1901 NL vs. AL

[SavoyBG]

I keep reading in various threads where a couple of posters insist that the AL was stronger than the NL in the first few years of the AL's existence. I also see this figure that is being thrown around claiming that 70% of the players in the 1900 NL jumped to the AL for the 1901 season. This is totally untrue. In fact, it was the AL in 1901 that was not quite a major league yet.


Here are all of the players who had at least 18 win shares in the 1900 NL, listed by which league they were in during the 1901 season.

1901 AL
Jimmy Collins
Joe McGinnity
Fielder Jones
Clark Griffith
Sam Mertes
Jimmy Barrett
Win Mercer
Pink Hawley
Nap Lajoie
Cy Young
John McGraw

1901 NL
Bill Dineen
Bill Hamilton
Kid Nichols
Brickyard Kennedy
Willie Keeler
Joe Kelley
Bill Dahlen
Frank Kitson
Jake Beckley
Noodles Hahn
Kip Selbach
George Van Haltren
George Davis
Elmer Flick
Roy Thomas
Ed Delahanty
Al Orth
Honus Wagner
Deacon Phillippe
Jesse Tannehill
Sam Leever
Fred Clarke
Jesse Burkett

Of the top 34 players in the 1900 season, only 11 of them were in the AL in 1901 (32%), while 23 of them (68%) were still in the NL in 1901.

Can we please stop with this ridiculous contention that the NL was the weaker league at this time?

The AL may have been the stronger league in the 1910-1920 period, when they won 9 of 11 world series, with one of the losses being 1919, but in the 1901-1909 period it's clear that if either league was stronger, it was the NL.


P.S. - The 1900 NL could arguably be called the league with the best overall talent ever, since it was the only season since the real early days of baseball where there was only one eight team major league. All of the best players were crowded into one small league. The league leader in win shares that year was Honus Wagner, even though he played mainly in RF and did not play any SS that season. Lajoie and Cy Young each had huge seasons in 1901 in a weak AL, which was probably closer to a top level minor league that year than a major league.

[Paul Wendt]

I keep reading in various threads where a couple of posters insist that the AL was stronger than the NL in the first few years of the AL's existence. I also see this figure that is being thrown around claiming that 70% of the players in the 1900 NL jumped to the AL for the 1901 season.
That is a very specific factual claim. Probably it would be better to reply in context by quotation.

Here are all of the players who had at least 18 win shares in the 1900 NL, listed by which league they were in during the 1901 season.
This is a good application of the win shares rating system. Bill James would be pleased to see that someone has presented this work in a public forum.

Clearly it pertains to 1901 only. On the other hand the claim about AL superiority (paraphrase underlined above) is vague, although "first few years" is clear enough to say that analysis of 1901 can only be a start toward addressing it.

Commonly "a few" is three or four. Why not consider four seasons, the time before the National League first won the world championship series? and perhaps more appropriately, the time before the two leagues established a championship series between their pennant winners?


Of the top 34 players in the 1900 season, only 11 of them were in the AL in 1901 (32%), while 23 of them (68%) were still in the NL in 1901.

Can we please stop with this ridiculous contention that the NL was the weaker league at this time?

The AL may have been the stronger league in the 1910-1920 period, when they won 9 of 11 world series, with one of the losses being 1919, but in the 1901-1909 period it's clear that if either league was stronger, it was the NL.
It's clear? What happened between 1909 and 1910? To me that is another hat to hang on the hook of conventional "decades"

[leecemark]

Of the top 34 players in the 1900 season, only 11 of them were in the AL in 1901 (32%), while 23 of them (68%) were still in the NL in 1901.

--8 of those 23 moved to the AL in 1902, giving the new league the majority. To suggest that your evidence from 1901 establishes anything about which league was superior over the course of the decade is wildly offbase. Anything it may prove would apply only to that one season.

[SavoyBG]

Of the top 34 players in the 1900 season, only 11 of them were in the AL in 1901 (32%), while 23 of them (68%) were still in the NL in 1901.

--8 of those 23 moved to the AL in 1902, giving the new league the majority. To suggest that your evidence from 1901 establishes anything about which league was superior over the course of the decade is wildly offbase. Anything it may prove would apply only to that one season.

But McGinnity and McGraw were back in the NL in mid-02, and Hawley retired after '01, so by the end of the '02 season it was still a slight majority for the NL, 17 to 16. Then Mertes was back in the NL in '03.

The point is, it's not true at all that 70% of the NL players went to the AL after the 1900 season. I've seen this claim made a few times here, most recently in the "Ty Cobb Discussion" thread.

I think it's clear that the NL had to have been a stronger league than the AL in 1901, at least, and from 1902 through 1909 or so, it was either a bit stronger than the AL, or roughly equal to it. I've seen several posts on this site that are claiming that the AL was stronger than the NL in those years, as if it's some kind of accepted fact or something.

Lajoie didn't lead the AL in hitting in 1901 by 86 points because the league was stronger than the NL that year. He did that because the league was clearly much weaker than the 1900 NL where Lajoie had hit about 90 points lower in the prior year.

Lajoie and Young totally dominated the 1901 AL, each leading in TPR by almost double the next player, ands each topping 40 win shares while only a couple of other players even got into the low 30s in win shares.

By contrast, the TPR leaders in the 1901 NL were all closely bunched together with nobody dominating, and with several NL players bunched between 32 and 38 win shares that year.

[yanks0714]

But McGinnity and McGraw were back in the NL in mid-02, and Hawley retired after '01, so by the end of the '02 season it was still a slight majority for the NL, 17 to 16. Then Mertes was back in the NL in '03.

The point is, it's not true at all that 70% of the NL players went to the AL after the 1900 season. I've seen this claim made a few times here, most recently in the "Ty Cobb Discussion" thread.

I think it's clear that the NL had to have been a stronger league than the AL in 1901, at least, and from 1902 through 1909 or so, it was either a bit stronger than the AL, or roughly equal to it. I've seen several posts on this site that are claiming that the AL was stronger than the NL in those years, as if it's some kind of accepted fact or something.

Lajoie didn't lead the AL in hitting in 1901 by 86 points because the league was stronger than the NL that year. He did that because the league was clearly much weaker than the 1900 NL where Lajoie had hit about 90 points lower in the prior year.

Lajoie and Young totally dominated the 1901 AL, each leading in TPR by almost double the next player, ands each topping 40 win shares while only a couple of other players even got into the low 30s in win shares.

By contrast, the TPR leaders in the 1901 NL were all closely bunched together with nobody dominating, and with several NL players bunched between 32 and 38 win shares that year.

I was glad to see your posts. I've long felt that the 'AL was the stronger league' a fallacy. Yes, the NL wasn't as strong as it had been before. But only because the AL came to formation and some players jumped from NL to Al.

That it is also used to denigrate or minimize Honus Wagner's achievements in a manner of speaking. You show that his league was not arguably weaker allowing him to dominate easier. He dominated because he had more talent and utilized that talent to set himself apart.

If anyone should be 'docked', it's Lajoie, not Wagner.

[SavoyBG]

I was glad to see your posts. I've long felt that the 'AL was the stronger league' a fallacy. Yes, the NL wasn't as strong as it had been before. But only because the AL came to formation and some players jumped from NL to Al.

That it is also used to denigrate or minimize Honus Wagner's achievements in a manner of speaking. You show that his league was not arguably weaker allowing him to dominate easier. He dominated because he had more talent and utilized that talent to set himself apart.

If anyone should be 'docked', it's Lajoie, not Wagner.

In 1900 the NL was probably at its strongest ever up to that point since there was no other major league and there were only 8 teams after there had been 12 teams the prior year. The league would probably not be that strong again for quite a while. The best player in the NL in 1900 was Honus Wagner, and he did that while playing mostly RF and not playing SS at all.

[leecemark]

--I don't think anyone would argue that the NL was not still the stronger league in 1901. That it remained so by the next year or the rest of the decade is another story. It is also important to note that of the top players who remained in the NL a disporportionate amount stayed with one team - the Pirates. The Pirates total domination in 1902 was due largely to their retaining virtually all of their players while the competiton was watered down significantly.