Max Carey

[Sockeye]

Does Max Carey deserve to be in the hall of fame?

Please consider all aspects of his game and put fourth your best argument one way or another.

[leecemark]

--Terrific defensive CFer. One of the best base stealers of all time, leading the league 10 times (and 2nd 3 more) with great percentages. His 107 OPS+ is a little low for a Hall of Fame outfielder, but its very OBP heavy - and with his baserunning that made him an ecellent leadoff man. Sustianed a high level of play for a long time. You can make a pretty good case that he was a better version of Richie Ashburn.

[jalbright]

To amplify Mark's point, he has a rather good offensive winning percentage of .593 and was a heck of a glove man to supplement it, and did this all for a very long time. In a Hall with 200+ major leaguers in it, I think he qualifies.

[Paul Wendt]

In his rookie season manager Fred Clarke was at the end as a player; Tommy Leach was not hitting (on his way out of Pittsburgh but he made a comeback). Carey played more than either one but they were the most regular LF and CF. Retrosheet has posted the daily records and the season splits for that league. Someone may discern a pattern.
1911 Pittsburgh Pirates at Retrosheet (http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/1911/TPIT01911.htm). Select "Daily" or "Splits" from the team page or any player page.
add: Left-hand pitching was low in 1911, especially in the NL --almost 20%, AL almost 25%.

Cap'n Clarke retired as a player and used Carey in leftfield where he led all league outfielders in putouts for two of the four seasons remaining in Clarke's tenure. Under Jimmy Callahan and others beginning 1916, Carey played center and led the league in putouts seven times --in all 7 of 10 seasons when he played about 90% of the games. Left was "second center" at Forbes Field but I suppose Clarke overrated it, maybe because he played there himself.

Clarke in leftfield led all outfielders in putouts 1909, the first season for Forbes Field. He didn't play many 90% seasons at the old park, and I don't remember reading anything about its characteristics either. But he is universally regarded as an excellent outfielder, one of the best to play mainly left. (?Second to Jimmy Sheckard by fielding win shares per inning?)

Carey was shipped out of Pittsburgh after a rebellion against Clarke in 1926 (management in the dugout?).
He succeeded Uncle Robby as manager in Brooklyn, "succeeding" for only two seasons, and later managed in the AAGPBL.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Carey is in the HOF because at the time of his enshrinement, he was the NL career leader in stolen bases. Carey was, from all I have read, viewed as a star in his time, and would have played in a number of ASGs if there was such a thing while he was active.

Whether Carey should be in the HOF depends entirely on the quality of his defense. His fielding stats are very good; he had extraordinary range factors (although his fielding percentage is only about league average). But how good was very good in his case?

If Carey was among the greatest of defensive center fielders, I'll say "yes, he belongs". If he's only "very good", well, he's no better than borderline. All in all, I have problems with Max Carey being in the HOF and Tim Raines not being in.

[Paul Wendt]

Tim Raines wasn't eligible until this year. How about Dale Murphy, a mainly centerfielder?

Carey was elected at age 71 and his successor Lloyd Waner at age 61, so there is another perspective from which Carey waited too long.

[jalbright]

Max Carey gets a "A+" defensive grade in the Win Shares book, which is the highest possible. That's particularly impressive because players decline from their best level of defense. This suggests Carey was always an A+ fielder, and that at times he was even better than that, if possible.

Bill James tells a version of the 1926 Pittsburgh player rebellion in his Guide to Baseball Managers, pp 83-84. Carey as captain spoke for what he thought were many of the players regarding a messy situation where current coach and vice president/former manager Fred Clarke was on the bench as well as current manager Bill McKechnie. There apparently was some idea Clarke wanted to return to managing. In any event, he was loudly critical of McKechnie and some players, which wasn't appreciated by at least some of the players, who went to the owner seeking to have Clarke removed from the bench. Clarke went ballistic and wanted the complainers removed and carried the day. Since Carey had been front and center representative of however many complainers there truly were, he went packing. Perhaps Carey shouldn't have done what he did, but after that incident, teams never again had front office types on the bench, as the incident highlighted a danger of doing so.

Raines belongs, but he's not been shut out permanently, at least not yet

[Sockeye]

Max Carey is a player that is extremely borderline IMO. I don't see very many HOF caliber seasons from him. He was a consistantly good hitter but was never great. By all accounts an extremely good defensive centerfielder. His RF was .60 above league average. His FP was .03 above league average. No doubt his speed had a lot to do with his defensive ability. 159 triples and 738 steals are also a good indication of his speed. In the seasons where caught stealing was kept track of he was 385/477 an 80.7% success rate.

His batting average was .285 only 6 points above the league average during his career. His did have a good eye and drew a lot of walks. His OBP of .361 was 21 points above league average. He had at best average power (probably slightly below average). His SLG of .386 was 5 points above the league SLG for his career but that is due in large part to his triples total which were more a result of speed than power.

This brings to mind the question...If Max Carey belongs then why not Kenny Lofton?

STAT....Carey.....Lofton

Runs.....1545......1528
Hits......2665......2428
2B.........419........383
3B.........159........116
HR..........70........130
RBI........800........781
SB.........738........622
SB%......80.7?.....79.5
Walks....1040.......945
TB........3612......3433
RC........1339......1386
AVG........+6........+28
OBP.......+21....... +30
SLG........+5..........-6
OPS+.....107........107
FP........+.03.........00
RF........+.60......+.46

[jjpm74]

This brings to mind the question...If Max Carey belongs then why not Kenny Lofton?

Did you bother reading any of the comments in this thread about Carey's defense? He's a lot better than Lofton could ever hope to be.

[b]STAT....Carey.....Lofton

Runs.....1545......1528
Hits......2665......2428
2B.........419........383
3B.........159........116
HR..........70........130
RBI........800........781
SB.........738........622
SB%......80.7?.....79.5
Walks....1040.......945
TB........3612......3433
RC........1339......1386
AVG........+6........+28
OBP.......+21....... +30
SLG........+5..........-6
OPS+.....107........107
FP........+.03.........00
RF........+.60......+.46

Carey wins out here in 10 offensive categories over Lofton plus the defensive skill that made him one of the best, if not the best defensive outfielder in the history of the game.

Just out of curiosity, why start a thread about a guy's HOF worthiness if you're just going to ignore everyone's input but your own?

[KCGHOST]

I really don't have a problem with him being in the HoF. He's not Top Tier but he isn't a "mistake" either.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Max Carey is a player that is extremely borderline IMO. I don't see very many HOF caliber seasons from him. He was a consistantly good hitter but was never great. By all accounts an extremely good defensive centerfielder. His RF was .60 above league average. His FP was .03 above league average. No doubt his speed had a lot to do with his defensive ability. 159 triples and 738 steals are also a good indication of his speed. In the seasons where caught stealing was kept track of he was 385/477 an 80.7% success rate.

His batting average was .285 only 6 points above the league average during his career. His did have a good eye and drew a lot of walks. His OBP of .361 was 21 points above league average. He had at best average power (probably slightly below average). His SLG of .386 was 5 points above the league SLG for his career but that is due in large part to his triples total which were more a result of speed than power.

This brings to mind the question...If Max Carey belongs then why not Kenny Lofton?

The only possible justification for Carey and not Lofton is an extreme defensive advantage, coupled with the fact that Carey's career was a little longer.

We could substitute Brett Butler and Amos Otis and have a similar discussion.

Carey was, for his career, roughly equivilent to Butler, Otis, and Lofton on offense, if one goes by Offensive Winning Percentage, so it's gotta be the glove that puts him over.

[Fuzzy Bear]

A better question would be: If Max Carey, why not Dom DiMaggio?

Dom DiMaggio was superior to Carey on offense, and the same type of defensive player; he had a fielding percentage a wee bit above league average, but absolutely tremendous range factors.

Dom's career was short, but, like his brother Joe, he's missing 3 prime years of his career due to WWII. Indeed, given that Dom missed ages 26, 27, and 28 to military service, that's a HUGE hole out of his career.

I believe that Dom DiMaggio was a superior player to Max Carey, and I believe that Carey's election, while not the end of the world, was a minor mistake by the voters.

[Sockeye]

Did you bother reading any of the comments in this thread about Carey's defense? He's a lot better than Lofton could ever hope to be.

Better defensively? Quite possibly. "a lot better than Lofton could ever hope to be"? I find that quite hard to believe and impossible for you to prove. Defense is a very difficult aspect to quantify. Lofton was not exactly chopped liver in the outfield. He was well above average himself.





Carey wins out here in 10 offensive categories over Lofton plus the defensive skill that made him one of the best, if not the best defensive outfielder in the history of the game.

Carey has a very slight edge in most of the counting numbers. The point I was making is that the numbers are so similar that they were basically the same player. It's hard to support Carey and not Lofton. Carey was a great defensive OFer but I highly doubt he was the best in the history of the game!!

Just out of curiosity, why start a thread about a guy's HOF worthiness if you're just going to ignore everyone's input but your own?

The whole idea of starting a thread is to spark debate. If everyone agrees then there is no debate. Why is it that you can't accept a difference of opinion? I've not ignored what everyone has said. I'm just not willing to blindly accept a few opinions as fact without requiring some more evidence.

[westsidegrounds]

An outstanding fielder at a skill position,a fine hitter, and an insanely good base stealer - possibly the most effective base stealer of all time (e.g. 51 SB/ 2* CS in 1922).


*Yes, that's correct - a total of two CS that season.

[Sockeye]

An outstanding fielder at a skill position,a fine hitter, and an insanely good base stealer - possibly the most effective base stealer of all time (e.g. 51 SB/ 2* CS in 1922).


*Yes, that's correct - a total of two CS that season.

Kind of makes you wonder what happened in 1915 when he stole 36 while being caught 17 times.

[jjpm74]

The whole idea of starting a thread is to spark debate. If everyone agrees then there is no debate. Why is it that you can't accept a difference of opinion? I've not ignored what everyone has said. I'm just not willing to blindly accept a few opinions as fact without requiring some more evidence.

I can and do accept a difference of opinion. It's nice to see you actually address someone when they question your choices or reasoning for a change instead of ignoring them.

[Sockeye]

I can and do accept a difference of opinion. It'd just be nice to see you actually address someone when they question your choices or reasoning for a change instead of ignoring them.

Perhaps I would if my choices weren't the only ones being questioned and it was once in a while instead of every single time.

[westsidegrounds]

Kind of makes you wonder what happened in 1915 when he stole 36 while being caught 17 times.

experience?

[jalbright]

That will be quite enough of the personal back and forth, gentlemen. Please don't go there. If I have to revisit this request, I promise I won't be so nice next time. I truly hope that it won't be necessary.

[Sockeye]

experience?

Maybe...it sure would be nice if we had caught stealing totals for his other 12 seasons. His first 5 seasons are missing as are his last 4. If it was lack of experience then I suspect his caught stealing numbers would have been higher during his first 5 seasons than during his early 30's. Usually SB % declines in a players mid to late 30's. If either or quite possibly both are true In Carey's case then his SB % would be lower than the 80.7% estimate. Possibly in the 75-78% range for his career. Still a very good number but not quite as impressive as 80%.

[Seattle1]

I vote yes. Just look at all those SBs.

[Sockeye]

I vote yes. Just look at all those SBs.

Vince Coleman and Arlie Latham anyone?

[Cowtipper]

Re: the Max Carey/Kenny Lofton discussion

According to the Similarity Scores, Lofton is Carey's fifth most similar player, and Carey is Lofton's seventh most similar player.

I don't really agree with the statement that "[Carey is] a lot better than Lofton could ever hope to be [defensively]." Lofton won four Gold Gloves four years in a row, so his defense was pretty notable as well.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Vince Coleman and Arlie Latham anyone?

Carey was an infinitely better offensive player than Vince Coleman; his Offensive Winning Percentage for his career was over 100 points higher than Coleman's. Vince Coleman is to stolen bases what Dave Kingman is to home runs.

On defense, Carey's edge on Coleman is so huge as to be laughable.

Latham's OWP is 100 points lower than Carey's; you'd have to assign a huge value to Latham's defense at third to assert his superiority.

[Paul Wendt]

The only possible justification for Carey and not Lofton is an extreme defensive advantage, coupled with the fact that Carey's career was a little longer.

We could substitute Brett Butler and Amos Otis and have a similar discussion.

Carey was, for his career, roughly equivilent to Butler, Otis, and Lofton on offense, if one goes by Offensive Winning Percentage, so it's gotta be the glove that puts him over.
At 15.8 full seasons equivalent games, Carey played 2 (butler) to 3.5 (otis) more seasons in the field; he is about 38th among all players 1871-2007. But he played less than 70% of his games in center, and 1 to 2 seasons less than the trio. All four played less than one-half season at dh/ph/pr so the restriction to fielding games makes little difference.

His A+ career grade and associated career rates are super, especially because they are career averages. I'm not sure that considering the time in left supports extra credit. It isn't unprecedented to spend one-third time in a corner and finish at A+ (see Fielder Jones) and left in Forbes Field was second center.

Sabrmetricians Bill James and Clay Davenport agree that Butler was ordinary in the field. Davenport sees Carey as excellent rather than super; Otis and Lofton ordinary rather than super. "Ordinary" is rough, of course; it is also for centerfielders only. I would have guessed that ordinary in center is about what Bill James grades B+. James gives B+ to Butler (and Steve Finley thru 2001, fyi); A+ to Carey, Otis, and Lofton thru 2001.

--
Dom DiMaggio - another great one in center. Bill James gives A+ and Davenport clearly agrees, super. With only 12k innings in the outfield vs 21k for Carey (7th, 1876-2001), Dom needs double credit for his military service time.

[jjpm74]

Just out of curiosity, I was wondering what book(s) have the letter grade for fielding? I have the new baseball abstract and a few other books from Bill James and have found them all to be a complete waste of time. Is the Win Shares book useful?

[Paul Wendt]

Just out of curiosity, I was wondering what book(s) have the letter grade for fielding?
Win Shares pages 137-154, for everyone with 5000 innings at a position. (Pitcher is not a position. Outfield is one. 2b and 3b are three each, essentially early, transition, and recent.)

I have the new baseball abstract and a few other books from Bill James and have found them all to be a complete waste of time. Is the Win Shares book useful?
Maybe you need an answer from someone who found them all to be a complete waste of time.

[jjpm74]

Maybe you need an answer from someone who found them all to be a complete waste of time.

The books of his I didn't find useful and a waste of my time were New Baseball Abstract, and Whatever Happened to the Hall of Fame? (two different editions). Both basically contained a lot of fluff and some basic writing about each decade in baseball that anyone with the time can research and get a better picture of on their own. The two books of his that look like they may be helpful as reference guides to me are The BILL JAMES GUIDE TO BASEBALL MANAGERS: From 1870 to Today and his Win Shares book.

[jalbright]

I like pretty much all of James' work (not to say it's perfect, because it clearly isn't, like his view of the 19th century), so that colors my view. The managers book is excellent IMO, and the Win Shares book isn't as good a read because a lot of it is about the nuts and bolts of how the system is set up and works, but it does have a lot of valuable information. Of course, if you're not much into stathead methods, it's not a book for you.

[Sockeye]

Re: the Max Carey/Kenny Lofton discussion

According to the Similarity Scores, Lofton is Carey's fifth most similar player, and Carey is Lofton's seventh most similar player.

I don't really agree with the statement that "[Carey is] a lot better than Lofton could ever hope to be [defensively]." Lofton won four Gold Gloves four years in a row, so his defense was pretty notable as well.

Yes, considering Bill James gives Kenny Lofton a A+ defensively that statement regarding Carey being a lot better than Lofton could ever hope to be is very intriging. I would again ask jjpm74 to elaborate as to why he believes such a thing to be true.

[Sockeye]

Carey was an infinitely better offensive player than Vince Coleman; his Offensive Winning Percentage for his career was over 100 points higher than Coleman's. Vince Coleman is to stolen bases what Dave Kingman is to home runs.

On defense, Carey's edge on Coleman is so huge as to be laughable.

Latham's OWP is 100 points lower than Carey's; you'd have to assign a huge value to Latham's defense at third to assert his superiority.

Obviously neither player deserves any serious consideration for the HOF. But a blanket statement that Carey has a lot of stolen bases and thus deserves to be in the HOF makes little sense to me. If stolen bases were all that mattered then Coleman or Latham should be in the HOF as well.

[Paul Wendt]

Of course, Bill James in Win Shares is missing the last seven seasons.

Fielding skill commonly declines with age but that isn't automatic. Clay Davenport rates Lofton average for his career in centerfield, climbing to average from below, as a journeyman 2002-2005. I am skeptical but not dismissive.

[Sockeye]

A few other numbers worth noting when comparing Carey to Lofton.

Stat....Lofton....Carey

EQA...... .285.... .272
WARP3...98.6.....89.5
BRAR.......544.....476
FRAR.......324.....295

[Fuzzy Bear]

Obviously neither player deserves any serious consideration for the HOF. But a blanket statement that Carey has a lot of stolen bases and thus deserves to be in the HOF makes little sense to me. If stolen bases were all that mattered then Coleman or Latham should be in the HOF as well.

Carey, however, was an all-around player, with a skill base that went beyond stealing basis.

The other thing I note about Max Carey is that he was very much considered a star in his own time. While I realize that the opinion of a player's contemporaries is subjective, and often biased, there is something to be said for a player whose peers thought him a major star, as opposed to a player who was not determined to be a great player until the completion of a research project.

Carey is a borderline HOFer, and I wouldn't have voted for him, but I also realize that there's something to the fact that I'm in the minority here in terms of Carey's "greatness". Perhaps some of that is due to the fact that Carey has already been inducted to the HOF, but Rabbit Maranville has also been inducted (and by the BBWAA, no less), and there are people here who can't wait to rip out his plaque.

[AG2004]

The only possible justification for Carey and not Lofton is an extreme defensive advantage, coupled with the fact that Carey's career was a little longer.

We could substitute Brett Butler and Amos Otis and have a similar discussion.

Carey was, for his career, roughly equivilent to Butler, Otis, and Lofton on offense, if one goes by Offensive Winning Percentage, so it's gotta be the glove that puts him over.

Actually, there are two gigantic differences between Carey and Lofton on offense.

(1) Carey was an everyday player, more or less, while Lofton missed a considerable number of games when he was playing.

(2) If you were to look at Lofton's year-by-year splits at retrosheet, you would see exactly why Lofton missed so many games each season. His teams were trying to minimize his PAs against lefties, and maximize his PAs against right-handed pitchers. For most of his career, Lofton was platooned.


Here's how Carey and Lofton compare in win shares measures.

Career win shares
Carey: 351
Lofton: 279

Best three seasons
Carey: 84 (85 with season length adjustment for 1918/19)
Lofton: 72 (79 with season length adjustment for 1994/95)

Best five consecutive seasons
Carey: 133
Lofton: 114 (125 with season length adjustment for 1994/95)

Number of seasons with 20+ win shares
Carey: 11
Lofton: 7

For OWP, OPS+, and other rate stats, Lofton suffers no penalty in relation to Carey for being a platoon player for most of his career. For win shares, however, Lofton's platoon status does make a difference. Lofton earned 0 win shares for all the time he spent on the bench, so the extra games Carey played do make a difference.

Max Carey won 11 Win Share Gold Gloves, while Lofton won just 2 WSGGs. Bill James uses total fielding win shares in the outfield to determine who earned, so all the games that Lofton missed kept him from earning a few more WSGGs.


A few other numbers worth noting when comparing Carey to Lofton.

Stat....Lofton....Carey

EQA...... .285.... .272
WARP3...98.6.....89.5
BRAR.......544.....476
FRAR.......324.....295


One of the more common criticisms of the BP system that appear in Baseball Think Factory's Hall of Merit discussions is that it appears to unduly penalize NL players from the 1910s. Since Carey was an NL player from this era, BP probably underrates him. If we knew exactly how BP transforms WARP1 to WARP3, we would know whether the penalty truly is excessive - but we don't have the formula, so we can't tell where the problem (if there is one) exists.

I prefer the Win Shares system over the BP formulas, and the fact that the WS formula is available for public analysis is one important reason for my preference. WS says Carey was superior to Lofton, and I'm inclined to agree with it.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Actually, there are two gigantic differences between Carey and Lofton on offense.

(1) Carey was an everyday player, more or less, while Lofton missed a considerable number of games when he was playing.

(2) If you were to look at Lofton's year-by-year splits at retrosheet, you would see exactly why Lofton missed so many games each season. His teams were trying to minimize his PAs against lefties, and maximize his PAs against right-handed pitchers. For most of his career, Lofton was platooned.


These differences are not, IMO, as gigantic as the author of this post indicates.

Firstly, the second statement above is debatable, at best. The Retrosheet data for Carey is incomplete, so we don't have his total record of ABs vs right and left.

Lofton has 6,028 ABs vs. RHP and 2,078 vs. LHP. That's a 3 to 1 ratio, which is about average. Lofton had a "platoon drag"; he hit .304 vs. RHP and .284 vs. LHP. His OBP was .375 vs. RHP, .361 vs. LHP. The big difference in Lofton vs. LHP was that most of his power came against RHP; his SLG was .440 vs. RHP, .367 vs. LHP.

That "platoon drag", however, is well within normal limits. Such a drag does not render a player a "platoon player"; Lofton retained most of his effectiveness vs. lefties. And having 3 times more ABs against RHP than LHP is NORMAL for a player. Jimmy Rollins, who plays every day, against everybody, has 3,494 ABs vs. RHP and 1,219 ABs vs. LHP. That's a little less than 75% of your ABs against RHP, but Lofton can make the same claim. There is no evidence at all that supports the idea that Kenny Lofton is a "platoon player". He missed time with injuries, but he was never platooned in his career, except MAYBE at the very, very end.

[leecemark]

--I agree the platoon plalyer statement is off base. That Lofton tended to miss more time in his seasons than Carey is true though. In season durability is a significant advantage for Carey.

[AG2004]

These differences are not, IMO, as gigantic as the author of this post indicates.

Firstly, the second statement above is debatable, at best. The Retrosheet data for Carey is incomplete, so we don't have his total record of ABs vs right and left.

Comment 2 doesn't say anything about Carey. Comment 1, however, says that Carey was an everyday player, while Lofton wasn't. We don't need to know Carey's ABs against righties and lefties to determine this; we just need to look at the games played totals.

Between 1912 and 1924, Carey was essentially a full-time player. There's a dip from 1918 to 1920, but two of those years can be explained. The 1918 season was cut short; Carey played just 126 games that year, but that's how many games the team played. It's also a matter of record that Carey missed much of 1919 due to a severe injury.

Now here are Lofton's GP from 1995 to 2002:

118, 154, 122, 154, 120, 137, 133, 139

The 1995 season was short, but teams were scheduled for 144 games, so Lofton missed a lot of games that year. Those seasons were right in the middle of Lofton's career, and he missed a lot of games in six of them. Lofton wasn't an everyday player.

Lofton has 6,028 ABs vs. RHP and 2,078 vs. LHP. That's a 3 to 1 ratio, which is about average. Lofton had a "platoon drag"; he hit .304 vs. RHP and .284 vs. LHP. His OBP was .375 vs. RHP, .361 vs. LHP. The big difference in Lofton vs. LHP was that most of his power came against RHP; his SLG was .440 vs. RHP, .367 vs. LHP.

That "platoon drag", however, is well within normal limits. Such a drag does not render a player a "platoon player"; Lofton retained most of his effectiveness vs. lefties. And having 3 times more ABs against RHP than LHP is NORMAL for a player. Jimmy Rollins, who plays every day, against everybody, has 3,494 ABs vs. RHP and 1,219 ABs vs. LHP. That's a little less than 75% of your ABs against RHP, but Lofton can make the same claim. There is no evidence at all that supports the idea that Kenny Lofton is a "platoon player". He missed time with injuries, but he was never platooned in his career, except MAYBE at the very, very end.

I mentioned that, if you looked at the year-by-year splits, you'd see the reason. You've mentioned Lofton's career splits, but haven't addressed the main point.

Let's look at how he did once he got established in the majors.

1992: 148 games, 454 AB vs. RHP/122 vs. LHP
1993: 148 games, 374/195
1994: 112 games, 290/169 (full schedule of games due to strike)
1995: 118 games, 335/146
1996: 154 games, 427/235
1997: 122 games, 341/152
1998: 154 games, 412/188
1999: 120 games, 349/116
2000: 137 games, 420/123
2001: 133 games, 399/118
2002: 139 games, 423/109
2003: 140 games, 412/133
2004: 83 games, 250/26
2005: 110 games, 321/46
2006: 129 games, 385/84
2007: 136 games, 396/94

During his Cleveland years, the RHP/LHP ratio when Lofton missed a lot of games was substantially different than the same ratio when Lofton was an everyday player. When Lofton played elsewhere, he had more than three times as many ABs against RHPs than he did against LHPs.

The games played totals indicate that Lofton wasn't an everyday player. The season-by-season splits show why that was the case. Taken together, they are evidence that, for most of his career, Lofton was being platooned. Since Carey's games played totals indicate that he was an everyday player for most of his career, we do have a significant difference between him and Lofton.

[Sockeye]

Comment 2 doesn't say anything about Carey. Comment 1, however, says that Carey was an everyday player, while Lofton wasn't. We don't need to know Carey's ABs against righties and lefties to determine this; we just need to look at the games played totals.

Between 1912 and 1924, Carey was essentially a full-time player. There's a dip from 1918 to 1920, but two of those years can be explained. The 1918 season was cut short; Carey played just 126 games that year, but that's how many games the team played. It's also a matter of record that Carey missed much of 1919 due to a severe injury.

Now here are Lofton's GP from 1995 to 2002:

118, 154, 122, 154, 120, 137, 133, 139

The 1995 season was short, but teams were scheduled for 144 games, so Lofton missed a lot of games that year. Those seasons were right in the middle of Lofton's career, and he missed a lot of games in six of them. Lofton wasn't an everyday player.



I mentioned that, if you looked at the year-by-year splits, you'd see the reason. You've mentioned Lofton's career splits, but haven't addressed the main point.

Let's look at how he did once he got established in the majors.

1992: 148 games, 454 AB vs. RHP/122 vs. LHP
1993: 148 games, 374/195
1994: 112 games, 290/169 (full schedule of games due to strike)
1995: 118 games, 335/146
1996: 154 games, 427/235
1997: 122 games, 341/152
1998: 154 games, 412/188
1999: 120 games, 349/116
2000: 137 games, 420/123
2001: 133 games, 399/118
2002: 139 games, 423/109
2003: 140 games, 412/133
2004: 83 games, 250/26
2005: 110 games, 321/46
2006: 129 games, 385/84
2007: 136 games, 396/94

During his Cleveland years, the RHP/LHP ratio when Lofton missed a lot of games was substantially different than the same ratio when Lofton was an everyday player. When Lofton played elsewhere, he had more than three times as many ABs against RHPs than he did against LHPs.

The games played totals indicate that Lofton wasn't an everyday player. The season-by-season splits show why that was the case. Taken together, they are evidence that, for most of his career, Lofton was being platooned. Since Carey's games played totals indicate that he was an everyday player for most of his career, we do have a significant difference between him and Lofton.

There is a big difference between giving a player a day off from time to time against a tough lefty and being a platoon player. I believe you are confusing the two. Lofton did have some injury problems during his career that caused him to miss some games. Again that is different than him being platooned due to not being affective vs lefties. Carey was a switch hitter so he had a little advantage there. Lofton's splits are surprisingly even. Lefties usually hit righties better and vice versa. Most of the time they are a lot more uneven than Lofton's splits. The fact that Lofton's slugging was down vs LHP doesn't mean very much. He was a lead off hitter and not paid to hit home runs. He was paid to get on and steal bases. He did that nearly as well against lefties as righties.

Max Carey was healthier and played more games during his career. But even then though the numbers aren't all that different. Kenny Lofton had 520+ plate apperances in a season 14 times. Max Carey had 520+ plate apperances in a season 14 times. During those 14 seasons Lofton had an OPS+ of 100 or above 12 times. Carey had an OPS+ of 100 or above 13 times. In the Lofton's other two full seasons his OPS+ was 89 & 95. Carey's other full season he put up a 90 OPS+.

You brought up the difference in win shares. Max Carey with 351 compared to Kenny Lofton with 290. That difference is mostly a result of the difference in games played. Carey 2476, Lofton 2103. If you look at WS/G Lofton averaged 1 win share every 7.25 games to Carey's 1 every 7.05 games played. A very slight advantage for Carey. Less than a 3% difference in WS production.

I won't say that Lofton was a better player than Carey. I'd give an ever so slight edge to Carey. My point has always been and remains very sinple. These two players are extremely close to one another. It's hard to imagine how Max Carey is a clear cut HOFer while Lofton doesn't deserve any support. Even if Max Carey is right on the HOF boarderline (as I suspect he is) and Kenny Lofton is one very small step behind him (as he might be). I could understand a 10 or 15% gap between them, but 90% support for Carey and perhaps 5% support for Lofton seems far to wide of a gap for these two players.

[Paul Wendt]

A few other numbers worth noting when comparing Carey to Lofton.

Stat....Lofton....Carey

EQA...... .285.... .272
WARP3...98.6.....89.5
BRAR.......544.....476
FRAR.......324.....295

All of those statistics correspond to WARP3, so the differences incorporate Clay Davenport's estimated difference in league quality. If Davenport gives 120 rating to the leagues where Lofton played and 80 rating to the ones where Carey played, then Carey is discounted one-third relative to Lofton.

Here is the WARP1 version which rates both players in their own leagues.

Stat....Lofton....Carey

EQA...... .277 ... .285
WARP3.... 77.0 .. 141.6 (games)
BRAR...... 454 .... 645 (runs)
FRAR...... 241 .... 644 (runs)

The three latter statistics are measured relative to league replacement level, as estimated by Davenport, which is further below average for Carey than for Lofton (advantage Carey). Measured relative to league average, the net for Carey above Lofton is only 250 runs, below, rather than 600 runs, above.

BRAA..... 182 ... 318 - batting runs above average
FRAA........ 9 ... 125 - fielding runs above average
(As I said, Davenport rates Lofton average in center.)
("Batting" (B) Runs incorporate baserunning.)

Carey played 373 games more than Lofton, more than one-sixth of Lofton's career. Carey was a regular player for 18 years, Lofton for 16. But Lofton missed a lot more games, enough to finish more than two full season behind despite the greater number of games played by his leagues (career advantage Lofton, about 60 games iicc).

[Paul Wendt]

There is a big difference between giving a player a day off from time to time against a tough lefty and being a platoon player. I believe you are confusing the two.
His teams were not "platooning" in centerfield and he was not a "platoon player" iiuc. At a glance it does look like more than "a day off from time to time against a tough lefty" but only a detailed analysis can say.
Kenny Lofton had 520+ plate apperances in a season 14 times. Max Carey had 520+ plate apperances in a season 14 times.
Why 520? Perhaps you mean 502, the modern threshold to qualify for the batting title. 3.1 PA per game scheduled would be 477 in most of [Carey's] seasons.
Of course PA is not a good basis for equating seasons.
You brought up the difference in win shares. Max Carey with 351 compared to Kenny Lofton with 290. That difference is mostly a result of the difference in games played. Carey 2476, Lofton 2103. If you look at WS/G Lofton averaged 1 win share every 7.25 ga351/mes to Carey's 1 every 7.05 games played. A very slight advantage for Carey. Less than a 3% difference in WS production.

I won't say that Lofton was a better player than Carey. I'd give an ever so slight edge to Carey. My point has always been and remains very sinple. These two players are extremely close to one another. It's hard to imagine how Max Carey is a clear cut HOFer while Lofton doesn't deserve any support. Even if Max Carey is right on the HOF boarderline (as I suspect he is) and Kenny Lofton is one very small step behind him (as he might be). I could understand a 10 or 15% gap between them, but 90% support for Carey and perhaps 5% support for Lofton seems far to wide of a gap for these two players.
Most people who accept the nearly 3% difference in rate will see a notable difference, closer to the 20% that career win shares estimates, considering that Carey played two more years and his seasons were more complete. About 370 games is three years for Lofton in the latter decade of his career; accounting for the different lengths of seasons ... about 440 games, is three years for Lofton in his prime.

The closer Carey is to "borderline" the more likely a notable difference between them puts Lofton clearly below borderline, which is sufficient to explain no support for the HOF. If Carey were at Tris Speaker's level, on the other hand, then a merely "notable difference" between himself and Lofton would justify no difference support for the HOF.

By the way I doubt that Carey and Lofton have 90% and 5% support for the Hall of Fame. I'm not sure they have 80% and 2%?

[Paul Wendt]

Max Carey gets a "A+" defensive grade in the Win Shares book, which is the highest possible. That's particularly impressive because players decline from their best level of defense. This suggests Carey was always an A+ fielder, and that at times he was even better than that, if possible.
That is strictly true if James does rely strictly on career fielding win shares per inning. But he has calibrated the A+ category against careers, presumably in order to find a number of A+ fielders (at 5000 innings?) that seems appropriate to him. Curt Flood seems to be off the charts and Andruw Jones is way off the charts. If I recall correctly Jimmy McAleer is off the charts. That is suspicious because Flood and McAleer did not play out normal declines (Flood by his choice; McAleer because he couldn't hit) and James captured only the first third of Jones's career to be.

[Sockeye]

His teams were not "platooning" in centerfield and he was not a "platoon player" iiuc. At a glance it does look like more than "a day off from time to time against a tough lefty" but only a detailed analysis can say.

Why 520? Perhaps you mean 502, the modern threshold to qualify for the batting title. 3.1 PA per game scheduled would be 477 in most of Lofton's seasons.
Of course PA is not a good basis for equating seasons.

Most people who accept the nearly 3% difference in rate will see a notable difference, closer to the 20% that career win shares estimates, considering that Carey played two more years and his seasons were more complete. About 370 games is three years for Lofton in the latter decade of his career; accounting for the different lengths of seasons ... about 440 games, is three years for Lofton in his prime.

The closer Carey is to "borderline" the more likely a notable difference between them puts Lofton clearly below borderline, which is sufficient to explain no support for the HOF. If Carey were at Tris Speaker's level, on the other hand, then a merely "notable difference" between himself and Lofton would justify no difference support for the HOF.

By the way I doubt that Carey and Lofton have 90% and 5% support for the Hall of Fame. I'm not sure they have 80% and 2%?

According to this poll his current support is at 86%. Not sure what Lofton's would be. You might be right. It could be more like 2%. Either way it is a far wider gab than it should be.

3% difference in productivity is very small. Lets say Carey played the same amount of games as Lofton his win shares over that span would be 298. An 8 win share difference. A very small number. That leads me to believe the bigger difference in the two players is the counting totals. Those counting totals aren't all that large. Carey didn't reach any major milestones. The biggest difference among the two are the hits total. Carey 2665, Lofton 2428. Lofton had a better batting average both overall and when compared to league average. Carey batted .285 to the leagues .279, Lofton batted .299 to the leagues .271. Carey was a bit of a compiler. His OPS+ his last 4 seasons were 58, 90, 74, 81. Lofton's OPS+ last season was 105
Carey had a little better peak, Lofton maintained his ability longer. Lofton also had the very best single season between the two players ('94 - 144 OPS+)

[leecemark]

--Not sure why you think the degree of support should be closer? Pretty much everythign shown has Carey as the better player. Not a vastly better player maybe, but clearly so. The line has to be drawn somewhere and it appears most of us are comfortable drawing it between these two players. Carey is amoung the worst CFers in Cooperstown (although clearly not THE worst - see the Lloyd Waner thread). Lofton is amoung the best CFers outside Cooperstown (although again not THE best).
--There may be Cfers better than Carey (Berger, Murphy, Hines?) who missed the boat and there is at least one worse than Lofton (Waner strikes again) who is indudcted. There are always going to be errors of both commission and ommision in a subjective selection process. Carey is clearly not regarded as an error of commission though and Lofton is not going to be regarded as an error of ommission when he doesn't make it.

[Paul Wendt]

Carey was a bit of a compiler. His OPS+ his last 4 seasons were 58, 90, 74, 81. Lofton's OPS+ last season was 105.
Carey had a little better peak, Lofton maintained his ability longer.
I'm not sure about the latter. Lofton was sitting against tough lefties, or suffering injuries, by the middle of his career on the calendar.

On the first point, I've argued that Carey played about three more seasons measured in Lofton's typical playing time. Call it 18 years to 16 on the calendar, 19 to 16 in Lofton time. Those last four seasons by Carey include the 19-game finale that I didn't count, as I didn't count Lofton's 20-game debut. So those last four seasons represent what we will chop off the end of Carey's career if we equalize playing time. . . .
Now OPS+ 113, up from 107, for Carey in his first 16 years, measured in Lofton time (http://www.baseball-reference.com/friv/scomp.cgi?I=careyma01:Max+Carey&st=int&compage=35&age=35)
(averages .290 .365 .395; 2092 games)
(By the way, that covers the decade in centerfield, after Fred Clarke, which I mentioned above. Five calendar years mainly in left; ten in center.)

[AG2004]

There is a big difference between giving a player a day off from time to time against a tough lefty and being a platoon player. I believe you are confusing the two.

There's also a big difference between having a day off "from time to time" and missing one out of every eight games your team plays. Lofton missed a lot of games in 1995, and missed a lot of games in 1997, and missed a lot of games each year from 1999 to 2007.

Lofton did have some injury problems during his career that caused him to miss some games. Again that is different than him being platooned due to not being affective vs lefties.

From 1992 to 2007, Lofton had sixteen seasons in the majors (I'm not counting the cup of coffee in 1991). In just five of those years, Lofton was playing a full schedule. In the other 11 seasons, Lofton sat out at least 20 of his team's games. That's more than just missing "some" games.

Carey was a switch hitter so he had a little advantage there. Lofton's splits are surprisingly even. Lefties usually hit righties better and vice versa. Most of the time they are a lot more uneven than Lofton's splits. The fact that Lofton's slugging was down vs LHP doesn't mean very much. He was a lead off hitter and not paid to hit home runs. He was paid to get on and steal bases. He did that nearly as well against lefties as righties.

When he was playing, yes. But he wasn't playing against LHP very much during the second half of his career. The bulk of his ABs against southpaws came early in his career, and thus the damage caused by his decline phase is limited in that regard. Since he wasn't going up against them that often, his career rate stats couldn't fall very fast. However, his splits against RHPs include his decline phase.

Max Carey was healthier and played more games during his career. But even then though the numbers aren't all that different. Kenny Lofton had 520+ plate apperances in a season 14 times. Max Carey had 520+ plate apperances in a season 14 times. During those 14 seasons Lofton had an OPS+ of 100 or above 12 times. Carey had an OPS+ of 100 or above 13 times. In the Lofton's other two full seasons his OPS+ was 89 & 95. Carey's other full season he put up a 90 OPS+.

Paul Wendt asked, "Why 520? Perhaps you mean 502, the modern threshold to qualify for the batting title. 3.1 PA per game scheduled would be 477 in most of Lofton's seasons."

No, Sockeye means 520. Lofton had 523 ABs in 1994, 529 ABs in 1995, and 522 ABs in 2006. By using 520 PAs instead of 530, Sockeye can count all those seasons, and thus help Lofton's case. Carey had 12 seasons with 600+ PAs, while Lofton had only seven such seasons -- and I've seen other people use the 600-PA standard.

Carey also had 11 seasons with 20+ win shares, while Lofton had just 7 (these numbers don't change even if you adjust for shorter seasons in 1918/19 and 1994/95). Since I've found that the general cutoff for Hall of Famers is in the neighborhood of eight such seasons, that's a significant advantage for Carey.

You brought up the difference in win shares. Max Carey with 351 compared to Kenny Lofton with 290. That difference is mostly a result of the difference in games played. Carey 2476, Lofton 2103. If you look at WS/G Lofton averaged 1 win share every 7.25 games to Carey's 1 every 7.05 games played. A very slight advantage for Carey. Less than a 3% difference in WS production.

Depending on how you measure peak, Carey's peak was between 6 and 8 percent better than Lofton's.

Also, after 17 seasons, Carey had played 2205 games and had earned 331 win shares; Lofton had played all his games and earned all 290 of his win shares. Carey's overall total was 114% of Lofton's mark. Carey had averaged 1 win share every 6.66 games during that time - and that's a difference of about 8%.

So Carey had an 8% advantage over Lofton in win share production in their first 17 years in the majors -- and Carey also had three more years in the majors (admittedly, he contributed very little in that last year).

The length of a decline phase can affect rate stats to a significant degree, and it is something that should be kept in mind when comparing players.

3% difference in productivity is very small. Lets say Carey played the same amount of games as Lofton his win shares over that span would be 298. An 8 win share difference. A very small number.

At the end of the 1925 season, Carey had played 2092 games (Lofton had played 2103 games in career). At that point, Carey had earned 326 win shares. That's a difference of 36 win shares. If you use Lofton's 290 win shares as your base, that's a 12% difference in productivity.

That leads me to believe the bigger difference in the two players is the counting totals.

Did you ever consider that you erred in assuming that Carey's productivity stayed constant during his career, rather than dropping of in his final seasons (as it actually did)?

Carey was a bit of a compiler. His OPS+ his last 4 seasons were 58, 90, 74, 81. Lofton's OPS+ last season was 105.

On the other hand, Lofton had 1352 ABs against righties in his last four seasons, and just 250 ABs against southpaws during that time span. Platooning did help Lofton's OPS+.

Carey had a little better peak, Lofton maintained his ability longer. Lofton also had the very best single season between the two players ('94 - 144 OPS+)

Lofton had 21 win shares in 1994, which comes out to 30 per 162 scheduled games. Carey had two seasons of 29 win shares. Considering that WS may slightly underrate top fielders (Max Carey won WSGGs in both of those 29-win share years, while Lofton wasn't among the top five OFs in the AL in defensive win shares in 1994), and that rounding error could take place, it's essentially a draw between the two for the honor of "best season."

But here are the top five seasons for each player by win shares, adjusted for season length.

Carey: 29-29-27-26-25
Lofton: 30-25-24-23-23

Advantage, Carey.

Carey was clearly better than Lofton. The closest career/peak combination to Carey seems to be Richie Ashburn, who is in both Cooperstown and the BBFHOF. The closest comparisons to Lofton are Brett Butler, Dom DiMaggio (with war credit), and Amos Otis, who aren't Hall of Famers.

I'm not surprised the gap between Carey and Lofton for the BBFHOF is as large as it is, since most people draw the border somewhere between Carey/Ashburn and Lofton/Butler/Otis.

[Paul Wendt]

Two items from AG:
>>
When he was playing, yes. But he wasn't playing against LHP very much during the second half of his career. The bulk of his ABs against southpaws came early in his career, and thus the damage caused by his decline phase is limited in that regard. Since he wasn't going up against them that often, his career rate stats couldn't fall very fast. However, his splits against RHPs include his decline phase.
<<

If he was on the bench against tough lefties, then he faced below-average lefties.
(Only a look at the details can resolve that "if" but even Wade Boggs ultimately sat against some lefties.)

>>
Paul Wendt asked, "Why 520? Perhaps you mean 502, the modern threshold to qualify for the batting title. 3.1 PA per game scheduled would be 477 in most of Lofton's seasons."
<<

Oops. Of course I meant Carey's seasons: 477 for Carey ~ 502 for Lofton on a per-game-scheduled basis.
I have corrected it above.
PA per game scheduled is not a great measure of fullness of season. If they were both leadoff batters, then their shares of team-season PAs would be a good basis.

[Sockeye]

So 85% of people believe that Max Carey deserves to be in the HOF?

[AG2004]

So 85% of people believe that Max Carey deserves to be in the HOF?

I'm not surprised. Carey is in the BBFHOF, and he was a first-ballot electee in our Progressive Hall, so over three-quarters of the people here believe he's deserving of the Hall of Fame.

Also, the player who's most comparable to Carey -- Richie Ashburn -- is also in the Hall of Fame. Baseball-reference doesn't list Ashburn among Carey's top ten most comparable players, but the closest match to Carey in peak and career win shares among center fielders is Ashburn.

Think about it. They're relatively close in OPS+ (Carey 107, Ashburn 111), with Carey making up some of the gap with his baserunning. They were both great defensive outfielders; both earned letter grades of A+ from Bill James for their outfield play. Both ended up with 32 points of black ink, and they're close in gray ink (Ashburn 156, Carey 148). Neither had a season with 30 win shares, but they both hit 29, and, since win shares underestimates the top defenders just a little, I'm giving them credit for getting an MVP-candidate-type season. Furthermore, both had exactly eleven seasons with 20+ win shares.

Both Ashburn and Carey became major league regulars at age 21. Ashburn retired after age 35. Carey probably should have; his OPS+ plummeted from from 125 at age 35 to 58 at age 36, and never went higher than 90 again. (Incidentally, Ashburn is fifth among Carey's list of comparables through the age of 35.) With the exception of 1919, when Carey had a bad case of the flu, Carey rarely missed games; Ashburn, too, would play in nearly all of his team's games.

Is Ashburn deserving of the Hall of Fame? If so, Carey is; if not, Carey isn't. I just don't see much difference between the two; nobody was more similar to Ashburn than Carey, and vice versa. However, I do see a significant difference between Carey and Lofton -- enough to make one a deserving Hall of Famer and the other a deserving "no" vote.

[Sockeye]

I'm not surprised. Carey is in the BBFHOF, and he was a first-ballot electee in our Progressive Hall, so over three-quarters of the people here believe he's deserving of the Hall of Fame.

Also, the player who's most comparable to Carey -- Richie Ashburn -- is also in the Hall of Fame. Baseball-reference doesn't list Ashburn among Carey's top ten most comparable players, but the closest match to Carey in peak and career win shares among center fielders is Ashburn.

Think about it. They're relatively close in OPS+ (Carey 107, Ashburn 111), with Carey making up some of the gap with his baserunning. They were both great defensive outfielders; both earned letter grades of A+ from Bill James for their outfield play. Both ended up with 32 points of black ink, and they're close in gray ink (Ashburn 156, Carey 148). Neither had a season with 30 win shares, but they both hit 29, and, since win shares underestimates the top defenders just a little, I'm giving them credit for getting an MVP-candidate-type season. Furthermore, both had exactly eleven seasons with 20+ win shares.

Both Ashburn and Carey became major league regulars at age 21. Ashburn retired after age 35. Carey probably should have; his OPS+ plummeted from from 125 at age 35 to 58 at age 36, and never went higher than 90 again. (Incidentally, Ashburn is fifth among Carey's list of comparables through the age of 35.) With the exception of 1919, when Carey had a bad case of the flu, Carey rarely missed games; Ashburn, too, would play in nearly all of his team's games.

Is Ashburn deserving of the Hall of Fame? If so, Carey is; if not, Carey isn't. I just don't see much difference between the two; nobody was more similar to Ashburn than Carey, and vice versa. However, I do see a significant difference between Carey and Lofton -- enough to make one a deserving Hall of Famer and the other a deserving "no" vote.

Ashburn is indeed very similar to Carey and a good comparison. After looking at the stats more closely I now feel that Carey does belong in the HOF while Lofton does fall a little short of the HOF line. I find a more interesting comparison to Carey to now be Carlos Beltran. Both being excellent defensive CFers and great baserunners. I believe that Carey gets the proper respect he deserves but Beltran for some reason does not.

[Paul Wendt]

Based on what I know, which is very little about fans perceptions of active players, Beltran is underappreciated. I wonder whether he is judged primarily as a power hitter because (a) he burst into most consciousness with some October homeruns for Houston, (b) some fans don't equate the three outfield positions anyway.

Johnny Damon isn't as good as Beltran but many fans do overlook how much baseball he has played, and thus underrate him in a way.

There may be other oft-overlooked KC Royals from the two decades since Brett and Bret were in their primes but I don't know any. ;)

[Brad Harris]

There may be other oft-overlooked KC Royals from the two decades since Brett and Bret were in their primes but I don't know any. ;)
Jermaine Dye, Jeff Montgomery, Kevin Appier, David Cone, and Mike Sweeney. Depending on how you count, you might throw Danny Tartabull in there too.