggs could run, Williams could not. Players like Manny and Ortiz have to stay at first a good amount of the time off balls that bank off the wall.

[mwiggins]

Yaz and Boggs weren't hitting against an extreme shift, though. It's going to be much easier to stretch out a double when there's so much open space in LF. His lack of speed would definitely limit his ability to take advantage of the shift, but that's just another example of how limited he was as a player.

[EvanAparra]

How limited he was in a limited facet of the game --- I dont see why baserunning is all of a sudden such a big deal when it comes to Williams, enough to drop him below inferior players.

[csh19792001]

Yaz and Boggs could run

Boggs could run? Um, no. I watched him play for 15 years. He couldn't run, even in his younger days.

[mwiggins]

Again, look at the splits of guys like Yaz and Boggs (or the right handed great, for that matter).

Or look at Williams' splits. 55% more doubles at Fenway than on the road. Yaz only had about 45% more doubles at home than on the road.

[EvanAparra]

Boggs could run? Um, no. I watched him play for 15 years. He couldn't run, even in his younger days.

Um, yes. I guess most third baseman can't run better than Ted Williams?

[EvanAparra]

Or look at Williams' splits. 55% more doubles at Fenway than on the road. Yaz only had about 45% more doubles at home than on the road.

Fenway is a good park for doubles to any field, not just the wall in left. I've watched enough games to see that the wall gives a lot more singles than you would think. Watch Manny Ramirez hit balls off the wall, and then count how many are doubles, I bet it won't be many.

[csh19792001]

Um, yes. I guess most third baseman can't run better than Ted Williams?

Did you SEE Boggs play? He was slow as molasses. If you don't agree, either you weren't watching him closely, or you weren't watching at all.

And regardless, left fielders have to run a hell of a lot more than third baseman.

[mwiggins]

How limited he was in a limited facet of the game --- I dont see why baserunning is all of a sudden such a big deal when it comes to Williams, enough to drop him below inferior players.

It's not that important. And whether his poor baserunning dropped him below inferior players would depend on how you defined 'inferior'. For me, his hitting would put him a close second to Ruth. The rest of his game drops him below Cobb, Wagner, and Mays; and roughly even with Mantle.

And it's not just baserunning. It's that he only did one thing well - hitting - and to my mind he was more concerned with that than he was with winning. His hitting can take him a long ways, but not, IMO, past complete players, who also were excellent hitters, like Mays and Wagner and Cobb.

[tearforamariner]

Did you SEE Boggs play? He was slow as molasses. If you don't agree, either you weren't watching him closely, or you weren't watching at all.

And regardless, left fielders have to run a hell of a lot more than third baseman.

Other than John Olerud and Edgar Martinez, Wade Boggs was the slowest non-catcher I have ever seen.

[csh19792001]

Other than John Olerud and Edgar Martinez, Wade Boggs was the slowest non-catcher I have ever seen.

Thank you. Good to see a die hard baseball watcher chime in here. :clapping

[JRB]

Well, JRB - I've had time to read those posts on the Hornsby thread, and I'm sorry - but I still think that Speaker's AL was slightly stronger than Hornsby's NL.

First off, you begin post #75 by considering only the years 1921-25 when comparing the AL and NL. Sure, 1922, 1924, and 1925 may have been Hornsby's best years, but that span is entirely too small to get a handle on AL vs. NL strength for Hornsby's career (or the bulk of it) - which I think is much more telling than a sample of just 5 seasons. Actually, when comparing Speaker and Hornsby straight up, more accurate comparisons of league strength would be either to 1) compare the two leagues during the time their careers overlapped as full-time players (namely, the span from 1916 to 1928), or 2)compare Hornsby's 1916-1929 span (his unbroken 14-year string of being a full time player) to a similar 14-year stretch by Speaker (the years 1909 - 1922 would be the closest match, since Speaker became full time in 1909).

You then use World Series victories by each league as a measure of strength. While I think this a rather unreliable method of determining top-to-bottom league strength (because it doesn't reveal the league-wide dispersal of talent), for the sake of argument I'll go ahead and adopt that same measure. Looking at the concurrent years Hornsby and Speaker were full time(1916-28), the AL actually won 8 World Series to the NL's 5. That span featured terrific runs by the Red Sox, White Sox, Yankees, and Senators. If you extend that span to 1929 (to encapsulate Hornsby's uninterrupted span as a full-timer), the AL won 9 World Series to the NL's 5. So basically, for most of Hornsby's full-time career, the AL's best team outclassed the NL's best. Incidentally, in Speaker's 1909-22 stretch, the AL also won 9 Series.

You then use league ERA's to say that Hornsby faced tougher pitching in the NL than he would have in the AL from 1921-25. That may or may not be true, and one has to look at the circumstances behind the ERA difference. The difference could be attributed to better pitching by one league, better hitting by the other, or a little bit of both. It's true that for most of 1916-1928, the NL had the lower league ERA. However, I feel that much of that difference, is due to the AL having both the superior bats and batting philosophy. The respective league ERA's were quite similar until 1919, when Ruth came into his own. The AL seemed to be more patient at the plate, typically generating around 25% more walks than the NL throughout much of the 20's. The AL had a wealth of great hitters - Ruth, Cobb, Speaker himself, Heilmann, Collins, Goslin, Sisler. The NL had it's share - Hornsby, Terry, Zack Wheat, Waner and Ott late in Hornsby's career. I probably would say the NL pitching was a little better from 1921-25, but from 1916-28 or 1916-29, the AL's pitching was at least as good, and possibly better. The AL does have a couple more HOF pitchers included from that timeframe than the NL. Then, if you compare Speaker's 1909-22 to Hornsby's 1916-29, I think the pitching Speaker faced was better, since we would now be bringing in guys like Walsh, Plank, and Johnson at his absolute best.

All in all, I don't think there's a whole lot separating the two players as far as LQ is concerned, but my interpretation of the evidence leads me to believe Speaker enjoyed a slight lead.

Wee Willie: I respect the fact that you took the time to read the posts on the other thread. Hopefully, it wasn't too tedious or argumentative. I won't quibble with your conclusion that one league was "slightly stronger" than the other. As I recall, my impression was that there was a lot of conflicting evidence, however the NL seemed to hold it own. I think it could reasonably be concluded that either league was slightly better than the other, or that there was essentially parity between the leagues. I do believe there is enough evidence to refute the argument of extreme disparity between the leagues that some people have thrown out there in the past.

I believe the reason there was extra focus on the years 1921 through 1925 was because that was Hornsby's peak period, and the period when he averaged over .400 for the five year span and won 2 triple crowns, and batted over .400 3 times, and had his 3 highest OPS+ seasons. As I recall, even the members arguing the AL side of the issue conceded that the NL was stronger during portions of that period, especially 1924 and 1925. Since Hornsby achieved his peak accomplishments in a period when his league was at least as strong, and probably stronger, than the rival league that would logically seem to negate any league quality arguments that could be made to try and diminish his statistical achievements.

Carl Mays was a right handed pitcher who pitched in both the AL and NL in that period. Mays pitched in the AL from 1915 to 1923, and won over 20 games 4 times. Mays was traded to Cincinnati where he also won over 20 games. Mays indicated that Hornsby was the toughest hitter he ever faced in either league, which is additional anecdotal evidence that Hornsby's accomplishments were not due to league quality. If you're interested, Retrosheet has some fascinating data on Hornsby, including his splits, pitcher match-ups and game by game totals for the years 1921 and 1922.

c JRB

[tearforamariner]

Thank you. Good to see a die hard baseball watcher chime in here. :clapping

It was truly amazing to watch him and Tony Gwynn. In his prime, Gwynn was fast, but in his later years, he also slowed down quite a bit. Neither him nor Boggs needed speed to hit singles though. This is what amazes me. I love Ichiro, but I think when he loses speed, his average is going to drop. At the age of 41, Gwynn was still batting .324 and Boggs was batting .301.

Anyway, I voted for Oscar Charleston here. I truly believe that had he been allowed to play in the Majors, Charleston would've been the most complete player ever.

[torez77]

Anyway, I voted for Oscar Charleston here. I truly believe that had he been allowed to play in the Majors, Charleston would've been the most complete player ever.

Could very well have been true. Lately with my rankings I've been taking 538280's approach and putting the Negro Leaguers in parentheses in between my ranked Major Leaguers, where I think they would've ranked if they had a full ML career. I'm not sure I will vote for a Negro Leaguer in these polls though, as I'm not sure how to give them a definite ranking.

BTW, I ranked Mantle #5. At his peak, he was one of the most dominant players ever. Charleston could've been better all-around, but I'm not sure his peak would've matched Mantle's.

Also, don't forget Josh Gibson. If he was as awesome a slugger as most people said he was, and doing that as a catcher, then I don't see anyway to keep him out of the top 10. But again, it depends on whether or not you want to rank NegLers with MLers.

[JRB]

Well, I never said where I rate Hornsby. If you'd like to know, he is my number one second baseman and is tenth overall, just behind Ballgame. I have enjoyed your writings on him and if he moves at all, he will probably take Ballgame's spot at nine. While I use no set system, I do incorporate very slight LQ adjustments and in that area, Rogers takes a little hit. He also takes a hit from a pretty short career where his numbers don't reflect a decline.

I'm pretty surprised to hear you suggest my ranking of him has anything to do with Babe. Then you go further and suggest the CS of '26 has something to do with it because he was there to tag out Ruth? Come on JRB, you should know me, or hopefully you do now, better than that. That's nowhere near the place I'm coming from.

Sultan: Always nice to hear from you. I was just doing some tongue in cheek teasing about the 26 WS. I'm still a bit bewildered as why such a powerful thinker as you might conclude that Hank ranks over him. In, 1931, in his 17th year, and his last year as a regular player-manager, at age 35 and playing on one leg because of heel spurs he still posted a 162 OPS+ ,which was a decline, however it is still higher than Hank's career average (156). If they had both stopped playing at 35 Hornsby would have come out even better in the comparison, because Aaron got 3 years over his career average after that age, and his best ever year of OPS+ at age 37, by playing in the launching pad. Hank's best ever year had already been eclipsed 5 times by Hornsby. To top it off in the last half of his career, most of the time, Hornsby had the burdens and pressure of being a manager in addition to being a player, and that obviously divided his attention from just focusing on his batting, yet he still beats Hank handily in career relative BA, relative SA, and relative OBP, and in career OPS+. Sorry, it doesn't even seem close to me.

[W_Marone]

I must say though....that's one thing I like about Evan, he'll stick to his guns, through hell or high water. Anway...I voted for Aaron....have been since what? Three or so? Dont ask me why, just always liked the guy I guess. Tell me when we get to 8994....so I can vote for Jonny Gomes:D

[csh19792001]

Barry Bonds Took Steroids, Reports Everyone Who Has Ever Watched Baseball (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/46188)

March 9, 2006

SAN FRANCISCO—With the publication of a book detailing steroid use by San Francisco Giants superstar Barry Bonds, two San Francisco Chronicle reporters have corroborated the claims of Bonds' steroid abuse made by every single person who has watched or even loosely followed the game of baseball over the past five years.

In Game Of Shadows, an excerpt of which appeared in Sports Illustrated Wednesday, authors Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams claim that more than a dozen people close to Bonds had either been directly informed that Bonds was using banned substances or had in fact seen him taking the drugs with their own eyes. In addition to those witnesses, nearly 250 million other individuals nationwide had instantly realized that Bonds was using banned substances after observing his transformation from lanky speedster to hulking behemoth with their own eyes.

According to hundreds of thousands of reports coming out of every city in the U.S., Bonds' steroid use has been widely reported and well-documented for years, with sports columnists, bloggers, people attending baseball games, memorabilia collectors, major ballpark popcorn and peanut vendors, groundskeepers, roommates, significant others, fathers-in-law, next-door neighbors, fellow fitness club members, bartenders, mailmen, coworkers, teachers, doormen, parking-lot attendants, fellow elevator passengers, Home Depot clerks, servicemen and women serving in Iraq, former baseball players, Congressmen, second-tier stand-up comics, Sports Illustrated's Rick Reilly, and random passersby all having stated at some point in the last five years that Bonds was obviously taking some sort of performance-enhancing drugs.

Many of those eyewitnesses came forward following Wednesday's revelation with their own accounts of Bonds' seven-year history of steroid use.

"I originally heard that Barry Bonds was on steroids during a Giants game in 2001, when my buddy Phil, who was on the couch next to me, said, 'Dude, that Barry Bonds guy is definitely on steroids,'" said Chicago resident Mitch Oliveras. "After 10 seconds of careful observation, and performing a brief comparison of Bonds' present neck width with that on Phil's old 1986 Bonds rookie card, I was convinced."

"I can see how some people might be shocked about Bonds' doping, but this has been an open secret for years among the people in my industry," said air-conditioner repairman Mike Damus. "I'm sure it's an even more widely known fact in baseball."

"Everyone in our front office has known about Bonds since the 2001 season," said San Francisco-area accounts-receivable secretary Mindy Harris of McCullers and Associates, Ltd. "People in our ninth-floor office, too, and all seven branch offices. None of us were sure exactly which kind of steroids he was on, but we were pretty sure it was the kind that causes you to gain 30 pounds of muscle in one offseason, get injured more easily, become slow-footed, shave your head to conceal your thinning hair, lash out at the media and fans, engage in violent and abrupt mood swings, grow taut tree-trunk-like neck muscles, expand your hatband by six inches, and hit 73 home runs in a single season."

"Come to think of it, we're all fairly certain he's on all of them," Harris added.

"My 6-year-old son and I bonded over our mutual agreement that Bonds was obviously juicing up," San Francisco-area construction worker Tom Frankel said. "I hope that, one day, little Davey will have kids of his own, and that they will be able to easily glean the knowledge that Bonds was a cheater just by looking at the remarkable shift in his year-by-year statistics on his Hall of Fame plaque."

In light of the most recent accusations, which echo what any idiot with a pair of eyes and even the most fundamental knowledge of how the human body works has said in recent years, MLB Commissioner Bud Selig issued a statement Wednesday to address the issue.

"It is unfair to judge Mr. Bonds based solely on the fact that everyone says he has taken some sort of performance-enhancing drug for the past five years," Selig said. "I myself think Bonds has been taking steroids—I'm not blind, after all—but nothing, even an admission by Bonds himself, can conclusively prove that he took steroids, as he has not tested positively in an MLB-sanctioned drug test. Unless that is somehow made to happen, we must all accept his recent unfathomable accomplishments as one of the truly exciting and continuing storylines of this great sport." :laugh

When reached for comment, Bonds insisted that he "[doesn't] have time to deal with all these charges."

"I'm not going to respond to these 228 million allegations," Bonds said. "I don't care what every last person in the entire world thinks. As long as my fans believe me, that's the most important thing."

[Blackout]

whats up with all the voting for steroid boy?

[EvanAparra]

Did you SEE Boggs play? He was slow as molasses. If you don't agree, either you weren't watching him closely, or you weren't watching at all.

And regardless, left fielders have to run a hell of a lot more than third baseman.

I did see Boggs play, albeit a very small amount. You're probably right, since you must have seen him more than I have --- most of today's 3rd baseman are pretty athletic and have better wheels than what Ted Williams had, so thats what I was going on.

[plask_stirlac]

We're penalizing Ted Williams or missing RBI? He had quite a few, top 5 every year he played from 1939-1949 and 1951. There usually aren't THAT many RISP opportunities, Ryan Howard had a ton this year, but that's 164 AB with 49 BB, so about 1/4 PA, definitely not representative of a season.

He obviously set up others, he led the AL in runs from 1941-1947 and 1949 when he played, so whatever he did to save outs apparently worked for others driving him in and increasing the team's score.

[Wee Willie]

whats up with all the voting for steroid boy?
What's up with you not voting for Ted, when during the #2 poll, you said "Teddy Ballgame up next"? All of a sudden he's gone from #3 to out of the top 5? Just curious...

[csh19792001]

No, I dont believe he would have been getting doubles at the very least. Why? A lot of his hits would have been singles, as i'm guessing a large majority of hits the opposite way are -- and as I said in a previous post, Fenway's wall takes away doubles from players that don't run very well, as much a hitter's park as it is.


The particularly pertinent pieces of information I underlined and emboldened.

Fenway Park- Analysis (http://www.baseball-statistics.com/Ballparks/Bos/)

The reasons for this being a great park for batsmen are threefold:

1) The park has the smallest foul territory in the majors, and near the foul poles it is non-existent. That means that pop-ups that might get caught elsewhere end up in the seats, and give hitters another swing.


2) The 17-ft center field wall also provides a great hitting background, since most pitchers' release points take place against a solid green background instead of the multicolored distraction of the bleachers. (Some left-handers with an overhand delivery can reach "over the top" and into the bleachers to camouflage their pitches, but statistically speaking lefties generally don't do much worse than righties.)


3) Most importantly, all of the action unfolds in the shadow of baseball's most recognizable landmark - the Green Monster, the 37-foot wall in left field which makes left field a cozy space and which can convert routine flyballs into extra-base hits. For over 50 years, the wall was listed at 315 feet away from the plate, a very generous estimate that was regarded as about as accurate as David Wells' listed weight of 235 pounds. In 1995 the Red Sox (without explanation) changed the number to 310 feet, but more realistically the wall is probably closer to 300 feet away.

Both the quirks of the Monster and the vast amount of territory in right field - plus the quirks of the wall near the right-center bullpen, which extends onto the playing surface and is surrounded by an 8-foot fence - makes Fenway a great doubles park. The bullpen was built in 1940, with the arrival of lefty Ted Williams onto the scene, and cut down the distance to the right-center wall from 405 feet to just over 380 feet.

Who benefits: It is a common misconception that the Wall only helps right-handed hitters. Right-handed hitters gain more in the home run department, and right-handed pull hitters who loft the ball do improve their numbers. But left-handed batters who can use the inside-out swing to hit the ball to left can add points to their average as well - Wade Boggs practically coined the term "wall double," and Fred Lynn, Carl Yastrzemski, and of course Ted Williams all learned to use the Wall. In 5 of the last 6 years, Fenway has boosted left-handed batting averages more than right-handed averages.

(I doubt Williams, with his proclivities, used it nearly as much as the others.)


Fun Facts

Second highest double factor in AL in 2001
Third highest batting average/LH avg factor in AL in 2001
Third lowest infield error factor in AL in 2001
Highest error factor and infield-error factor in the AL in 1999 and 2000
Second highest batting average factor in the AL in 1999 and 2000
Third highest left-handed batting average factor in the AL in 2000
Second highest right-handed batting average factor in the AL in 2000
Second highest left-handed batting average factor in the AL in 1999
Third highest run factor in the AL in 1999
Second lowest home run factor in the AL in 2000
Lowest home run factor in the AL in 1999
Lowest LHB home run factor in the AL in 1998, 1999 and 2000
Highest double factor in the AL in 1998
Highest RHB batting-average factor in the AL in 1998



So there it is. I do remember Boggs talking about "wall doubles" at Fenway, now we have a citation. Boggs was a career .369 hitter at Fenway with a .527 slugging. He also had a ridiculous disparity in doubles btw home/road.

Also, check out Lynn's splits. 347/.420/.601 at Fenway in his career vs. .283/.360/.484 overall, and it was probably even better than that while Fenway was his home park.

[csh19792001]

We're penalizing Ted Williams or missing RBI? He had quite a few, top 5 every year he played from 1939-1949 and 1951. There usually aren't THAT many RISP opportunities, Ryan Howard had a ton this year, but that's 164 AB with 49 BB, so about 1/4 PA, definitely not representative of a season.

He obviously set up others, he led the AL in runs from 1941-1947 and 1949 when he played, so whatever he did to save outs apparently worked for others driving him in and increasing the team's score.

That's all true, but we're saying this as a compliment to his freakish abilities and a (potential) knock on his approach/attitude/stubborness. They left half of the field wide open, also with that wall 300 feet away and basically no foul territory to worry about. As was noted in my previous, that LF wall is a great place for doubles to fly off of- particularly because opposing left fielders are totally unaccostomed to dealing with it. Fenway LF also gives many fairy cheap homeruns (think Bucky Dent) on balls that really aren't hit all that well.

What I'm wondering is how often did he try to hit through the shift even when it was on, and more importantly, speculating on how much more damage could Ted have done had he gone with the outside pitches and take the ball the other way with some regularity against the shift?

In other words, exploiting the free opportunity the other team was giving him, instead of trying to hit through 4 fielders out towards a very deep left field.

In that 1948 game against Feller and the Indians, Williams hit two doubles and a homerun (all to left field) off of Feller, who normally handled him quite well. After the game Boudreau declared that "The shift is a thing of the past" and Williams himself said: "The shift is dead".

So the question is, how often did he do that? Probably not much at all up to that point, or the shift would never have been conceived and put into place at all, now would it?

[Ubiquitous]

Ted Williams himself:

It certainly was the slider. I could hit the slider just as good as I could hit any ball, but I couldn't get it in the air as good. And you know they throw the shift there, and there's nine guys playing on this side and there's nobody over there, and I'm close to the plate and the only way I can get the ball over there is to uppercut it and hit it with the width of the bat, not the length of the bat. So I started looking for sliders and here they came. Boy I was laying for it. I was ready for it and I was crashing it. Now they're a little in doubt, now what are we gonna do? He hits high balls, fastballs, inside, outside, slider is the least dangerous and then they start throwing me a lot of sliders and I was starting to hit them out because I knew that was all I was gonna get. I knew I was gonna get it. If they're getting all of the good hitters out in the league, you knew damn well they were gonna throw it to Williams. So all those things fell in place.

LM: So the slider made you hit to the left?

TW: No, I didn't say that. You're putting words, you're trying to put words…

LM: I'm sorry

TW: No, I said for me to hit the slider, I had to look for it. I didn't care where a pitch was, if I was looking for it. But the slider was a pitch you kinda had to look for 'cause it was quick at the end. If I couldn't get under it, that's a little lag there, I had to hit it occasionally get one in the air, but it was a ground ball pitch. I didn't want any of those. But when they said go to left field, get a little further away from the plate, then that registered.

LM: And that opened it up for the .388

TW: Well, didn't open it up. Why did it open it up?

LM: Because you were getting hits… because you were hitting to the left field and they couldn't do the shift.

TW: That's right. They couldn't all go one way, they had to open up. Now I had more holes than I ever had in my life. Just hit a ball, a base hit.

LM: Did you say to yourself, why didn't I do this before?

TW: No I didn't, no I didn't. They hadn't changed the shift yet. That year I started hitting to left field a bit more and now they're opening up. I went to Chicago and I think I got 3 or 4 hits at least in the first game and then 3 or 4 hits the next day, and boy that shift was going out the window. Because I'd hit them all to left-center, through the box, shortstop, nobody there. So now they start opening up. Now the weather's getting hotter, June, July, and August. Now, I'm really starting to hit my own way and I had all kinds of room. That's what happened. Mantle had that tremendous year, and I happened to have a year that fell right in place.

[EvanAparra]

From all that has been presented, it seems that he actually set out and beat the shift more than I, and most others here, had thought.

[mwiggins]

So he himself is saying that he didn't really try to hit the ball to LF against the shift until 1957? And when he did that, and broke the shift, he put up a monster season.

That interview seems to provide some confirmation that a) he resisted hitting to left against the shift for a lot of years, and b) his numbers would be better if he broke the shift (since they did get better in 1957).

[EvanAparra]

So he himself is saying that he didn't really try to hit the ball to LF against the shift until 1957? And when he did that, and broke the shift, he put up a monster season.

That interview seems to provide some confirmation that a) he resisted hitting to left against the shift for a lot of years, and b) his numbers would be better if he broke the shift (since they did get better in 1957).

I think they had an even more exaggerated shift in '57, it was even more ridiculous and Ted just got tired of it -- at least that's what I got.

[brett]

From all that has been presented, it seems that he actually set out and beat the shift more than I, and most others here, had thought.

A lot more than Cobb tried to use the live ball to his advantage. That's stubbornness.

[538280]

Williams being stubborn is one thing, if you are interested in his character that is very important, and his refusing to go the opposite way with the shift on is evidence of that. But, even if that was a waste of potential (and I agree that it was), that shouldn't make us think less of Williams than what the statistics say anyway, because whatever trying to hit into the shift cost him is shown his his own statistics. Thanks for the article also Ubi, very interesting stuff there. It's too bad Ted didn't take what they gave him. If his 1957 performance really is indicative of what he could have done, he probably would have been absolutely the best hitter ever (better than Ruth) and perhaps even the best player ever.

[brett]

Williams being stubborn is one thing, if you are interested in his character that is very important, and his refusing to go the opposite way with the shift on is evidence of that. But, even if that was a waste of potential (and I agree that it was), that shouldn't make us think less of Williams than what the statistics say anyway, because whatever trying to hit into the shift cost him is shown his his own statistics. Thanks for the article also Ubi, very interesting stuff there. It's too bad Ted didn't take what they gave him. If his 1957 performance really is indicative of what he could have done, he probably would have been absolutely the best hitter ever (better than Ruth) and perhaps even the best player ever.


'57 was amazing. A 233 OPS+ at age 38 was the second best of his career, but he did sit a lot more against leftys and played almost every game hit much better against righties.

I just don't think that a guy with a .490 on base percentage over a period of 17 years is going to spend time working on hitting the other way when he's leading the league in batting, slugging and on-base percentage over that period. Do you take some focus off what you are doing to work on driving it the other way when you are statistically still a 15% better hitter than anyone else in the league.

Look guys, you have to practice hitting it the other way regularly, or come game time, you will pop it up a lot.

Is it worth devoting some of your mental and physical preparation to? Maybe. It was really an experiment on his part to see if he could maintain value with a shift. Know one really knew whether hitting away from the shift produced more value than hitting into the shift.

It certainly was a lot less dumb than George Sisler's unwillingness to draw walks, or Cobb's unwillingness (or inability-we just don't know) to drive the ball after 1920. Why? Because Williams was outproducing the whole of baseball during the shift years. Sisler was held just short of thue dominance like that. Cobb failed to stay a dominant player after 1919. He had lost a lot on the basepaths by then, and if he could have popped 15-18 home runs out during that time, he might have been the greatest player of all time.

The real question becomes, how good would he have been if he had killed the shift completely and immediately. Who knows. It could have put him into Barry Bond's type 100+ IBB range.

[mwiggins]

'57 was amazing. A 233 OPS+ at age 38 was the second best of his career, but he did sit a lot more against leftys and played almost every game hit much better against righties.

I just don't think that a guy with a .490 on base percentage over a period of 17 years is going to spend time working on hitting the other way when he's leading the league in batting, slugging and on-base percentage over that period. Do you take some focus off what you are doing to work on driving it the other way when you are statistically still a 15% better hitter than anyone else in the league.

Look guys, you have to practice hitting it the other way regularly, or come game time, you will pop it up a lot.

Is it worth devoting some of your mental and physical preparation to? Maybe. It was really an experiment on his part to see if he could maintain value with a shift. Know one really knew whether hitting away from the shift produced more value than hitting into the shift.

It certainly was a lot less dumb than George Sisler's unwillingness to draw walks, or Cobb's unwillingness (or inability-we just don't know) to drive the ball after 1920. Why? Because Williams was outproducing the whole of baseball during the shift years. Sisler was held just short of thue dominance like that. Cobb failed to stay a dominant player after 1919. He had lost a lot on the basepaths by then, and if he could have popped 15-18 home runs out during that time, he might have been the greatest player of all time.

The real question becomes, how good would he have been if he had killed the shift completely and immediately. Who knows. It could have put him into Barry Bond's type 100+ IBB range.

He didn't have to 'drive' the ball to the left side, or learn to drive the ball to the left side. All he had to do was punch the ball over to the empty left side when they had the shift on. And judging from the article Ubi posted and the pbp data from his 1948 games against the Indians, he was very capable of doing just that.

He could continue to still be a dead pull hitter, while dropping basehits into left field when teams put the shift on him. He wouldn't have to become a spray hitter. It wouldn't require a change to his style of hitting, as the Cobb and Sisler examples you mentioned. Williams choosing not to torch the shift was a much more boneheaded move than Cobb choosing not to rework his swing to take advantage of the liveball era or Sisler changing his approach at the plate to take more walks.

The reason people knock him is that he chose to pass up relatively easy opportunities to help his team score more runs, all because of his subberness. Cobb and Sisler chose not to give up on a hitting approach that had been very, very successful for them, in order to adopt a new hitting approach that may or may not have been successful for them. It's very much apples and oranges.

[yanks0714]

Did you SEE Boggs play? He was slow as molasses. If you don't agree, either you weren't watching him closely, or you weren't watching at all.

And regardless, left fielders have to run a hell of a lot more than third baseman.

I watched Boggs play for years....and that remark is an insult to molasses!!! :grouchy

[mwiggins]

I watched Boggs play for years....and that remark is an insult to molasses!!! :grouchy

How could he have gotten so many doubles then? You're not implying that he hustled more on the basepaths than Manny are you?!?!;)

[brett]

The reason people knock him is that he chose to pass up relatively easy opportunities to help his team score more runs, all because of his subberness. Cobb and Sisler chose not to give up on a hitting approach that had been very, very successful for them, in order to adopt a new hitting approach that may or may not have been successful for them. It's very much apples and oranges.

I went through a period when I tried to punch it the other way (to right) to take advantage of a modest shift. It worked sometimes. I popped it up to second a fair percentage of the time. Occasionally, it dropped in shallow right, hit the ground and died, and I could even get a running double out of it because of where guys were playing. It is a risk though because its mechanically different from your normal approach and you can pop it up and get a big nothing. It is a risk. I don't care how good you are, you can't just plop a pitch out there on demand.

[brett]

How could he have gotten so many doubles then? You're not implying that he hustled more on the basepaths than Manny are you?!?!;)


Boggs was fast enough to first to place some cool infield hits over the years though.

[yanks0714]

No, I dont believe he would have been getting doubles at the very least. Why? A lot of his hits would have been singles, as i'm guessing a large majority of hits the opposite way are -- and as I said in a previous post, Fenway's wall takes away doubles from players that don't run very well, as much a hitter's park as it is.

Evan, I'm with you on this one. If Ted had gone to left field in Fenway Park, with that short field and huge wall, considering how poorly he ran he would not have been getting a bunch of doubles. He would have been held to a single. I've seen decent runners bang one off the Green Monstrosity and be held to a single if the LF'er makes a half decent play.

Unless he hit it over the wall or the LF'er totally messed up the play off the wall, Ted ain't getting extra bases.

I'd love to see a breakdown of home/away assists for Yaz. I strongly suspect a larger percentage of them were at home where he gunned down hitters trying to take a double off the wall.

[yanks0714]

How could he have gotten so many doubles then? You're not implying that he hustled more on the basepaths than Manny are you?!?!;)

That remark was tongue in cheek. An attempt at humor that obviously fell short.

BTW, I think it's funny as the devil this thread.....we're all trying to say how Ted Williams could have been a better hitter. Think about that.....Ted Williams.

[mwiggins]

I went through a period when I tried to punch it the other way (to right) to take advantage of a modest shift. It worked sometimes. I popped it up to second a fair percentage of the time. Occasionally, it dropped in shallow right, hit the ground and died, and I could even get a running double out of it because of where guys were playing. It is a risk though because its mechanically different from your normal approach and you can pop it up and get a big nothing. It is a risk. I don't care how good you are, you can't just plop a pitch out there on demand.


Yeah, it's going to be a risk. But a) we have examples of him doing it, so we know he COULD (though we don't know how many times we tried but failed), b) he was one of, if not thee, most talented hitter ever, and c) he worked a LOT on his hitting from everything I've read.

Really, the only excuse that he has for not destroying teams that put that shift on him is that he didn't want to. He was more concerned with proving that he could still pull the ball and be successful against the extreme shift than he was in doing whatever it took for his team to win. However you judge attitude/intagibles, I think Williams deserves to take a hit in that area because of his inflexibility as a hitter.

[Ubiquitous]

The problem here is that we really have no clear idea what Ted did against the shift. I think it has turned a bit black and white here in regards to Ted and the shift. The current view seems to be that the shift was always on and Ted did nothing to change his ways. I don't really know if either is true. For the first part there is probably around 40% of his at bats in which the shift would not be put on. Situations with men on either second or third. Secondly we really don't have any idea what he did against the shift. We do know that his only inside the park home run came against the shift and he hit it to the left side. He did this very very early on against the shift.

I think part of the problem is Ted's stubborness. As one can see by reading the passage I quoted, Ted tends to be contradictory when talking about the past. It is almost like he doesn't want to admit anything if you try to pin him down on something.

The final part I think most people are ignoring is the way people pitched to him. With the shift on the pitcher isn't pitching Ted away. They aren't trying to get him to hit to the left. The pitches for the most part are going to coming in on the inside part of the strikezone. Could he go to the left? Sure but it isn't as simple as a lot of people are assuming. Just look at what I quoted. People were throwing him sliders, it wasn't an easy pitch to hit. It wasn't a simple matter.

[Blackout]

why so few votes here for Gehrig? he played alot more than teddy ballgame and wasnt a liability in the field until he got ALS

[EvanAparra]

why so few votes here for Gehrig? he played alot more than teddy ballgame and wasnt a liability in the field until he got ALS

Because Ted was the second best hitter ever.

[Blackout]

Because Ted was the second best hitter ever.
and Gehrig is only a notch below him and his defensive value is higher, plus he carried his teams to championships even without Ruth

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Because Ted was the second best hitter ever.

Which carries a lot of weight but not enough to put him in the top 5 imo. I think having him in the top 5 overrates his tremendous hitting and undervalues other aspects; and having him outside the top 10, underrates his hitting supremacy and overvalues other aspects. I've got him 9 and he might drop to 10.

The shift is an intersting topic.

The fielders put on the shift because they're basically begging him to hit the ball that way. We get that. Why are they doing that? Because he is so damn dangerous otherwise.

So what is the pitchers approach? If he thinks that Williams will try to go against the shift (to left), he'll throw him inside to tie him up. Sliders low and in/high and in, hard stuff in or two seamers that start at the knees and break back over the inside corner. If he thinks that Ted will try to beat the shift, he'll feed him pitches on the outside part or backdoor sliders. You'd have to be crazy otherwise. He had to have kept them honest. So what happened with Ballgame? Did he go the other way just enough with the shift on, to to make the pitchers believe that it was okay to work him back inside? Then did Ballgame exploit this and whale away on the inside stuff for awhile against the shift, until the pitchers soon began working him outside again? Or perhaps it just simply didn't matter where they threw the ball to him. Backdoor sliders were pulled. Sinkers low and away were laced up the middle, to right-center and down the first base line. We know his eye was incredible so more than others, he found himself in a hitters count. I would like to believe he kept them honest at times, which is the only explanation for them working him inside. The truth is probably closer to him crowding the plate and using his quickness to react to the inside stuff while using excellent plate coverage to turn middle-out stuff into down-the-middle stuff to get his pulling fix.

[EvanAparra]

and Gehrig is only a notch below him and his defensive value is higher, plus he carried his teams to championships even without Ruth

Thats a pretty big notch, IMO. Defensive value isnt all that higher, Gehrig wasn't exactly Keith Hernandez either. One player doesn't carry a team to a championship.

[Myankee4life]

Thats a pretty big notch, IMO. Defensive value isnt all that higher, Gehrig wasn't exactly Keith Hernandez either. One player doesn't carry a team to a championship.

Not pretty big in my opinion. Ted has a decent lead on Gehrig. Gehrig wasn't a slouch at the plate either. Gehrig made himself into a good fielding 1B. Ted was a bad fielding LF. Considering that LF doesnt hold much more defensive value than 1B, Gehrig has a decent lead. Remember that Ted couldn't lead Boston to a title despite having Lefty Grove, Jimmie Foxx, Bobby Doerr and Joe Cronin. He shouldn't shoulder all the blame but it is alarming.

[EvanAparra]

= Remember that Ted couldn't lead Boston to a title despite having Lefty Grove, Jimmie Foxx, Bobby Doerr and Joe Cronin. He shouldn't shoulder all the blame but it is alarming.

like i said, one player cant 'lead' a team to a title. If you blame ted then blame all the players you just mentioned as well.

By the way -- Ted was on the same team as Grove for the last 3 years of Grove's career, when he was in his decline. Only 3 years with Foxx, towards the end of his career as well. And really only three years with Cronin too. You make it sound like all these guys played their careers together.

[Ubiquitous]

Once again for whatever reason everything seems to be black or white with Ted. Ted wasn't Greg Luzinksi out there in left. He wasn't some god awful bad outfielder. He didn't work as hard at fielding as he did at hitting. Okay I get that but that doesn't mean he was an atrocious fielder. Before he injured himself in the all star game he had a good arm and was a decent fielder. After the elbow injury his arm wasn't the same but I don't think he ever was to the point of being Greg Luzinski out there.

Take it for what it is worth but BP basically agree with the common sentiment that Williams was an okay fielder. They have him around average to slightly above average for most of his career until his final seasons.


As for the World Series I think mentioning Jimmie Foxx and Lefty Grove is a bit of a canard. Lefty Grove was 39 when Ted first started playing for the Red Sox and was not the same pitcher he once was. Jimmie Foxx had his last monster year the year before Ted started. Ted's rookie year could have been a monster year for Foxx but he missed a lot of games and was clearly in decline by the end of the year. Ted would only get 3 seasons with Joe Cronin as well.

[Wee Willie]

why so few votes here for Gehrig? he played alot more than teddy ballgame and wasnt a liability in the field until he got ALS
That statement is simply incorrect. Where in the world are you getting that Gehrig "played a lot more"???

[Mariano_Rivera]

That statement is simply incorrect. Where in the world are you getting that Gehrig "played a lot more"???

Probably the consecutive game streak, accountings for the ALS and forgetting about Williams serving in the wars.

[mwiggins]

That statement is simply incorrect. Where in the world are you getting that Gehrig "played a lot more"???


Gehrig played every single day. Williams did not, other than 1947 & 1949. I'm assuming that's what he meant.

[Myankee4life]

Lefty Grove had a VERY good season in 1939. He went 15-4 and won the era title at 2.54. I dont think thats the mark of a declining pitcher. Jimmie Foxx posted his third highest OPS+ season in 1939 at 188. For the record I rank Ted higher than Gehrig. I also belive that one player cant win by himself. But having 5 HOF on a team, and finishing 2nd makes me question Ted's ability to win.

[Ubiquitous]

Lefty Grove had a VERY good season in 1939. He went 15-4 and won the era title at 2.54. I dont think thats the mark of a declining pitcher. Jimmie Foxx posted his third highest OPS+ season in 1939 at 188. For the record I rank Ted higher than Gehrig. I also belive that one player cant win by himself. But having 5 HOF on a team, and finishing 2nd makes me question Ted's ability to win.


Lefty Grove pitched 191 innings, before that he was routinely putting up 265+ innings a year. Foxx played 124 games. Ted Williams was a rookie! You are questioning his ability to win based on his very first year in major league baseball?

And I don't know if you realize this or not but do you know who won the AL pennant in 1939? It was perhaps the greatest team of all time the 1939 New York Yankees. Who also by the way had 5 hall of famers on their roster as well.

[leecemark]

--Teddy was a rookie in 1939. Should he have been the leader of a team that had a core of established stars? Finishing second to the 39 Yankees isn't exactly something to be ashamed of anyway. That is one of the great teams in the history of the game.

[yanks0714]

and Gehrig is only a notch below him and his defensive value is higher, plus he carried his teams to championships even without Ruth

Gehrig was at best an average defensive player.
Plus I think Gehrig is more than 1 notch below Ted in hitting.

Which seasons did Gehrig lead his teams to championships even without Ruth? Seems to me that Ruth was there until 1934. The Senators won the Al in 1933 and the Tigers in 1934 AND 1935 when Ruth was gone from the Yanks.
Then in 1936 a guy named Joe DiMaggio joined Lou Gehrig to lead the Yankees.

I could conceivably say that Lou Gehrig never won an AL Pennant or WS without Ruth or DiMaggio around to help him.

[yanks0714]

Well, it looks like Teddy Ballgame has this one won....unfortunately.

Hopefully, those who voted for Ted hop over onto the Hank Aaron bandwagon for round 6.

Ted Williams ahead of Aaron and Speaker.
:grouchy :crazy ;)

[Mariano_Rivera]

I voted for Oscar Charleston and would have voted for Teddie Ballgame next. Oh well

[Minstrel]

Which carries a lot of weight but not enough to put him in the top 5 imo. I think having him in the top 5 overrates his tremendous hitting and undervalues other aspects;

I don't agree; all the aspects aren't equal in value in terms of winning games. Hitting is by far more important than all other aspects, and fielding is significantly more important than base-running or throwing.

Williams being the second-best hitter is a bit like saying a quarterback is the second-best passer ever (but wasn't much of a scrambler). He was second-best at by far the biggest part of his job.

[EvanAparra]

But having 5 HOF on a team, and finishing 2nd makes me question Ted's ability to win.

Why doesn't it make you question Foxx or Grove?

[Myankee4life]

Why doesn't it make you question Foxx or Grove?

They were proven winners. Winning 3 consecutive pennants and 2 world titles from 1929-1932.

[EvanAparra]

They were proven winners. Winning 3 consecutive pennants and 2 world titles from 1929-1932.

On better teams. You blame Ted for them not winning in '39, but Foxx and Grove were on the team as well. That doesn't make sense at all.

[Myankee4life]

On better teams. You blame Ted for them not winning in '39, but Foxx and Grove were on the team as well. That doesn't make sense at all.

Im not really making it a big deal. But I know it couldnt be Foxx or Grove because they had won before. If they had done it before, why couldnt they again? They dont shoulder the blame for me. Neither does Ted. But if I had to point fingers it would be directed at Ted.

[Ubiquitous]

So you wouldn't blame Eldon Auker and his 5.36 ERA? Or Joe Vosmik's anemic .276 batting average? Or the New York Yankees being one of the greatest teams of all time?

[EvanAparra]

Im not really making it a big deal. But I know it couldnt be Foxx or Grove because they had won before. If they had done it before, why couldnt they again? They dont shoulder the blame for me. Neither does Ted. But if I had to point fingers it would be directed at Ted.

So one person has to take the blame for a team not making the world series? Ted Williams had a .327/.436/.609 line, with 145 RBIs, as a 20-yr old rookie. Oh, and .373/.616/.800 with RISP. How about 'Late and Close' -- .404/.562/.936. How could you possibly even THINK about pointing a finger at Ted for finishing 17 games behind the Yankees that year?

[AlecBoy006]

We need Foxx soemwhere on the top ten list.

[Myankee4life]

So you wouldn't blame Eldon Auker and his 5.36 ERA? Or Joe Vosmik's anemic .276 batting average? Or the New York Yankees being one of the greatest teams of all time?

They weren't integral parts of the team.

[Myankee4life]

So one person has to take the blame for a team not making the world series? Ted Williams had a .327/.436/.609 line, with 145 RBIs, as a 20-yr old rookie. Oh, and .373/.616/.800 with RISP. How about 'Late and Close' -- .404/.562/.936. How could you possibly even THINK about pointing a finger at Ted for finishing 17 games behind the Yankees that year?

I worded it wrong. One player doesn't make or break a team. But a team with so many HOF'mers should be able to take on Joe D.

[EvanAparra]

They weren't integral parts of the team.

A starting pitcher and starting right fielder never are.

[Ubiquitous]

Actually it is a starting pitcher and a left fielder.

The Red Sox outside of Grove didn't really have a great or good pitching staff, and Grove didn't even get the most starts. Eldon did.

1939 Ted's rookie season he played right field. Joe played left and was well below mediocre.

[EvanAparra]

I worded it wrong. One player doesn't make or break a team. But a team with so many HOF'mers should be able to take on Joe D.

You didn't word it wrong. You said you blame Ted over anyone else, in more than one post.

You say one player doesn't make a team, and then you say that all they had to take on is Joe D. ?????

What about Joe Gordon, Charlie Keller, George Selkirk, Red Rolfe, Bill Dickey, Red Ruffing, and Lefty Gomez? Not all HOFers, but all had outstanding seasons that year.

[EvanAparra]

Actually it is a starting pitcher and a left fielder.

1939 Ted's rookie season he played right field. Joe played left and was well below mediocre.

Good catch, I had forgotten about that.

[Ubiquitous]

It isn't simply taking on JoeD either. You had Bill Dickey, Joe Gordon, Keller, Rolfe, Lefty Gomez, and Red Ruffing. There is a reason the 1939 team is considered one of the best if not the best team of all time. Much like the 1998 Yankees team they practically had all star level or better players for each position and spot in the rotation.

[Myankee4life]

You didn't word it wrong. You said you blame Ted over anyone else, in more than one post.

You say one player doesn't make a team, and then you say that all they had to take on is Joe D. ?????

What about Joe Gordon, Charlie Keller, George Selkirk, Red Rolfe, Bill Dickey, Red Ruffing, and Lefty Gomez? Not all HOFers, but all had outstanding seasons that year.

I said "if" I had to point a finger, it would fall on Ted. So thats IF. Then I said that one player doesn't make a team. Which would mean I wouldnt blame a finger at anyone. I picked Joe D because he is by far the best and most famous player on that team. Not neccesarily because he WAS the only reason they won. A team composed of Grove, Foxx, Williams had to take on Joe D. Thats what I meant; in regards to the most recognizable names.

[yanks0714]

I don't agree; all the aspects aren't equal in value in terms of winning games. Hitting is by far more important than all other aspects, and fielding is significantly more important than base-running or throwing.


I can agree with this 100%. BUT....Ted's hitting gets him in the Top 10 in my book. Almost all of his value is from hitting and that is why I don't have him in my Top 5.