Is Timelining Necessary?

[Brad Harris]

Recently I have been questioning the wisdom of "timelining" when assessing players across history. I am a strong believer in "a pennant won is a pennant won" and judging players in the context of their own times. When comparing two players, however, with roughly the same value against their peers, I give the nod to the one who played more recently in almost every case.

Curious what people's thoughts on timelining are and whether or not "era adjustments" are necessary. I've seen valuation methods that take league strength into account. Are era adjustments just a short cut for making league-strength adjustments?

I think few people would question that today's athletes are stronger or faster, that they have better training aids available and can stay healthier longer, that fields and equipment are superior across-the-board, that creature comforts and air travel give players an advantage over their predecessors, or that a substantially larger pool of potential talent is available to draw on. I don't see how anyone can argue that all these factors point towards a higher caliber of play.

However, should any of those have a bearing on whether or not the best player in 2009 is "greater" than the best player in 1909?

[Railsplitter]

Recently I have been questioning the wisdom of "timelining" when assessing players across history. I am a strong believer in "a pennant won is a pennant won" and judging players in the context of their own times. When comparing two players, however, with roughly the same value against their peers, I give the nod to the one who played more recently in almost every case.

Curious what people's thoughts on timelining are and whether or not "era adjustments" are necessary. I've seen valuation methods that take league strength into account. Are era adjustments just a short cut for making league-strength adjustments?

I think few people would question that today's athletes are stronger or faster, that they have better training aids available and can stay healthier longer, that fields and equipment are superior across-the-board, that creature comforts and air travel give players an advantage over their predecessors, or that a substantially larger pool of potential talent is available to draw on. I don't see how anyone can argue that all these factors point towards a higher caliber of play.

However, should any of those have a bearing on whether or not the best player in 2009 is "greater" than the best player in 1909?

This is something that I struggle with all the time when evaluating two players of different era's. I think that you have to compare each player to the players of his time before comparing him to others. You also can't fault a player for not having the amenities of today's game.

But on the other hand, I think that you have to consider the talent pool of each era. Obviously, before 1947 the league consisted of primarily white Americans and in today's game, there are Asians, Hispanics, African-Americans, etc. In the book, Baseball Between the Numbers, they have a graph that shows the talent pool in millions for each decade. In 1910, the pool was less than 100 million and today that pool is over 700 million.

I'm interested to see what others have to say on this subject

[mwiggins]

In the book, Baseball Between the Numbers, they have a graph that shows the talent pool in millions for each decade. In 1910, the pool was less than 100 million and today that pool is over 700 million.



I'd be curious to see an analysis on how the number of pitchers used by major league teams today vs. 1910 compares with the increase in the talent pool.

For example, 6 pitchers pitched 92% of the innings for the 1910 Pirates. Whereas for the 2008 Pirates, 18 pitchers pitched 92% of their innings, and their top 6 in innings threw only 56% of their innings.

In the 1910 NL there were 89 pitchers who pitched 10+ innings, and 56 who pitched 50+ innings. The 2008 NL had 306 pitchers who pitched 10+ innings, and 172 pitchers who pitched 50+ innings. Despite only twice as many teams in 2008, the 2008 NL used around 3.5 times as many pitchers than in 1910.

With expansion nearly doubling the number of teams, competition from other sports that weren't really around in 1910, and the increased amount of pitchers used by today's teams; has the talent pool really increased that much more than the demand?

[leecemark]

--I am not really concerned about the size, stentgh and speed differences. If I were my timline would be much steeper. What I am concerned with is the depth of the talent pool and the degree of difficulty in separating from it. The higher OPS+ and ERA+ from earlier eras suggest it was easier to dominate in the old days and I do discount some for that. OTOH we have seen a return of dominant relative numbers over the past 10-15 years and that may (or may not) suggest that the depth of the talent pool is not as great as it once was and the ease of domination has risen.

[Brad Harris]

Can we really argue that Tris Speaker shouldn't be "as great" as he was because opposing teams didn't include blacks or (hardly ever) latinos?

Isn't that kind of argument already a part of any adjustments for the quality of play in the league (i.e. how hard it was to dominate?) Or is that a separate consideration?

[BigRon]

Recently I have been questioning the wisdom of "timelining" when assessing players across history. I am a strong believer in "a pennant won is a pennant won" and judging players in the context of their own times. When comparing two players, however, with roughly the same value against their peers, I give the nod to the one who played more recently in almost every case.

Curious what people's thoughts on timelining are and whether or not "era adjustments" are necessary. I've seen valuation methods that take league strength into account. Are era adjustments just a short cut for making league-strength adjustments?

I think few people would question that today's athletes are stronger or faster, that they have better training aids available and can stay healthier longer, that fields and equipment are superior across-the-board, that creature comforts and air travel give players an advantage over their predecessors, or that a substantially larger pool of potential talent is available to draw on. I don't see how anyone can argue that all these factors point towards a higher caliber of play.

However, should any of those have a bearing on whether or not the best player in 2009 is "greater" than the best player in 1909?

One thing that is rarely mentioned is the apparent assumption that today's player, somehow magically transported back to 1900 or 1930, somehow would retain all of the advantages over his "ancient" counterparts, e.g. height, low body fat, strength from weight training, enhanced health from good nutrition, extended careers from advanced medical techniques, etc.

One could argue- in fact I would- that if an elite player from today- say, Alex Rodriguez- was born in 1895 and began his ML career around 1915 or so, he would be no more than 6' 1" tall instead of 6'3", due to a combination of the fact that each succeeding generation gets taller and better nutrition increases body height/weight- he very likely would have a different BMI- he would not be as strong- he would not work out year around- he would be prone to injuries/diseases that are avoided or cured today.

On the other hand, the player born in 1895- say, Babe Ruth-if born in 1975- would probably be at least 6-4 instead of 6-2, would have and maintain a playing weight of about 230 lean, muscled pounds for most of his career- would work out year around- and would take advantage of all the benefits of modern day science, nutrition, training, etc.

If you think about the problem in this way, the physical issues become background noise.

The issue of normalization of performance, however, remains relevant. It's been well documented that performance extremes become smaller and less frequent as the activity matures. Therefore it is certainly plausible to discount in some way the extremes of performance that were seen many years ago.

I won't argue that timeline adjustment is bogus, but I think it is often overstated and misused.

[Railsplitter]

The higher OPS+ and ERA+ from earlier eras suggest it was easier to dominate in the old days and I do discount some for that.

That's why I think that standard deviations should be used instead of OPS+ and ERA+. That will tell you really how much better than the league a player truly is

[SHOELESSJOE3]

One thing that is rarely mentioned is the apparent assumption that today's player, somehow magically transported back to 1900 or 1930, somehow would retain all of the advantages over his "ancient" counterparts, e.g. height, low body fat, strength from weight training, enhanced health from good nutrition, extended careers from advanced medical techniques, etc.

One could argue- in fact I would- that if an elite player from today- say, Alex Rodriguez- was born in 1895 and began his ML career around 1915 or so, he would be no more than 6' 1" tall instead of 6'3", due to a combination of the fact that each succeeding generation gets taller and better nutrition increases body height/weight- he very likely would have a different BMI- he would not be as strong- he would not work out year around- he would be prone to injuries/diseases that are avoided or cured today.On the other hand, the player born in 1895- say, Babe Ruth-if born in 1975- would probably be at least 6-4 instead of 6-2, would have and maintain a playing weight of about 230 lean, muscled pounds for most of his career- would work out year around- and would take advantage of all the benefits of modern day science, nutrition, training, etc.

If you think about the problem in this way, the physical issues become background noise.

The issue of normalization of performance, however, remains relevant. It's been well documented that performance extremes become smaller and less frequent as the activity matures. Therefore it is certainly plausible to discount in some way the extremes of performance that were seen many years ago.

I won't argue that timeline adjustment is bogus, but I think it is often overstated and misused.

Thats always and still is my view on the subject.
If we transport a player back in time or transport a past player into todays game.......... neither moves forward or back "as is".

Todays player going back would have to be considered born in those past times, subject to his suroundings, not only on the field but as a person of that time.
Advancements in medicine, nutrition and a number of other factors, as they were back then.
On the field, training methods, surgery, equipment, used in those times compared to today. Some types of injury years ago ended careers, advancements in surgery now allow some player to resume their career.
How is it fair to move a player in time "as is", as you state he most likely wouild not be the same physically, I would think a great percentage would be different.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

On the other hand, the player born in 1895- say, Babe Ruth-if born in 1975- would probably be at least 6-4 instead of 6-2, would have and maintain a playing weight of about 230 lean, muscled pounds for most of his career- would work out year around- and would take advantage of all the benefits of modern day science, nutrition, training, etc.

I'm not sure about this. Ruth never seemed the type to take conditioning that serious only when he was really pushed to do it by his wife. I seriously doubt Ruth would be lean today. He had a body type that put on weight very easily. Plus with access to McDonalds, KCF, Burger King, Taco Bell, etc. I can more easily image Ruth blowing up and getting fat like Mo Vaughn, Cecil Fielder, John Kruk, David Ortiz, Boog Powell, etc.

[BigRon]

I'm not sure about this. Ruth never seemed the type to take conditioning that serious only when he was really pushed to do it by his wife. I seriously doubt Ruth would be lean today. He had a body type that put on weight very easily. Plus with access to McDonalds, KCF, Burger King, Taco Bell, etc. I can more easily image Ruth blowing up and getting fat like Mo Vaughn, Cecil Fielder, John Kruk, David Ortiz, Boog Powell, etc.

Anything is possible, and obviously we'll never know. However, I would like to try to clear up a common misconception- that Babe Ruth always was a big overweight guy.

I've seen quite a few, and have several, photos of Ruth as late as 1924- when he was 29 years old and in the prime of his career- that show him to be in very good condition. When Ruth first came to the Majors he was 6-2 and about 190 lbs. Even 9 years later I doubt that his weight was much above 210- can't prove that but pictures seem to indicate that. His moon face, even when he was a skinny kid, lends to the impression of him being fat.

Most publicized photos, and almost all film, of Ruth date from later in his career- probably 1927 and beyond- and a lot of that, I'd wager, after about 1930. By then Ruth clearly was considerably overweight and his training had fallen into decline.

Ruth was the greatest player of his time, very probably the greatest player of all time. Given the opportunity to make unbelievable sums of money today I think there's a very good chance that he would keep himself in pretty good shape, at least until late in his career.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Anything is possible, and obviously we'll never know. However, I would like to try to clear up a common misconception- that Babe Ruth always was a big overweight guy.
I know that he wasn't. He was lean in Boston. He actually reminds me of Lance Berkman body-wise in his Boston days.



I've seen quite a few, and have several, photos of Ruth as late as 1924- when he was 29 years old and in the prime of his career- that show him to be in very good condition. When Ruth first came to the Majors he was 6-2 and about 190 lbs. Even 9 years later I doubt that his weight was much above 210- can't prove that but pictures seem to indicate that. His moon face, even when he was a skinny kid, lends to the impression of him being fat.
Ruth was the classic over-eater like Elvis Presley many years late. Ruth loved to eat prodigious amounts of food. When one is young the body adapts. But once a person hits 30 or so all that food causes weight gain.



Most publicized photos, and almost all film, of Ruth date from later in his career- probably 1927 and beyond- and a lot of that, I'd wager, after about 1930. By then Ruth clearly was considerably overweight and his training had fallen into decline.
That's true. Most film of Ruth is later in his career with the Yankees.



Ruth was the greatest player of his time, very probably the greatest player of all time. Given the opportunity to make unbelievable sums of money today I think there's a very good chance that he would keep himself in pretty good shape, at least until late in his career.
Ruth made huge amounts on money in his day as well. I don't see money as a motivator for him to keep in shape. Many players today don't keep in shape even though they makes tens of millions of dollars. Just based on what I've read about Ruth he liked to eat a lot. And with today's easy access to high fat food I think he would have had weight problems in today's game.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

I'm not sure about this. Ruth never seemed the type to take conditioning that serious only when he was really pushed to do it by his wife. I seriously doubt Ruth would be lean today. He had a body type that put on weight very easily. Plus with access to McDonalds, KCF, Burger King, Taco Bell, etc. I can more easily image Ruth blowing up and getting fat like Mo Vaughn, Cecil Fielder, John Kruk, David Ortiz, Boog Powell, etc.

That is a possibility but again as I stated in my previous post, it was a very different world back then, not just the game of baseball. He could have been a very different person, different mind set maybe not going to St Mary's, maybe a foster home, growing up in a different manner.

We know much more about healthy and no so healthy eating habits today, would he take the advice, I don't know but he would at least be more aware.

I hate to open this up because there is no answer, would be no end to the............."what ifs", there could be no end.

My point is, Ruth or any other living in those times could have been a different thinking person today, better maybe worse.
We could even take a look at Cobb, what would he be like if born in later years, say 1950s-1980s, his attitude.

I certainly don't want to drag this one out even though I may have opened the door, only to say would past or present players think the same, change attitudes if born in another time.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

That is a possibility but again as I stated in my previous post, it was a very different world back then, not just the game of baseball. He could have been a very different person, different mind set maybe not going to St Mary's, maybe a foster home, growing up in a different manner.

I hate to open this up because there is no answer, would be no end to the............."what ifs", there could be no end.

My point is, Ruth or any other living in those times could have been a different thinking person today, better maybe worse.
We could even take a look at Cobb, what would he be like if born in later years, say 1950s-1980s, his attitude.

I certainly don't want to drag this one out even though I may have opened the door, only to say would past or present players think the same, change attitudes if born in another time.

I agree. Some have argued that if Ruth were born in the same body and same DNA in 1975 he still would be a fundamentally different person. He wouldn't have the same life experiences that the real Babe Ruth had in his childhood that made real Babe Ruth into the man that he became.

[BigRon]

I know that he wasn't. He was lean in Boston. He actually reminds me of Lance Berkman body-wise in his Boston days.


Ruth was the classic over-eater like Elvis Presley many years late. Ruth loved to eat prodigious amounts of food. When one is young the body adapts. But once a person hits 30 or so all that food causes weight gain.


That's true. Most film of Ruth is later in his career with the Yankees.


Ruth made huge amounts on money in his day as well. I don't see money as a motivator for him to keep in shape. Many players today don't keep in shape even though they makes tens of millions of dollars. Just based on what I've read about Ruth he liked to eat a lot. And with today's easy access to high fat food I think he would have had weight problems in today's game.

As I said, we'll never know. However, I'd like to pull this back to Brad's original question, and my earlier comment. Perhaps using Ruth as an example created some misdirection. My overall point was that players from today "transported" to an earlier time wouldn't look/act/play like they do now, and players from the past would have the advantages- greater size/strength included- of today's players.

[brett]

People get mixed up when discussing the issue of LQ. It has nothing to do with top athletes being physically superior today. It has to do with the fact that the average major leaguer in 1920 was much farther below the greats than the average player is today (and training/diet can help the average guy to compensate in that regard).

Training tends to decrease the standard deviation of sports performance because those who have less have more to gain.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

People get mixed up when discussing the issue of LQ. It has nothing to do with top athletes being physically superior today. It has to do with the fact that the average major leaguer in 1920 was much farther below the greats than the average player is today (and training/diet can help the average guy to compensate in that regard).

Training tends to decrease the standard deviation of sports performance because those who have less have more to gain.

Some truth in that but the time were speaking of was 70+ years ago and even the best did not train on the same level as the best or average player today.
I understand your point, the lower and middle would benefit more.
I'm comparing the training methods in general back then all players average and the best, no where near todays training.

If the best back then trained as they do today, they would most likely improve performance, not as much as the average but to some degree.

[Brad Harris]

So adjusting for era on the basis on changes to the physical abilities and playing conditions (we'll call them) of the day is a non-starter for me these days.

However I am curious how to factor in the talent pool. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, the Majors didn't have a particularly refined pipeline to finding and developing talent. Blacks and latinos didn't compose a substantial percentage of MLB players until the Sixties and Seventies. Since the Nineties, we've seen more sources of talent open up outside the Western Hemisphere. Is this automatically reflected in LQ and std adjustments?

It seems to me that an OPS+ of 150 in 1885 is not the same as an OPS+ of 150 in 1985. But how can that be expressed in player valuation?

[brett]

So adjusting for era on the basis on changes to the physical abilities and playing conditions (we'll call them) of the day is a non-starter for me these days.

However I am curious how to factor in the talent pool. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, the Majors didn't have a particularly refined pipeline to finding and developing talent. Blacks and latinos didn't compose a substantial percentage of MLB players until the Sixties and Seventies. Since the Nineties, we've seen more sources of talent open up outside the Western Hemisphere. Is this automatically reflected in LQ and std adjustments?

It seems to me that an OPS+ of 150 in 1885 is not the same as an OPS+ of 150 in 1985. But how can that be expressed in player valuation?

Well a lot of stat guys have gone toward looking at standard deviations. I don't like it for a single stat like BA, but for something like OPS+, a standard deviation might be 35 points, while in 1920 it might have been 45 points.
In fact the standard deviation of total offensive production stats tend to be a good estimator of league quality, though it runs into problems as well in certain cases.

MLB players are not normally distributed in production. The few players at the very top may not have a huge impact on the sd of the league.

I know this. If you assume that the black players in MLB in say 1960 were "average" and were replacing the lowest level white players on each team, then you get the average player's level rise by about 7.5 points! which would mean that the top guys OPS+'s might go down by about 7.5 PERCENT. A 160 would have been a 172 prior to integration, except that that assumes that players were equally better offensively and defensively etc. The bottom end player may not have been that low.

[CTaka]

One could argue- in fact I would- that if an elite player from today- say, Alex Rodriguez- was born in 1895 and began his ML career around 1915 or so, he would be no more than 6' 1" tall instead of 6'3", due to a combination of the fact that each succeeding generation gets taller and better nutrition increases body height/weight- he very likely would have a different BMI- he would not be as strong- he would not work out year around- he would be prone to injuries/diseases that are avoided or cured today.



I read somewhere that this ARod guy had hip surgery on March 19 and is expected to be back on the field on May 15.

OK, I suspect you all know that. But if ARod were playing in 1915, my non-medical opinion is that he would either be out a lot longer or, perhaps more likely, would continue to play but at levels well below his capabilities.

I agree that the modern player would be smaller and weaker if born in yesteryear due to the fact that later generations are bigger, less knowledge of nutrition, training, etc. But the vast improvements in medical procedures, knowledge and technology are often overlooked when comparing differences in eras. I agree it was easier for great players to separate from others in earlier eras than modern eras, but it must also be recognized that the differences would be even larger for yesterday's stars who had to play (at a lower level) through injury more frequently and more markedly than in a more modern era.

[AstrosFan]

I think the issue with timelining is the ease/difficulty of dominance factor. It was easier to separate from the average player in the old days.

Here are wOBA standard deviations and coefficents of variation from 1871-I forget which year. Somewhere from 2006 to 2008.

Sorted by standard deviation:


yearID lgID StDev CoefVar
1991 NL 0.02901 0.08533
1959 AL 0.02910 0.08358
1976 AL 0.02926 0.09041
1916 NL 0.02977 0.09498
1914 NL 0.02986 0.09351
1909 NL 0.02993 0.09615
1986 AL 0.03007 0.08777
1907 AL 0.03025 0.10204
2004 AL 0.03039 0.08458
1965 AL 0.03058 0.09332
1915 NL 0.03061 0.09855
1919 NL 0.03078 0.09773
1988 NL 0.03108 0.09511
1904 NL 0.03114 0.10045
1912 NL 0.03119 0.09141
1926 NL 0.03127 0.09105
1915 FL 0.03165 0.09637
1983 NL 0.03178 0.09591
1913 NL 0.03178 0.09722
1908 AL 0.03190 0.10653
1974 NL 0.03195 0.09460
1917 NL 0.03207 0.10237
1978 AL 0.03212 0.09646
1989 AL 0.03214 0.09685
1945 AL 0.03227 0.09938
1982 NL 0.03241 0.09795
1985 AL 0.03247 0.09570
1952 NL 0.03259 0.09478
1955 AL 0.03270 0.09486
1992 AL 0.03279 0.09805
1977 AL 0.03307 0.09641
1990 AL 0.03315 0.09915
2005 AL 0.03317 0.09550
1984 NL 0.03324 0.09977
1963 AL 0.03342 0.10184
2006 AL 0.03347 0.09294
1952 AL 0.03348 0.09595
1907 NL 0.03381 0.11099
1905 AL 0.03384 0.11385
1981 AL 0.03397 0.10286
1910 NL 0.03401 0.10477
2003 AL 0.03406 0.09684
1949 AL 0.03407 0.09494
1908 NL 0.03408 0.11314
1980 NL 0.03413 0.10324
1946 NL 0.03421 0.10168
1962 AL 0.03430 0.10032
1911 NL 0.03456 0.10334
1986 NL 0.03480 0.10463
1990 NL 0.03480 0.10257
1968 NL 0.03486 0.10945
1984 AL 0.03490 0.10290
1974 AL 0.03491 0.10704
1960 AL 0.03495 0.10303
1939 NL 0.03498 0.09801
1983 AL 0.03505 0.10277
1960 NL 0.03508 0.10206
1956 NL 0.03513 0.10107
1918 NL 0.03515 0.11420
1950 AL 0.03517 0.09580
1979 AL 0.03527 0.10205
1906 AL 0.03540 0.11651
1973 NL 0.03547 0.10328
2007 NL 0.03548 0.09924
1947 AL 0.03556 0.10485
1987 AL 0.03567 0.10090
1978 NL 0.03573 0.10694
1947 NL 0.03584 0.10117
1970 AL 0.03593 0.10504
1980 AL 0.03595 0.10451
1973 AL 0.03597 0.10943
1977 NL 0.03602 0.10369
1998 AL 0.03608 0.10055
2007 AL 0.03641 0.10302
1903 AL 0.03656 0.11610
1904 AL 0.03672 0.12196
1991 AL 0.03678 0.10699
1975 NL 0.03684 0.10898
1920 NL 0.03701 0.11374
1993 NL 0.03706 0.10760
1982 AL 0.03713 0.10904
1906 NL 0.03722 0.12073
1940 NL 0.03726 0.10858
1966 AL 0.03727 0.11394
1968 AL 0.03746 0.11852
1985 NL 0.03746 0.11348
1917 AL 0.03748 0.11804
1891 NL 0.03773 0.11924
2002 AL 0.03774 0.10610
1992 NL 0.03779 0.10980
1962 NL 0.03779 0.10924
1987 NL 0.03795 0.10725
1966 NL 0.03795 0.11270
1951 AL 0.03798 0.10824
1993 AL 0.03806 0.10983
1942 NL 0.03809 0.11723
1938 NL 0.03812 0.11331
1995 NL 0.03819 0.10835
1901 AL 0.03820 0.11360
1943 AL 0.03824 0.11935
1979 NL 0.03826 0.11347
1981 NL 0.03834 0.11743
1886 AA 0.03844 0.12700
1943 NL 0.03846 0.11873
1975 AL 0.03854 0.11642
1948 AL 0.03861 0.10923
1971 AL 0.03862 0.11631
1941 NL 0.03870 0.11508
1916 AL 0.03879 0.12087
1995 AL 0.03886 0.10690
1888 AA 0.03895 0.13365
1963 NL 0.03901 0.11956
1923 NL 0.03929 0.11111
1914 AL 0.03929 0.12481
1945 NL 0.03932 0.11596
1999 NL 0.03937 0.10672
2005 NL 0.03937 0.11008
2001 AL 0.03937 0.11078
1964 AL 0.03942 0.11866
1964 NL 0.03945 0.11600
1893 NL 0.03952 0.11414
1903 NL 0.03956 0.11866
2006 NL 0.03956 0.10999
1927 NL 0.03959 0.11320
1953 AL 0.03976 0.11546
1967 AL 0.03977 0.12257
1933 NL 0.03980 0.12254
1889 AA 0.03988 0.12168
1918 AL 0.04003 0.12791
1965 NL 0.04003 0.11954
1931 NL 0.04005 0.11486
1935 AL 0.04007 0.11142
1958 NL 0.04011 0.11392
1890 NL 0.04017 0.12361
1910 AL 0.04021 0.12651
1921 NL 0.04030 0.11574
1909 AL 0.04033 0.12920
1883 AA 0.04038 0.14195
1999 AL 0.04043 0.11074
1951 NL 0.04043 0.11428
1971 NL 0.04044 0.12093
1882 NL 0.04051 0.13796
1989 NL 0.04052 0.12316
1969 AL 0.04057 0.12001
1988 AL 0.04058 0.12097
1902 NL 0.04058 0.13359
1892 NL 0.04073 0.13059
1976 NL 0.04073 0.12429
1997 NL 0.04093 0.11418
1950 NL 0.04107 0.11517
1938 AL 0.04108 0.11092
1890 PL 0.04111 0.11758
1932 NL 0.04157 0.11850
1953 NL 0.04159 0.11568
1972 AL 0.04161 0.13112
1972 NL 0.04166 0.12550
1944 AL 0.04168 0.12750
1942 AL 0.04179 0.12347
1935 NL 0.04196 0.12213
1915 AL 0.04205 0.13105
1997 AL 0.04217 0.11841
1905 NL 0.04218 0.13218
1887 NL 0.04222 0.12497
1898 NL 0.04231 0.12947
1934 NL 0.04234 0.12079
1889 NL 0.04246 0.13023
1902 AL 0.04246 0.12740
1925 NL 0.04250 0.11491
1925 AL 0.04257 0.11601
1897 NL 0.04271 0.11930
1913 AL 0.04276 0.12743
1967 NL 0.04280 0.12924
1940 AL 0.04298 0.12042
1954 NL 0.04312 0.12326
1937 AL 0.04318 0.11578
1883 NL 0.04339 0.14270
1957 NL 0.04344 0.12674
1899 NL 0.04349 0.12700
2000 AL 0.04356 0.11951
1954 AL 0.04357 0.12644
1969 NL 0.04364 0.12786
1914 FL 0.04368 0.13325
1936 NL 0.04380 0.12632
1996 AL 0.04385 0.11915
1919 AL 0.04390 0.13272
1996 NL 0.04413 0.12380
1888 NL 0.04415 0.15069
1887 AA 0.04424 0.13106
1955 NL 0.04429 0.12633
1959 NL 0.04431 0.12720
1998 NL 0.04432 0.12324
1880 NL 0.04434 0.16130
2000 NL 0.04452 0.12015
2003 NL 0.04461 0.12374
1874 NA 0.04466 0.15774
1900 NL 0.04474 0.13282
1948 NL 0.04480 0.12859
1922 NL 0.04482 0.12695
1994 NL 0.04492 0.12632
1939 AL 0.04498 0.12148
1994 AL 0.04500 0.12553
1891 AA 0.04504 0.13852
1885 AA 0.04508 0.15161
1896 NL 0.04511 0.12674
2004 NL 0.04519 0.12551
1949 NL 0.04527 0.12776
1946 AL 0.04545 0.13086
1924 AL 0.04547 0.12525
1958 AL 0.04551 0.13298
1937 NL 0.04554 0.13278
1929 NL 0.04556 0.12065
1961 NL 0.04562 0.12921
1929 AL 0.04595 0.12450
1961 AL 0.04600 0.13175
1944 NL 0.04608 0.13673
1884 AA 0.04609 0.15880
1911 AL 0.04629 0.13374
1890 AA 0.04643 0.14061
1926 AL 0.04649 0.12898
1881 NL 0.04650 0.15874
1928 AL 0.04662 0.12935
1936 AL 0.04668 0.12591
1884 NL 0.04679 0.15454
1970 NL 0.04683 0.13352
1932 AL 0.04774 0.13360
1885 NL 0.04781 0.15890
1956 AL 0.04790 0.13441
1882 AA 0.04796 0.17360
1933 AL 0.04837 0.13740
1921 AL 0.04837 0.13237
1877 NL 0.04845 0.16765
1922 AL 0.04849 0.13711
1894 NL 0.04878 0.12839
1895 NL 0.04878 0.13550
1928 NL 0.04960 0.14061
1879 NL 0.04972 0.17744
1934 AL 0.04981 0.13625
1927 AL 0.05043 0.13858
1931 AL 0.05054 0.13841
2002 NL 0.05055 0.14250
1941 AL 0.05072 0.14215
1920 AL 0.05158 0.14513
1957 AL 0.05260 0.15079
2001 NL 0.05268 0.14391
1930 AL 0.05277 0.13890
1912 AL 0.05312 0.15583
1878 NL 0.05316 0.19350
1901 NL 0.05327 0.15994
1924 NL 0.05388 0.15481
1930 NL 0.05429 0.13994
1886 NL 0.05438 0.17736
1876 NL 0.05447 0.20072
1923 AL 0.05624 0.15720
1873 NA 0.05814 0.19075
1875 NA 0.06040 0.22591
1872 NA 0.06207 0.21111
1871 NA 0.06286 0.19798
1884 UA 0.06301 0.21502

Sorted by coefficient of variation:


yearID lgID StDev CoefVar
1959 AL 0.02901 0.08533
2004 AL 0.02910 0.08358
1991 NL 0.02926 0.09041
1986 AL 0.02977 0.09498
1976 AL 0.02986 0.09351
1926 NL 0.02993 0.09615
1912 NL 0.03007 0.08777
2006 AL 0.03025 0.10204
1965 AL 0.03039 0.08458
1914 NL 0.03058 0.09332
1974 NL 0.03061 0.09855
1952 NL 0.03078 0.09773
1955 AL 0.03108 0.09511
1949 AL 0.03114 0.10045
1916 NL 0.03119 0.09141
1988 NL 0.03127 0.09105
2005 AL 0.03165 0.09637
1985 AL 0.03178 0.09591
1950 AL 0.03178 0.09722
1983 NL 0.03190 0.10653
1952 AL 0.03195 0.09460
1909 NL 0.03207 0.10237
1915 FL 0.03212 0.09646
1977 AL 0.03214 0.09685
1978 AL 0.03227 0.09938
2003 AL 0.03241 0.09795
1989 AL 0.03247 0.09570
1913 NL 0.03259 0.09478
1919 NL 0.03270 0.09486
1982 NL 0.03279 0.09805
1939 NL 0.03307 0.09641
1992 AL 0.03315 0.09915
1915 NL 0.03317 0.09550
1990 AL 0.03324 0.09977
2007 NL 0.03342 0.10184
1945 AL 0.03347 0.09294
1984 NL 0.03348 0.09595
1962 AL 0.03381 0.11099
1904 NL 0.03384 0.11385
1998 AL 0.03397 0.10286
1987 AL 0.03401 0.10477
1956 NL 0.03406 0.09684
1947 NL 0.03407 0.09494
1946 NL 0.03408 0.11314
1963 AL 0.03413 0.10324
1907 AL 0.03421 0.10168
1979 AL 0.03430 0.10032
1960 NL 0.03456 0.10334
1917 NL 0.03480 0.10463
1990 NL 0.03480 0.10257
1983 AL 0.03486 0.10945
1981 AL 0.03490 0.10290
1984 AL 0.03491 0.10704
2007 AL 0.03495 0.10303
1960 AL 0.03498 0.09801
1980 NL 0.03505 0.10277
1973 NL 0.03508 0.10206
1911 NL 0.03513 0.10107
1977 NL 0.03515 0.11420
1980 AL 0.03517 0.09580
1986 NL 0.03527 0.10205
1910 NL 0.03540 0.11651
1947 AL 0.03547 0.10328
1970 AL 0.03548 0.09924
2002 AL 0.03556 0.10485
1908 AL 0.03567 0.10090
1999 NL 0.03573 0.10694
1995 AL 0.03584 0.10117
1978 NL 0.03593 0.10504
1991 AL 0.03595 0.10451
1974 AL 0.03597 0.10943
1987 NL 0.03602 0.10369
1993 NL 0.03608 0.10055
1951 AL 0.03641 0.10302
1995 NL 0.03656 0.11610
1940 NL 0.03672 0.12196
1975 NL 0.03678 0.10699
1982 AL 0.03684 0.10898
1948 AL 0.03701 0.11374
1962 NL 0.03706 0.10760
1973 AL 0.03713 0.10904
1968 NL 0.03722 0.12073
1992 NL 0.03726 0.10858
1993 AL 0.03727 0.11394
2006 NL 0.03746 0.11852
2005 NL 0.03746 0.11348
1999 AL 0.03748 0.11804
2001 AL 0.03773 0.11924
1938 AL 0.03774 0.10610
1907 NL 0.03779 0.10980
1923 NL 0.03779 0.10924
1935 AL 0.03795 0.10725
1966 NL 0.03795 0.11270
1908 NL 0.03798 0.10824
1927 NL 0.03806 0.10983
1938 NL 0.03809 0.11723
1979 NL 0.03812 0.11331
1985 NL 0.03819 0.10835
1901 AL 0.03820 0.11360
1920 NL 0.03824 0.11935
1905 AL 0.03826 0.11347
1958 NL 0.03834 0.11743
1966 AL 0.03844 0.12700
1893 NL 0.03846 0.11873
1997 NL 0.03854 0.11642
1918 NL 0.03861 0.10923
1951 NL 0.03862 0.11631
1931 NL 0.03870 0.11508
1925 NL 0.03879 0.12087
1941 NL 0.03886 0.10690
1950 NL 0.03895 0.13365
1953 AL 0.03901 0.11956
1953 NL 0.03929 0.11111
1921 NL 0.03929 0.12481
1937 AL 0.03932 0.11596
1945 NL 0.03937 0.10672
1964 NL 0.03937 0.11008
1925 AL 0.03937 0.11078
1903 AL 0.03942 0.11866
1971 AL 0.03945 0.11600
1975 AL 0.03952 0.11414
1906 AL 0.03956 0.11866
1942 NL 0.03956 0.10999
1981 NL 0.03959 0.11320
1890 PL 0.03976 0.11546
1917 AL 0.03977 0.12257
1997 AL 0.03980 0.12254
1932 NL 0.03988 0.12168
1968 AL 0.04003 0.12791
1964 AL 0.04003 0.11954
1903 NL 0.04005 0.11486
1943 NL 0.04007 0.11142
1996 AL 0.04011 0.11392
1891 NL 0.04017 0.12361
1897 NL 0.04021 0.12651
1943 AL 0.04030 0.11574
2000 AL 0.04033 0.12920
1965 NL 0.04038 0.14195
1963 NL 0.04043 0.11074
1969 AL 0.04043 0.11428
2000 NL 0.04044 0.12093
1940 AL 0.04051 0.13796
1929 NL 0.04052 0.12316
1906 NL 0.04057 0.12001
1934 NL 0.04058 0.12097
1916 AL 0.04058 0.13359
1971 NL 0.04073 0.13059
1988 AL 0.04073 0.12429
1939 AL 0.04093 0.11418
1889 AA 0.04107 0.11517
1904 AL 0.04108 0.11092
1935 NL 0.04111 0.11758
1933 NL 0.04157 0.11850
1967 AL 0.04159 0.11568
1989 NL 0.04161 0.13112
1998 NL 0.04166 0.12550
1954 NL 0.04168 0.12750
1942 AL 0.04179 0.12347
1890 NL 0.04196 0.12213
2003 NL 0.04205 0.13105
1996 NL 0.04217 0.11841
1976 NL 0.04218 0.13218
1929 AL 0.04222 0.12497
1914 AL 0.04231 0.12947
1887 NL 0.04234 0.12079
1924 AL 0.04246 0.13023
1972 NL 0.04246 0.12740
2004 NL 0.04250 0.11491
1994 AL 0.04257 0.11601
1936 AL 0.04271 0.11930
1936 NL 0.04276 0.12743
1994 NL 0.04280 0.12924
1955 NL 0.04298 0.12042
1954 AL 0.04312 0.12326
1910 AL 0.04318 0.11578
1957 NL 0.04339 0.14270
1896 NL 0.04344 0.12674
1922 NL 0.04349 0.12700
1886 AA 0.04356 0.11951
1899 NL 0.04357 0.12644
1959 NL 0.04364 0.12786
1902 AL 0.04368 0.13325
1913 AL 0.04380 0.12632
1944 AL 0.04385 0.11915
1949 NL 0.04390 0.13272
1969 NL 0.04413 0.12380
1918 AL 0.04415 0.15069
1894 NL 0.04424 0.13106
1948 NL 0.04429 0.12633
1926 AL 0.04431 0.12720
1909 AL 0.04432 0.12324
1961 NL 0.04434 0.16130
1967 NL 0.04452 0.12015
1928 AL 0.04461 0.12374
1898 NL 0.04466 0.15774
1889 NL 0.04474 0.13282
1892 NL 0.04480 0.12859
1946 AL 0.04482 0.12695
1915 AL 0.04492 0.12632
1887 AA 0.04498 0.12148
1972 AL 0.04500 0.12553
1961 AL 0.04504 0.13852
1905 NL 0.04508 0.15161
1921 AL 0.04511 0.12674
1919 AL 0.04519 0.12551
1937 NL 0.04527 0.12776
1900 NL 0.04545 0.13086
1958 AL 0.04547 0.12525
1914 FL 0.04551 0.13298
1970 NL 0.04554 0.13278
1902 NL 0.04556 0.12065
1932 AL 0.04562 0.12921
1888 AA 0.04595 0.12450
1911 AL 0.04600 0.13175
1956 AL 0.04608 0.13673
1895 NL 0.04609 0.15880
1934 AL 0.04629 0.13374
1944 NL 0.04643 0.14061
1922 AL 0.04649 0.12898
1933 AL 0.04650 0.15874
1882 NL 0.04662 0.12935
1931 AL 0.04668 0.12591
1891 AA 0.04679 0.15454
1927 AL 0.04683 0.13352
1930 AL 0.04774 0.13360
1930 NL 0.04781 0.15890
1890 AA 0.04790 0.13441
1928 NL 0.04796 0.17360
1883 AA 0.04837 0.13740
1941 AL 0.04837 0.13237
2002 NL 0.04845 0.16765
1883 NL 0.04849 0.13711
2001 NL 0.04878 0.12839
1920 AL 0.04878 0.13550
1888 NL 0.04960 0.14061
1957 AL 0.04972 0.17744
1885 AA 0.04981 0.13625
1884 NL 0.05043 0.13858
1924 NL 0.05054 0.13841
1912 AL 0.05055 0.14250
1923 AL 0.05072 0.14215
1874 NA 0.05158 0.14513
1881 NL 0.05260 0.15079
1884 AA 0.05268 0.14391
1885 NL 0.05277 0.13890
1901 NL 0.05312 0.15583
1880 NL 0.05316 0.19350
1877 NL 0.05327 0.15994
1882 AA 0.05388 0.15481
1886 NL 0.05429 0.13994
1879 NL 0.05438 0.17736
1873 NA 0.05447 0.20072
1878 NL 0.05624 0.15720
1871 NA 0.05814 0.19075
1876 NL 0.06040 0.22591
1872 NA 0.06207 0.21111
1884 UA 0.06286 0.19798
1875 NA 0.06301 0.21502

The lower the number, the harder to dominate (at least in theory).

By the way, I've had this file tucked away for a while. It was just a matter of retrieving it.

[AstrosFan]

I like the coefficent of variation results better, but the data should probably be smoothed. There are some weird things like 1958 AL being in the worst half of the leagues, and 1959 AL being the best ever.

[AstrosFan]

yearID lgID Smooth
1986 AL 0.09976
1986 NL 0.10002
1985 AL 0.10058
1987 AL 0.10074
1985 NL 0.10121
1991 NL 0.10131
1987 NL 0.10136
1993 AL 0.10167
1992 AL 0.10173
1989 AL 0.10193
1993 NL 0.10288
1979 AL 0.10289
2007 AL 0.10309
1980 AL 0.10336
1992 NL 0.10358
1984 NL 0.10368
1978 NL 0.10388
1984 AL 0.10412
1983 NL 0.10417
2006 AL 0.10417
1981 AL 0.10422
1988 NL 0.10430
1976 AL 0.10431
1980 NL 0.10434
1988 AL 0.10439
1977 NL 0.10497
2007 NL 0.10518
1978 AL 0.10524
1983 AL 0.10540
1977 AL 0.10545
1953 AL 0.10567
2006 NL 0.10605
1994 AL 0.10616
1979 NL 0.10619
1990 AL 0.10620
1991 AL 0.10640
1976 NL 0.10643
1990 NL 0.10644
1982 NL 0.10693
1989 NL 0.10698
1981 NL 0.10721
1952 NL 0.10743
1952 AL 0.10745
1982 AL 0.10751
1917 AL 0.10763
1965 AL 0.10842
1918 AL 0.10844
1953 NL 0.10851
1917 NL 0.10889
1950 AL 0.10891
1994 NL 0.10892
1948 AL 0.10902
1975 NL 0.10932
1955 AL 0.10949
1949 NL 0.10974
1916 NL 0.10980
1954 AL 0.11012
1949 AL 0.11019
1950 NL 0.11038
1915 NL 0.11068
2005 AL 0.11068
1918 NL 0.11099
1962 AL 0.11102
1963 AL 0.11106
1965 NL 0.11117
1909 NL 0.11125
2005 NL 0.11125
1951 AL 0.11139
1966 AL 0.11184
1995 AL 0.11200
1910 AL 0.11208
1951 NL 0.11211
1954 NL 0.11227
1910 NL 0.11247
1975 AL 0.11248
1919 NL 0.11256
1960 NL 0.11279
1947 NL 0.11295
1961 NL 0.11296
1998 AL 0.11305
2001 AL 0.11310
1974 NL 0.11313
1948 NL 0.11319
2000 AL 0.11333
1966 NL 0.11339
1963 NL 0.11343
1995 NL 0.11348
1961 AL 0.11350
1964 NL 0.11355
2000 NL 0.11358
1907 NL 0.11382
1967 AL 0.11382
1955 NL 0.11383
1999 NL 0.11395
1916 AL 0.11406
1915 AL 0.11410
1909 AL 0.11416
1908 NL 0.11459
1908 AL 0.11469
1962 NL 0.11469
1915 FL 0.11481
1996 AL 0.11481
1940 NL 0.11507
1911 NL 0.11526
1967 NL 0.11533
1998 NL 0.11538
1907 AL 0.11539
2004 AL 0.11549
1968 AL 0.11569
1911 AL 0.11572
1999 AL 0.11573
1964 AL 0.11580
1919 AL 0.11587
1912 NL 0.11596
1940 AL 0.11610
1974 AL 0.11623
1913 NL 0.11625
1941 AL 0.11641
1947 AL 0.11671
1997 NL 0.11673
1996 NL 0.11681
2002 AL 0.11684
1939 NL 0.11694
1941 NL 0.11700
1906 AL 0.11710
1956 NL 0.11744
2004 NL 0.11760
1914 NL 0.11764
1906 NL 0.11776
1942 NL 0.11785
1968 NL 0.11800
1969 AL 0.11806
1997 AL 0.11835
1942 AL 0.11845
1971 AL 0.11867
1946 NL 0.11869
1905 AL 0.11886
1928 AL 0.11887
1970 AL 0.11896
1971 NL 0.11902
1914 FL 0.11904
1914 AL 0.11911
1920 NL 0.11911
1945 NL 0.11927
2001 NL 0.11929
1959 NL 0.11947
1956 AL 0.11949
1905 NL 0.11954
1920 AL 0.11973
1960 AL 0.11975
2003 AL 0.11997
1973 NL 0.12001
1969 NL 0.12005
1973 AL 0.12027
1926 NL 0.12030
1945 AL 0.12034
1913 AL 0.12043
1959 AL 0.12050
1970 NL 0.12052
2003 NL 0.12057
1943 NL 0.12065
1938 AL 0.12075
1943 AL 0.12090
1939 AL 0.12093
1938 NL 0.12102
1946 AL 0.12121
1912 AL 0.12136
2002 NL 0.12138
1921 NL 0.12166
1972 AL 0.12211
1937 NL 0.12216
1928 NL 0.12238
1957 AL 0.12245
1957 NL 0.12249
1927 NL 0.12250
1929 NL 0.12256
1944 NL 0.12258
1937 AL 0.12266
1972 NL 0.12290
1944 AL 0.12336
1921 AL 0.12340
1936 NL 0.12362
1929 AL 0.12375
1958 AL 0.12388
1922 NL 0.12411
1935 NL 0.12415
1927 AL 0.12422
1894 NL 0.12458
1897 NL 0.12484
1922 AL 0.12493
1936 AL 0.12521
1904 NL 0.12544
1899 NL 0.12579
1935 AL 0.12579
1895 NL 0.12628
1934 NL 0.12628
1898 NL 0.12630
1893 NL 0.12633
1901 AL 0.12635
1958 NL 0.12660
1904 AL 0.12732
1891 NL 0.12735
1896 NL 0.12759
1923 NL 0.12775
1900 NL 0.12846
1892 NL 0.12863
1934 AL 0.12879
1903 NL 0.12887
1932 NL 0.12927
1933 NL 0.12932
1924 AL 0.12939
1930 AL 0.12940
1925 NL 0.12946
1930 NL 0.12959
1926 AL 0.12975
1901 NL 0.12984
1902 AL 0.12993
1903 AL 0.13006
1932 AL 0.13012
1931 NL 0.13112
1890 PL 0.13115
1933 AL 0.13166
1891 AA 0.13185
1902 NL 0.13197
1890 NL 0.13221
1924 NL 0.13259
1923 AL 0.13261
1925 AL 0.13263
1931 AL 0.13319
1890 AA 0.13327
1889 AA 0.13806
1889 NL 0.13852
1888 NL 0.14338
1888 AA 0.14351
1884 NL 0.15261
1884 AA 0.15358
1887 NL 0.15513
1883 NL 0.15624
1885 AA 0.15751
1886 AA 0.15837
1887 AA 0.15936
1885 NL 0.16050
1884 UA 0.16065
1886 NL 0.16332
1883 AA 0.16350
1882 NL 0.16717
1882 AA 0.17614
1880 NL 0.18347
1881 NL 0.18361
1879 NL 0.18767
1874 NA 0.18939
1878 NL 0.19248
1877 NL 0.19312
1875 NA 0.19670
1876 NL 0.19737
1871 NA 0.19798
1873 NA 0.19994
1872 NA 0.20454

Here's some smoothing.

[Paul Wendt]

some Questions

Recently I have been questioning the wisdom of "timelining" when assessing players across history. I am a strong believer in "a pennant won is a pennant won" and judging players in the context of their own times. When comparing two players, however, with roughly the same value against their peers, I give the nod to the one who played more recently in almost every case.
Do these opening lines mean that a timeline is the tiebreaker? In a judgment context (unlike a counting context), the problem with tiebreakers is how do you know when there is a tie to break?

The Baseball Encyclopedia, Total Baseball, and today the new Baseball Encyclopedia have published dozens of Top 100 lists of all-time leaders.

In the "Single Season" lists, TB6 uses date as a tiebreaker. Is that a timeline? Not really. Who cares how to order two players with precisely 148 bases on balls. For calculations that do not yield integers, such as Fielding Wins "3.5", they use as many decimal points as necessary to order the lists (but they do not show that precision in print).

some Answers

Curious what people's thoughts on timelining are and whether or not "era adjustments" are necessary. I've seen valuation methods that take league strength into account. Are era adjustments just a short cut for making league-strength adjustments?
Typically yes, I suppose, both for timelines and era adjustments.


However, should any of those have a bearing on whether or not the best player in 2009 is "greater" than the best player in 1909?
Greatness is defined in each project, perhaps implicitly.

In some projects or for some people within one, the answer is yes, by definition. On the other hand, the answer may be no, by definition.