Gabby Hartnett the greatest catcher ever?

[Cubsfan97]

I just got htis book about Gabby Hartnett, written by William F. McNeil. In the introduction, he is talking about a study that had taken place and it claimed Gabby to be the best ever. Here is the passage...


"To determine impartially and scientifically who was the greatest major league catcher of all time, a scientific study was undertaken by the author. This study utilized many of the state-of-the-art Sabermetrics formulas, but went beyond those primarily offensive statistics to include the defensive skills of the contenders, such as fielding average, passed balls and the individual catcher's success rate gunning down prospective base stealers.

This was both the first study of major league catchers that evaluated each player on both his defensive and offensive skills and the most accurate evaluation of catchers yet conducted. The race quickly turned into a two-man competition, with Gabby Hartnett and Roy Campanella leaving the other challengers far behind. When the smoke cleared from all the individual comparisons, Charles Leo "Gabby" Hartnett, the man from Millville, Massachusetts, emerged as the greatest catcher of all time."

I was curious if anyone knew about this study and had the information about it, how it was conducted and everything. I think it would be really neat to see. Thanks

Shawn

[SABR Matt]

When was this book published? Because if it was after about 2002, the auther is lying in his claims about this being the first comprehensive catching analysis.

And few sabermetricians would agree about Hartnett being the greatest of all time. I have him somewhere around 8th all time at the position...and that is based on a comprehensive analysis. :)

[AstrosFan]

When was this book published? Because if it was after about 2002, the auther is lying in his claims about this being the first comprehensive catching analysis.

And few sabermetricians would agree about Hartnett being the greatest of all time. I have him somewhere around 8th all time at the position...and that is based on a comprehensive analysis. :)

The book is:

Backstop : a history of the catcher and a sabermetric ranking of 50 all-time greats / William F. McNeil ; foreword by Pete Palmer.

McNeil mostly uses Palmer's metrics with his own twist on how to apply them. First published May 2005.

[SABR Matt]

May 2005 and he claims no systematic catcher evaluation including defense (specifically three of the most commonly used...and most flawed...defensive statistics...) has been attempted before his. Riiiiight.

[Patriot]

There is also an article in the latest edition of the Baseball Research Journal by Chuck Rosciam, which rates catchers and ranks Hartnett #1 all-time (followed by Dickey, Bench, Campanella, Carter, Rodriguez, Cochrane, Munson, Freehan, and Berra. I know that you are also dying to know where Ron Karkovice ranks, so I will end the suspense and tell you that he's #102. It goes all the way to 166).

His methodology is as follows (Don't shoot the messenger!):

*All catchers with >800 games are included
*5 offensive (OBA, SLG, Batting Runs, RC/G, Win Shares) and 5 defensive (Games Caught/Season, Assists/Game, Errors/Game, Range, and Throwing--the latter two are from the ESPN Encyclopedia) categories are used
* Each stat is normalized to the league average, then converted to a z-score scaled from 0 to 1
* The z-scores are averaged for offense and defense separately, then weighted at 2/3 and 1/3 respectively to form a total ranking

[SABR Matt]

It amuses me what passes for research these days.

[Cubsfan97]

There is also an article in the latest edition of the Baseball Research Journal by Chuck Rosciam, which rates catchers and ranks Hartnett #1 all-time (followed by Dickey, Bench, Campanella, Carter, Rodriguez, Cochrane, Munson, Freehan, and Berra. I know that you are also dying to know where Ron Karkovice ranks, so I will end the suspense and tell you that he's #102. It goes all the way to 166).

His methodology is as follows (Don't shoot the messenger!):

*All catchers with >800 games are included
*5 offensive (OBA, SLG, Batting Runs, RC/G, Win Shares) and 5 defensive (Games Caught/Season, Assists/Game, Errors/Game, Range, and Throwing--the latter two are from the ESPN Encyclopedia) categories are used
* Each stat is normalized to the league average, then converted to a z-score scaled from 0 to 1
* The z-scores are averaged for offense and defense separately, then weighted at 2/3 and 1/3 respectively to form a total ranking

So for someone who hasnt completely gripped Sabermetrics yet...does that mean anything, or was he just trying to put numbers together that made Hartnett the best?

[Tango Tiger]

His methodology is as follows (Don't shoot the messenger!):

Give us someone then, please.

It's times like this that I wish we had subject matter expert (SME) peer review.

[Patriot]

So for someone who hasnt completely gripped Sabermetrics yet...does that mean anything, or was he just trying to put numbers together that made Hartnett the best?

I don't know that Mr. Rosciam had any pro-Hartnett agenda, so it wouldn't be fair to speculate that he was massaging the numbers to benefit Hartnett. What is clear is that it's a hodge-podge of numbers arbitrarily thrown together with no underlying logic behind them. Hence the responses of Matt and Tango.

[KCGHOST]

When was this book published? Because if it was after about 2002, the auther is lying in his claims about this being the first comprehensive catching analysis.

Lying?? Do you have any proof of this statement?? Merely because someone is wrong doesn't make them a liar.

[SABR Matt]

OK...I'll amend my statement. He's either lying or is so ill-informed about a field he claims to be an expert on that he deserves ridicule.

[Cubsfan97]

Thanks for the help guys, I really appreciate it!

[Honus Wagner Rules]

May 2005 and he claims no systematic catcher evaluation including defense (specifically three of the most commonly used...and most flawed...defensive statistics...) has been attempted before his. Riiiiight.
Other than PCA what defensive metrics do you consider to be solid in evaluating a catcher's defense?

[SABR Matt]

Well SB% is a good starting point, but you have to account for what happens when a catcher acquires a good reputation and guys stop running on him. Not only do the assists drop (rendering "range" irrelevant and Assists/Game too), but the SB% sometimes drops because the catcher doesn't get many chances to air out the arm. You also need to make some attempt to quantify the catcher's impact on the rate of WP and PB thrown by his pitchers, and I put extra emphasis on catchers' DPs and non-K putouts because they show off a catcher's athleticism more than any other plays in which he takes part.

Point is...any defensive metric...ESPECIALLY for catchers...must be a top-down metric that adjusts for factors biased by the teams for which they caught, and must look well beyond the surface statistics. Sadly, not many such defensive metrics exist for catchers, because for some reason, everyone but myself, Bill James, Clay Davenport Tom Tango and Pete Palmer gave up on even attempting to quantify catching defense and everyone but myself and Pete Palmer didn't bother to rate PITCHING defense (i.e. the pitchers' fielding ability). +/- (Fielding Bible) ignores both catchers and pitchers. I don't think Tom Tango rates pitchers' fielding at all. Bill James ignored the pitchers too. Even Clay Davenport ignored pitchers' fielding. And that can screw up defensive ratings, particularly for the catchers.

[leewileyfan]

OK...I'll amend my statement. He's either lying or is so ill-informed about a field he claims to be an expert on that he deserves ridicule.

At the risk of being the next offering to be led to the sabermetric woodshed, the above is amusing to an extreme.

Whatever birth date one wants to put on sabermetrics as an exact science, say on a similar plane to interplanetary rocketry; the mathematics of brain scans; actuarial tables and the like, it is still in its relative infancy.

Guru Bill James is oft-tinkering with previous incarnations of earlier breakthroughs and often contradicts Dewan and company's numerical data with his narrative snippets to Bible numerology.

While I fully appreciate the discipline and tremendous efforts that produce the likes of Retrosheet and freeely donated saber-regressed interpretations and evaluations derived, one can do with more light and less sniping by those who see themselves uniquely in the know.

Is the writer in question presumed to be lying, disingenuous or pathetically ill-informed as to all things baseball? Or, has he failed to display a certificate in statistical methodology as to its special applications to the game?

Bottom line: this is a public forum. Constructive help with works in progress by "newbies," or merely others with deep and wide knowledge of the game without degrees in mathematics, even honest criticism that offers alternative approaches, are a boon to visitors on these boards.

Flippancy and condescension - not not much.

Hey Tom, was that verbose enough?

[Ubiquitous]

Generally speaking it appears that those who are capable of putting pen to paper and getting book deals tend to be those who do tend not to congregate with their baseball stat minded brethren and stay current with the goings on of the sabermetric world. Academia is full of professors writing the latest breakthrough in baseball statistics blithely unaware that what they have discovered has been discovered, discussed, and probably dismissed about 5 years before they ever decided to publish their eurekan moment.

I would assume that the author/authors of this/these book/s has only a cursory knowledge of the sabermetric world and what he knows he probably got from the various published encyclopedias.

[STLCards2]

Generally speaking it appears that those who are capable of putting pen to paper and getting book deals tend to be those who do tend not to congregate with their baseball stat minded brethren and stay current with the goings on of the sabermetric world. Academia is full of professors writing the latest breakthrough in baseball statistics blithely unaware that what they have discovered has been discovered, discussed, and probably dismissed about 5 years before they ever decided to publish their eurekan moment.

I would assume that the author/authors of this/these book/s has only a cursory knowledge of the sabermetric world and what he knows he probably got from the various published encyclopedias.

Agreed - if he actually understands how Win Shares or Base Runs are calculated, I'd be shocked.

[leewileyfan]

Generally speaking it appears that those who are capable of putting pen to paper and getting book deals tend to be those who do tend not to congregate with their baseball stat minded brethren and stay current with the goings on of the sabermetric world.

Ubiquitous, in all honesty, doesn't the above seriously both beg the question and generalize what elements of the population are credible as potential members of a community interested in baseball statistics and evaluations? Not only that; but it presumes whom they select as social contects when pen is not being applied to paper.

One need not hand with sabermetricians in order to stay up-to-date on data evolution. These boards and hosts of articles are there to be read. There are even some lay people who are intelligent enough to sort elitist garbage from that which is worthwhile.


Academia is full of professors writing the latest breakthrough in baseball statistics blithely unaware that what they have discovered has been discovered, discussed, and probably dismissed about 5 years before they ever decided to publish their eurekan moment.

Funny. Academia is the last place I'd look for baseball data, sabermetric or otherwise, although I have learned that there are some colleges and universities, private prep schools as well, who are sorting through tons of data and trying to present the most practicable as curriculum choices.


I would assume that the author/authors of this/these book/s has only a cursory knowledge of the sabermetric world and what he knows he probably got from the various published encyclopedias.

This is at the core of my response dealing with attitude. The sabermetric world, at its roots, is less a precise mathematical science. It is an attempt to apply the rigors of mathematical discipline to a human activity that is often more chaotic than it is orderly; yet, over 125 years, the chaos resolves itself into some obviously predictable patterns. Ironically, these patterns weren't discovered by Bill James. Sports writers were typing observations on assists and batted-ball patterns in 1907; columnists and broadcasters were singing the praises of Tilly Bishop and Elbie Fletcher and Ferris Fain long before James first published.

Given all that, there is plenty of disagreement on nearly everything [but especially defense and player worth], even among the "experts." Some iconic models are rather fuzzy about what it is they actually measure and how the data produced are to be best interpreted. That suggests there's elbow room for civil discussion.

Yes, James compiled data and clearly defined some data that had been "out there" but not codified.

All I'm saying is [to those who condescend]: lighten up; discuss, don't judge; but if you do judge, be constructive, not petulant.

[brett]

There is also an article in the latest edition of the Baseball Research Journal by Chuck Rosciam, which rates catchers and ranks Hartnett #1 all-time (followed by Dickey, Bench, Campanella, Carter, Rodriguez, Cochrane, Munson, Freehan, and Berra. I know that you are also dying to know where Ron Karkovice ranks, so I will end the suspense and tell you that he's #102. It goes all the way to 166).

His methodology is as follows (Don't shoot the messenger!):

*All catchers with >800 games are included
*5 offensive (OBA, SLG, Batting Runs, RC/G, Win Shares) and 5 defensive (Games Caught/Season, Assists/Game, Errors/Game, Range, and Throwing--the latter two are from the ESPN Encyclopedia) categories are used
*


Granted these stats are pretty much a mish-mash, it is of note that most of them are rate-type, per game or percentage stats. Therefore there is no Fisk because he played nearly 2500 games.

Hartnett is "arguably" the second best "rate" offensive catcher of all time among guys with 800+ games and I have seen defensive (thingys) that say he was an A defensive catcher though he played during a time when people rarely stole bases. I always wonder what people would have thought of Piazza if he had played when TEAMS stole 50 bases and they didn't even track CS.

How could Hartnett be agruably the second best rate offensive catcher of all time, and arguably an A level defender and not be arguably the #1 catcher of all time?

a) because the value difference between an A and a C level catcher is small compared to other positions.

b) A fair number of catchers make up for his offensive rates with their greater longevity.

Ex. he was maybe a 15% better offensive RATE player than I-Rod but Ivan has played about 19% longer.

He might be a 7% better offensive player than Fisk, and a better rate fielder, but Fisk played 25% longer.

Bench, Berra, Carter, Fisk, I-Rod all top him offensively when rates and longevity are combined, and Piazza is ahead when the true variation in catcher defense is accounted for.

That puts
Bench,
Berra,
Carter,
Fisk,
I-Rod and
Piazza all ahead

but I can see how looking at offensive RATES and overvaluing good catcher defense could make him LOOK better than any one of them.

That puts him 7th. Who am I missing? I would have him ahead of Cochrane, Dickey and Campanella, Simmons, Freehan, Parrish, (though Simmons has an interesting case).

At any rate, until somebody defines what is meant by "greatest" we can't answer the question.

(Oh, and I saw no mention of park factors).

[BigRon]

All I'm saying is [to those who condescend]: lighten up; discuss, don't judge; but if you do judge, be constructive, not petulant.

Amen, leewiley fan. I'm dismayed by the amount of snarky behavior on this site. WAY too much condescending behavior by some.

[leewileyfan]

Granted these stats are pretty much a mish-mash, it is of note that most of them are rate-type, per game or percentage stats. Therefore there is no Fisk because he played nearly 2500 games.

This is true if the person creating lists fails to separate components of player evaluation in a particular order, with consistency of focus, and weighting of data inputs.

For myself, I consider a player by the position for which he is most associated. His offensive numbers are available; so metric results are accessible and reasonably indisputable.

For the defensive portion of the evaluation, I use only tha dominant position, for the entire career, assigning a number of games played at the position as a "defensive season" at the position. So, if Smedley Johnston plays a number od innings at SS that converts to 497 games, and I have predetermined that 140 games = a season at SS, Smedley is credited with 477/140 = 3.55 defense years @ SS.

All other defensive inputs are ignored, as if Smedley had been a DH. If he averaged +7.9 defense runs above average @ SS, his career defense credit = +28.05 defense runs.

Rationale: For [I]my purposes, which seem to be shared by a fair % of fans, if I want to compare SS and compile data to support rankings, that's the sole honest route I can see for the exercise. If Johnson's career lasted for a total of 610 games, he might have played any number of games at any of 8 positions other than SS. I treat that as "DH" territory, since I am focused on one position. Those = +/- 0 defense runs.

If a player is used at several positions, I select the one position with high relative innings that portrays the player in his best defensive light, all others = 0.

Career evaluations must address the entirety of the career. Thus, if a player drops off sharply in his last 5 seasons, whose fault is it if the final ratings are diminished? Some great players do hang on as many as 5-8 years beyond their peak levels; so their legacy suffers.

Some players, performing expertly, say on defense, never experience careers as long a the 5-8 season decline [above]: injury, weak hitting may end their time abruptly.


Hartnett is "arguably" the second best "rate" offensive catcher of all time among guys with 800+ games and I have seen defensive (thingys) that say he was an A defensive catcher though he played during a time when people rarely stole bases.

A lot to address in this sentence.


Arguably the second best "rate" offensive catcher????? So who is first? What metric[s] tell you that? What source are you citing?

As to people "rarely" stealing bases during a player era, Hartnett broke in c. 1924, when stolen bases still were within 10-15% of earlier [post 1901] decade highest levels, hovering @ 100+ steals/team with a throw out rate @ 40%. That's @ 800 steals and 2,000 attempts - pretty busy for catchers.

The sharpest drop came @ 1930, well into Hartnett's career, with teams stealing 480-600 bases, against a throw out rate that appears to have rises to @ 47-51%.

Reasons?

-power game has taken over from "small ball"

-influx of dominant defenders behind the plate: O'Farrell. Hartnett, Taylor, Hemsley, Davis, Lopez, Wilson, Hogan, Ferrell, Mancusi and Lombardi. Yes, Ernie Lombardi, slow on the bases, slow flex reflex to bunts - awesome terror with arm and death to base-stealers.


I always wonder what people would have thought of Piazza if he had played when TEAMS stole 50 bases and they didn't even track CS.

Now you've stopped comps with Hartnett and his era, since in Hartnett's era, the least successful steals per team average @ 80+.

In Hartnett's day, Mike Piazza might have had the same position career resume as he has had today. However, in a big minor league system having a bumper crop of good catchers, my guess is he's have been moved to 1B, sooner rather than later.


Bench, Berra, Carter, Fisk, I-Rod all top him offensively when rates and longevity are combined, and Piazza is ahead when the true variation in catcher defense is accounted for.

That puts
Bench,
Berra,
Carter,
Fisk,
I-Rod and
Piazza all ahead

but I can see how looking at offensive RATES and overvaluing good catcher defense could make him LOOK better than any one of them.

Really? That comes as a big surprise to me.

[brett]

Really? That comes as a big surprise to me.

OK, not better than Bench

Here is BBPro's BRAA and FRAA per 162 games for Bench, Carter, Hartnett, I-Rod, Piazza, Berra

Only Bench and Berra top him in both offensive and defensive rates, and Berra by a margin that is certainly within the doubt I have about the statistical method and other unaccounted-for factors.

And some defensive metriods say he was a better fielder than Berra as well.

[Ubiquitous]

BRAA and FRAA/162 ignores two things.

1. Catchers don't come close to playing 162 games a season and the difference between actual games and catchers real amount gets even greater the farther back you go. So Bench plays more of his teams games than say Hartnett but the fact that he is doing more per season for his team gets hidden by a /162 rate stat.

2. BRAA/FRAA are not line era and league quality adjusted.

****By the way your stat is not a /162 stat. It is BRAA divided by games played.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Amen, leewiley fan. I'm dismayed by the amount of snarky behavior on this site. WAY too much condescending behavior by some.

That is simply the nature of all public forums. I post on various forums: baseball, theology, politics, science, etc, and this behavior is also part of those forums. When you have large forums where anyone can join at will you simply have this type of behavior by some posters. BBF does give a much shorter rope than most other forums.

[leewileyfan]

I'm working on a defense-oriented project [1901-present] that expands to an attempt to meld defensive excellence with offensive productivity.

So far, without final adjustments, but comfortably above all others, are the top catchers to date. Joe Mauer may interject himself into this circle; but I haven't calculated his data yet.

What follows is position-centric defense + offensive RC as a decimalized % of plate appearances. The number in the second column figures superior run production * career seasons, thus interjecting the longevity factor.

Hartnett .1960.................575
Cochrane .1884................435
Dickey .1878....................491
O'Farrell .1647..................205
"Sp." Davis .1634..............197
Berra .1593......................311
Kling .1585.......................163
Gowdy .1581....................113
Lombardi .1520.................183
I. Rodriguez .1515.............272
Bench .1508.....................238

The following are MLB RC/PA in the following contexts:

1876 through yesterday = .1214
Needed R/C to be @ 80 RC/600 PA = .1333
R/C ~ PA; AL, 1936 [pitch & duck season = .1417

By any metric or standard, these guys, catchers all, rise above the rest and did have careers of considerable length.

Added Note: Defense runs credited to a player are [C] only. These are not expanded in any way to fit batting or career seasons. They are pure defense runs [+/-] average incorporated into batting performance.

However, batting run production is for all plate appearances at all position, where [+/-] runs are treated as 0.

[brett]

BRAA and FRAA/162 ignores two things.

1. Catchers don't come close to playing 162 games a season and the difference between actual games and catchers real amount gets even greater the farther back you go. So Bench plays more of his teams games than say Hartnett but the fact that he is doing more per season for his team gets hidden by a /162 rate stat.

2. BRAA/FRAA are not line era and league quality adjusted.

****By the way your stat is not a /162 stat. It is BRAA divided by games played.

Whoops on the per 162.

I am not making a case for Hartnett. I am explaining how a poor application of saber stats could result in one ranking him very high.

[SABR Matt]

leewiley...if you're going to declare yourself an expert and say you've made a breakthrough, then you'd better damned well do your research on what else has already been discussed by other sabermetricians. That's called being a GOOD SCIENTIST. If it's snarky to point out that this guy is about 8-10 years behind the forefront in sabermetrics and feel annoyed that he is nonetheless saying he's the first one to the top of the mountain...then I shall continue ot be snarky.

If you have ever been through the scientific peer review process then you'd know that people who claim to have made a breakthrough that has already been made five years ago and published for all to see get laughed out of academia and for GOOD REASON. Part of being a public figure, part of the responsibility you take on as a publisher is to say what is true and back it up with due diligence before you publish something for all to read. This clown didn't do his homework and I am well within my rights as a member of baseball's very young (admittedly) scientific community to be offended by him and to ridicule him for his lack of work.

[leewileyfan]

leewiley...if you're going to declare yourself an expert and say you've made a breakthrough, then you'd better damned well do your research on what else has already been discussed by other sabermetricians.

While I realize you are talking about the scientist who published something of which you did not fully approve, some here might well take your awkward manner of address as directed personally at me.

On the subject of walking in lock-step like a good sabermetrican, perhaps those in the ivy-colored halls where true scientists dwell have to contend with the pressures of peer review.


That's called being a GOOD SCIENTIST. If it's snarky to point out that this guy is about 8-10 years behind the forefront in sabermetrics and feel annoyed that he is nonetheless saying he's the first one to the top of the mountain...then I shall continue ot be snarky.

It's a little like My Fair Lady around here: I've grown accustomed to your tone.


If you have ever been through the scientific peer review process then you'd know that people who claim to have made a breakthrough that has already been made five years ago and published for all to see get laughed out of academia and for GOOD REASON.

Look. By your own admission, you are young. I believe we all know that you are soon getting your PhD from SUNY Stony Brook, in meteorology, I believe. However, since you hammer away at that fact and feel compelled to remind us that you are a scientist, your meteorology PhD does not grant you license to rain on everbody else's parade.

Most folks here love to talk baseball; and those who want to broaden and deepen their interest in the game, its history and the mathematical theories being developed in the world of sabermetrics, do not approach these forums to be scolded by elitists with attitude.

Kinda shoves the scientific credibility out the window, doncha think?


Part of being a public figure, part of the responsibility you take on as a publisher is to say what is true and back it up with due diligence before you publish something for all to read. This clown didn't do his homework and I am well within my rights as a member of baseball's very young (admittedly) scientific community to be offended by him and to ridicule him for his lack of work.

C'mon, a little less gravitas and a bit more civility are called for here. You are not vetting new procedural break-throughs in brain surgery; and most reasonable people will allow a bit of beam to shine from the exhuberance of someone whose idea got published.

Perhaps, instead of calling him a clown ab=nd rooting for his academic demise, you might consider a pointed post, specifically pointing out misstatements, bad interpretation, obvious bias or total illogic you have spotted with your scientific acuity. We might all learn something from that.

[SABR Matt]

I already gave my pointed response leewiley...he is completely in error when he claims that his methodology is the first in depth analysis of catchers to include fielding metrics. It shows a total lack of prior reading in the field and a lack of respect for others whose work came before him. That was already said much earlier in this thread. I would not have had the strong negative reaction to this book that I did if he hadn't made that claim. His methodology is, IMHO, the worst type of approach (and the most commonly used), but that's OK. It might still have proven to be an interesting read, albeit not a scientifically accurate one. The only reason for my being insulted by this man is the total lack of respect he showed by claiming he came first when even a cursory GOOGLE SEARCH for catcher evaluations would have revealed at least four different attempts to rate the total catcher including his defense.

This guy, knowing nothing at all about sabermetrics aside from the bare bones basics, published a book proclaiming a breakthrough that was (equivalently) made a decade ago at least was his. That's the kind of stuff that gets good scientists angry.

[jaxxr]

One of the shortcoming of many good sabermetricians is the inability to realize "some" subjectivity is not always harmful.

Josh Gibson must rate among the very best catchers of all time, and likely a well above average defender.

The lack of a great quantity of formal recorded stats, precludes any true sabermetric inclusion of Josh Gibson in a ranking of all time catchers, yet in baseball reality, he most certainly belongs.

Win Shares, or the lack of understanding such a measure, was mentioned prior as a likely fault of the author of the Hartnett study.
Perhaps true, however the end-all calculation, Win Shares, or Loss Shares, or Defensive Win Shares, have slightly different formula, depending on the originator/author of such. Even Bill James has about six different versions or applications of offensive Win Shares himself. And it is merely a projected estimation of how much offense a player should have theoretically provided, or runs he should have produced, sometimes overlooking the equally important facts of what he actually scored or drove in.

[SABR Matt]

I would agree that in a formal ranking of players the inclusion of a certain level of subjectivity is required...for example, how does one handle war credit, untimely death, steroids, and league quality (objective measures of league quality exist and I have ideas of my own on that front, but these will never be perfect)? The negro leagues, the Japanese leagues (why are people so eager to credit negro leaguers and yet you never heard people say boo about Japan...or the 1930s PCL which was undoubtedly a better league than the negro leagues ever were, etc?)...they have to be considered too.

The only reason win shares were mentioned was to highlight this author's apparent ignorance of all of the methods that had been devised by the time of the writing of this book to rate the total player. You cannot proclaim yourself the first to do something that several other people have done (and probably better than you did) and expect not to be laughed at.

[brett]

I would agree that in a formal ranking of players the inclusion of a certain level of subjectivity is required

Not to mention how we evaluate a player's ability as a basestealer when run environments change, players' all-around baserunning when stats are missing, players being used inefficiently like A-Rod playing third.

Are guys who K less and have higher BAs generally more productive in higher run producing situations but yet we give them the linear weight value of a "typical" situation?

What do we do with a guy who stole a lot of bases at a 70% clip in the early 70s when that rate would barely produce any net value in the mid 90s for example. Or a guy like Beltran who who had tremendous rates when the payoff was not as great?

[leewileyfan]

I am posting this only because, when I am exposed to outright condemnation of a published author as inept to his purpose/field, I take responsibility for how guided or mis-guided I am willing to be. I share this with other posters so they can decide for themselves.

All Data copied and pasted from Amazon books by William F. McNeil. His reviews are mixed; he is a SABR member; and it appears that he addresses a topic you just claimed no one has uttered a peep about: quality evaluation of Japanese League players while the same has been done for Negro League players.

It appears Mr. McNeil is no fly-by-night; his books do not come cheap, and some seem to be ordering them despite some pricey tags.

He appears not to be the total clown you painted him to be. He is prolific, and he sells. He appears also to have a capacity for covering both broader and narrower topics with equal aplomb.

Caveat: I have never read a word by this man; but I have read a number of reviews. I am not peddling his books or running out to purchase any. I just wanted to share an informed reaction to castigations made here against him.

All-Stars for All Time: A Sabermetric Ranking of the Major League Best, 1876-2007 by William F. McNeil (Paperback - Nov 11, 2008)
Buy new: $39.95
14 Used & new from $39.95
In Stock
Eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping.
(1)

2.

Red Sox Nation Guide to the Players by William F. McNeil (Paperback - Aug 29, 2008)
Buy new: $9.95
19 Used & new from $6.29
Get it by Friday, Sep 11 if you order in the next 3 hours and choose one-day shipping.
Eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping.
(1)

3.

Miracle in Chavez Ravine: The Los Angeles Dodgers in 1988 by William F. McNeil (Paperback - Jun 11, 2008)
Buy new: $29.95
17 Used & new from $29.95
Get it by Friday, Sep 11 if you order in the next 4 hours and choose one-day shipping.
Eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping.


Baseball's Other All-Stars: The Greatest Players from the Negro Leagues, the Japanese Leagues, the Mexican League, and the Pre-1960 Winter Leagues in Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Dominican Republic by William F. McNeil (Paperback - Mar 2000)
Buy new: $35.00
16 Used & new from $12.36
Get it by Friday, Sep 11 if you order in the next 4 hours and choose one-day shipping.
Eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping.
(4)

5.

Evolution of Pitching in Major League Baseball by William F. McNeil (Paperback - Mar 15, 2006)
Buy new: $35.00
23 Used & new from $12.87
Get it by Friday, Sep 11 if you order in the next 4 hours and choose one-day shipping.
Eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping.


6.
Red Sox Nation Guide to the Players [RED SOX NATION GT PLAYERS] by William F.(Author) McNeil (Paperback - Aug 31, 2008)
1 Used & new from $23.90


7.
California Winter League:America's First Integrated Professional Baseball League by William F. McNeil (Hardcover - Jan 1, 2002)
1 Used & new from $82.00


8.
The Dodgers Encyclopedia by William F. McNeil (Hardcover - Jan 1, 1997)
1 Used & new from $198.82


9.

Backstop: A History Of The Catcher And Sabermetric Ranking Of 50 All-time Greats by William F. McNeil and Foreword by Pete Palmer (Paperback - Dec 13, 2005)
Buy new: $32.00
11 Used & new from $32.00
Get it by Friday, Sep 11 if you order in the next 4 hours and choose one-day shipping.
Eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping.
(1)

10.
Black Baseball Out of Season: Pay for Play Outside of the Negro Leagues by William F. McNeil (Hardcover - Jul 16, 2007)
Buy new: $49.95
16 Used & new from $34.96
Get it by Friday, Sep 11 if you order in the next 4 hours and choose one-day shipping.
Eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping.

11.

Visitors to Ancient America: The Evidence for European and Asian Presence in America Prior to Columbus by William F. McNeil (Paperback - Dec 10, 2004)
Buy new: $45.00
15 Used & new from $45.00
Get it by Friday, Sep 11 if you order in the next 4 hours and choose one-day shipping.
Eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping.

12.

The Dodgers Encyclopedia by William F McNeil (Paperback - April 1, 2001)
10 Used & new from $4.67
(7)

Other Editions: Hardcover

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I would agree that in a formal ranking of players the inclusion of a certain level of subjectivity is required...for example, how does one handle war credit, untimely death, steroids, and league quality (objective measures of league quality exist and I have ideas of my own on that front, but these will never be perfect)? The negro leagues, the Japanese leagues (why are people so eager to credit negro leaguers and yet you never heard people say boo about Japan...or the 1930s PCL which was undoubtedly a better league than the negro leagues ever were, etc?)...they have to be considered too.

The only reason win shares were mentioned was to highlight this author's apparent ignorance of all of the methods that had been devised by the time of the writing of this book to rate the total player. You cannot proclaim yourself the first to do something that several other people have done (and probably better than you did) and expect not to be laughed at.

My heart warmed when I read this. :happy: When I ask people if they have considered looking at Sadaharu Oh in their first basemen rankings I get some rather interesting replies. The most common reply is that most don't know anything or much about him and are not really interested in learning more. Not interested? Are you kidding me? Here we have a first baseman that hit 868 HRs, drove in 2,170 runs, scored 1,967 runs, walked 2,390 times, slugged over .700 nine times, and was considered an excellent defensive player. And many are not interested in studying his career? Oh didn't do this against semi-pro teams or on barnstorming tours. He did all this in a highly organized professional baseball league. Obviously, Oh played in a lessor professional baseball league but I am certain that if we had a Negro Leaguer with the same documented accomplishments as Oh many many people would be praising him, calling him the Black Lou Gehrig, and some would even rank him ahead of Gehrig.

[jaxxr]

"or the 1930s PCL which was undoubtedly a better league than the negro leagues ever were, etc?)...they have to be considered too."
..................................

Undoubtedly better ?

That is a fairly strong assessment of the relative quality of the two different leagues. While I am a bit surprised by the extent of the purported betterment, I have no basis, actual or sabremetric, to disagree with the view, and am quite aware the PCL was often called a third major league.

I would be quite interested in knowing, if there has been a study as to PCL guys performances in MLB, like Joe DiMaggio, compared to Negro L guys, such as Willie Mays ?
I would assume there are more PCL fellows who went to MLB, than negro leaguers, so the sample sizes might be unbalanced. Still it would be very informative.

[SABR Matt]

OK...I was perhaps a bit too confident in my statement about the PCL. I believe, personally, that it was at least as strong as the NL from the same time period for a few years during its' peak. And I believe that because the much stronger AL received a few stars from the PCL (Bob Johnson, for example) who immediately starred at essentially the same level upon their arrival. One could argue that the Negro Leagues produced a similar rush of immediate all-stars upon integration, but it is important to remember that each individual negro league (of where there were several) was the size of the PCL and that the relative strengths of the negro league teams were laughably varied compared to the insanely competitive PCL (seriously...look at some of the great playoff chases that happened in the PCL in the 30s...compared to the utter and complete domination of a couple of big time negro league franchises throughout the majority of the history of the negro leagues).

I believe the 1930s PCL was a much more balnaced (and therefore better) league than anything the negro leaguers had access to.

Side comment - to leewiley...topics for dummies sell millions of copies...that doesn't make them legitimate scientific works. The fact that this author is prolific is a tribute to his writing skill for appealing to the masses, not to his scientific validity. The fact that his books sell decently is equally irrelevant when discussing the actual merits of his claims.

The claim itself stands on its own..."this is the first attempt to capture the total value of a catcher, including common defensive categories like F%, SB% and Assists/Game"...that claim is untrue and shows a lack of research on this author's part. As a representative of my field, he owes it to everyone else who is doing research in that area to make accurate claims and to stay informed before he opens up his computer and publishes a statement as bold as that. Failure to do so makes him a good salesman and a scientific fraud.

[SABR Matt]

My heart warmed when I read this. :happy: When I ask people if they have considered looking at Sadaharu Oh in their first basemen rankings I get some rather interesting replies. The most common reply is that most don't know anything or much about him and are not really interested in learning more. Not interested? Are you kidding me? Here we have a first baseman that hit 868 HRs, drove in 2,170 runs, scored 1,967 runs, walked 2,390 times, slugged over .700 nine times, and was considered an excellent defensive player. And many are not interested in studying his career? Oh didn't do this against semi-pro teams or on barnstorming tours. He did all this in a highly organized professional baseball league. Obviously, Oh played in a lessor professional baseball league but I am certain that if we had a Negro Leaguer with the same documented accomplishments as Oh many many people would be praising him, calling him the Black Lou Gehrig, and some would even rank him ahead of Gehrig.

Indeed. There were at least 20-30 Japanese players who belong in the top 500 players every bit as much as the top 30-40 negro leaguers do...but they aren't mentioned by the casual fan. Certain authors have contributed their insights. Our own Jim Albright has significant publications in the area of Japanese league hsitory. That doesn't change my point that the vast majority in this field would sooner give Josh Gibson the top 25 player all time nod than they would give it to Sabaharu Oh...and I find that bias unfair. Oh's league was unquestionably more organized than the negro leagues...and likely significantly deeper as well.

[STLCards2]

One of the shortcoming of many good sabermetricians is the inability to realize "some" subjectivity is not always harmful.

.

If he was completey subjective, it would be a lot better than combining/weighing 3-4 saber-stats that he knows little about (and that others have created) with a couple of common stats into a single uberstat, and claiming it is a "breakthrough." It is akin to somebody adding WPA, WAR, and WSAB with BA, RBI, and HR into a single number, ranking the players accoridingly, calling it a "breakthrough" and passing it off as accurate.

What he is doing is has nothing to do with subjectivity (except for however he decided to weigh catcher offense vs, defense) - he is trying to be scientific or at least passing himself off a scientific when he isn't. That is what Matt has a problem with, I am sure.

[BigRon]

If he was completey subjective, it would be a lot better than combining/weighing 3-4 saber-stats that he knows little about (and that others have created) with a couple of common stats into a single uberstat, and claiming it is a "breakthrough." It is akin to somebody adding WPA, WAR, and WSAB with BA, RBI, and HR into a single number, ranking the players accoridingly, calling it a "breakthrough" and passing it off as accurate.

What he is doing is has nothing to do with subjectivity (except for however he decided to weigh catcher offense vs, defense) - he is trying to be scientific or at least passing himself off a scientific when he isn't. That is what Matt has a problem with, I am sure.


Here's my guess. I guess that not one participant who has chimed in on this thread has read McNeil's book. If that is so, it is impossible to make any meaningful comments/observations about his work.

I've seen this time and time again on BBF. Various authors are shot down by BBFers. most of the time, the BBFers haven't even read the work, or if they have, haven't immersed themselves deeply enough into the mechanics of the analysis to be able to make qualified observations.

I'm not defending McNeil's work- iIhaven't read any of it. However, it seems reasonable to actually review the work you are critiquing BEFORE you critique/criticize it.

[STLCards2]

Here's my guess. I guess that not one participant who has chimed in on this thread has read McNeil's book. If that is so, it is impossible to make any meaningful comments/observations about his work.

I've seen this time and time again on BBF. Various authors are shot down by BBFers. most of the time, the BBFers haven't even read the work, or if they have, haven't immersed themselves deeply enough into the mechanics of the analysis to be able to make qualified observations.

I'm not defending McNeil's work- iIhaven't read any of it. However, it seems reasonable to actually review the work you are critiquing BEFORE you critique/criticize it.

Patriot provided his methodology in a summary. It doesn't take reading hundreds of pages to see if the methodology is out-of-wack. I guess it is possible that patriot misrepresented the methodology, but having read work from Patriot - I highly doubt that.

So every single theory or idea that you disagree with, you have read the entirety of the work in which it was created?

[SABR Matt]

That's nonsense, BigRon.

I have not read the entire book...I don't need to. The summary of his methodology tells me it's a methodology that doesn't merit my time and energy. And his big sales pitch line "this is a breakthrough and no one has even attempted this before" pisses me off on a scientific level. Don't claim to be a scientist and then clearly fail to follow the scientific method. He skipped the SECOND STEP of good science...he didn't observe. He didn't do the research to study the problem/question he was trying to address. Slapped some crap together and then acted like he was a genius for doing it.

And if you folks want to dismiss me because I have a harsh tone in this thread...fine, whatever...I get grumpy when confronted with a scientific fraud.

[Patriot]

Again, the article I summarized was written by a man named Chuck Rosciam, not McNeil. Whether this is the same methodology that McNeil used, or whether McNeil cited Rosciam's results, or whether there are two different "studies" out there, I don't know. From the original excerpt, it sounds as if McNeil wrote a book about Hartnett, and cited Rosciam's article, and that he and not the author of the study is the one who attached all the flowery language to it.

However, BigRon, I most certainly did read Rosciam's whole paper, published in the most recent Baseball Research Journal, and I believe that my summary of his methodology is accurate. Maybe you should follow your own advice and read his piece before you call into question my summary of it.

[BigRon]

Again, the article I summarized was written by a man named Chuck Rosciam, not McNeil. Whether this is the same methodology that McNeil used, or whether McNeil cited Rosciam's results, or whether there are two different "studies" out there, I don't know. From the original excerpt, it sounds as if McNeil wrote a book about Hartnett, and cited Rosciam's article, and that he and not the author of the study is the one who attached all the flowery language to it.

However, BigRon, I most certainly did read Rosciam's whole paper, published in the most recent Baseball Research Journal, and I believe that my summary of his methodology is accurate. Maybe you should follow your own advice and read his piece before you call into question my summary of it.

Patriot- you are misunderstanding what I said. I said that I believed that no one on the thread had read McNeil's work. I correctly understood that your synopsis was of Rosciam's paper. I made no comment whatever about the veracity of that work or your synopsis of it. In fact I never made any reference to your post or Rosciam's work. STLCards2 stated- incorrectly- that you had synopsized McNeil's work.

I'm not trying to stir up a tempest in a teapot but I think the last few posts point out what I was saying. People aren't even reading OTHER people's posts correctly.

As to SABRMatt's comment "I have not read the entire book- I don't need to. The summary of "his" (italics mine) methodology tells me it's a methodology that doesn't merit my time and energy." Unfortunately, I believe SABRMAtt is refering to your synopsis of Rosciam's work.

I think that makes my point.

Once again, I'm not defending McNeil's work- haven't read it- as has, apparently no one else here except the initiator of the thread, who has a copy of the book.

[STLCards2]

Patriot- you are misunderstanding what I said. I said that I believed that no one on the thread had read McNeil's work. I correctly understood that your synopsis was of Rosciam's paper. I made no comment whatever about the veracity of that work or your synopsis of it. In fact I never made any reference to your post or Rosciam's work. STLCards2 stated- incorrectly- that you had synopsized McNeil's work.

I'm not trying to stir up a tempest in a teapot but I think the last few posts point out what I was saying. People aren't even reading OTHER people's posts correctly.

As to SABRMatt's comment "I have not read the entire book- I don't need to. The summary of "his" (italics mine) methodology tells me it's a methodology that doesn't merit my time and energy." Unfortunately, I believe SABRMAtt is refering to your synopsis of Rosciam's work.

I think that makes my point.

Once again, I'm not defending McNeil's work- haven't read it- as has, apparently no one else here except the initiator of the thread, who has a copy of the book.

I admit that I was mistaken about the article being from McNeil - but if he used the flawed article in his book to bump his case, than he is still responsible for using a poor source and there is nothig wrong for critisising him for it.

[SABR Matt]

I have no problem with an author making the case for a player...I have a problem when the author claims that his evidence is the first such attempt to make a case and then quotes a sources that is clearly not new or different

[leewileyfan]

Here's my guess. I guess that not one participant who has chimed in on this thread has read McNeil's book. If that is so, it is impossible to make any meaningful comments/observations about his work.

Thank you so much, Big Ron; and I agree completely. I doubt anyone who takes himself so seriously as a scientist, as SABR Matt does, would have wasted his time in giving anything by McNeill a thorough reading.


I've seen this time and time again on BBF. Various authors are shot down by BBFers. most of the time, the BBFers haven't even read the work, or if they have, haven't immersed themselves deeply enough into the mechanics of the analysis to be able to make qualified observations.

In addition, I can't see where they would find time, involved as they are in their own pure science.


I'm not defending McNeil's work- iIhaven't read any of it. However, it seems reasonable to actually review the work you are critiquing BEFORE you critique/criticize it.

I, too, when I posted the Amazon list of McNeill's works available there. made it clear I hadn't read any of his stuff ..... and wasn't about to run out and start catching up.

I have read The Hidden Game of Baseball, though; and am amused by the fact that one of the authors of that piece contributed an introductory essay for McNeill's "questionable" work.

[538280]

The comments on this thread aren't aimed at McNeil's (or Rosciam's) overall work though, they're aimed at his methology for determining the greatest catchers ever. To comment on that it is only appropriate to have read what goes into the methology. It isn't necessarily to read the full work to comment on the rating system. As it was described what was done was just basically making up a hodge-podge of stats that don't really go together and putting them all together as if they make up some kind of definitive rating number. I agree that that's very bad application of the numbers, and calling it a breakthrough of any kind isn't accurate and does a disservice to those who made true attempts to rate the catchers by making up their own detailed systems that are consistent throughout. Matt has done this, and I would think that for him as someone who put much research into his own system it isn't great to see published authors claiming their work is some kind of breakthrough when his work is far more detailed and took far more research. What was done I could do easily in a few hours. There isn't any underlying logic behind it, it's just basically pick random stats and combine them. That this is getting publihsed and that it is described as a breakthrough is not great for those who truly did put in the work.

[SABR Matt]

Snark away all you'd like leewiley. Passing oneself off as an expert in a field requires adequeate research. Neither Rosciam nor McNeil knows enough about sabermetrics to say anything as confidently as they said things in their publications. You don't have to be a numbers guy to have credibility with me...a great baseball historian who sticks to retelling the game's history is a valued resource for me. But stick to things you really are an expert on before you go and publish something and make claims that just aren't true.

[leewileyfan]

The comments on this thread aren't aimed at McNeil's (or Rosciam's) overall work though, they're aimed at his methology for determining the greatest catchers ever.

This is a bit self-contradictory. I know what was generally outlined as the approach; and, quite frankly, any metric that relies to any notable degree on fielding percentage, would lose me early on.

However, before making excoriating comments about a published author's alleged dense-ness, incompetence and illogical application [clownishness], I would personally make darn well sure I had delved into the material at least deeply enough to judge it so harshly [and personally] overall.


There isn't any underlying logic behind it, it's just basically pick random stats and combine them. That this is getting publihsed and that it is described as a breakthrough is not great for those who truly did put in the work.

If you've delved into the study, you may have a perfect right to allege that.


What was done I could do easily in a few hours.

So, I'd suggest you get cracking.

[leewileyfan]

Snark away all you'd like leewiley. Passing oneself off as an expert in a field requires adequeate research. Neither Rosciam nor McNeil knows enough about sabermetrics to say anything as confidently as they said things in their publications.

Having seen the breadth of his subject matter, all published, would you also aver that he knows little about baseball?


You don't have to be a numbers guy to have credibility with me...a great baseball historian who sticks to retelling the game's history is a valued resource for me. But stick to things you really are an expert on before you go and publish something and make claims that just aren't true.

That appears to be a contradiction: It appears to me that McNeill has passed himself off as a writer. largely about baseball. I know nothing about ever nuance and context in which McNeill frames his evaluations; but, on the face of it, he seems to have a following and appears to command a price for his material that is far above junk averages.

McNeill is an expert on getting published, writing many books about baseball AND writing books about baseball topics you
alleged no one was touching.

So, where's the egalitarianism in your appreciation of others' efforts? I do not believe that one need be a certifiable sabermetrician to posevalid and accurate player evaluation metrics.

Logic and consistency with subject matter are the keys to credibility.

Speaking of which, I am returning to the topic of this thread: CATCHERS.

The catcher study work I've done so far may take a few installments; but I hope to provide some useful information on catchers from various perspectives.

Then, you can fire away at me; but at least we'll be on topic.

[SABR Matt]

I never alleged no one at all was talking about the Japanese leagues...I alleged that the majority of baseball analysts don't take Japanese players as seriously as they take negro leaguers. Perhaps you should quit putting words in my mouth. Thank you.

McNeil may pass himself off more as a baseball commentator (and if he does, I believe he would be accurate there...I'm sure he knows a lot about the history of the game), but I take issue with him passing on the Rosciam method and acting like he knows enough about sabermetrics as a science to know what other work has been done when in fact he is completely wrong. His readers now think that is the forefront of studying catchers...it's not, and that's how people get misled all the time.

As for egalitarianism...as soon as you step into the world of objective analysis...you must comply with the scientific method and with logical reason or you are out of your field. The telling of history, while including objective facts, is a subjective art form. Sabermetrics are not...evaluating baseball players objectively is and should always be treated like a science.

[538280]

This is a bit self-contradictory. I know what was generally outlined as the approach; and, quite frankly, any metric that relies to any notable degree on fielding percentage, would lose me early on.

However, before making excoriating comments about a published author's alleged dense-ness, incompetence and illogical application [clownishness], I would personally make darn well sure I had delved into the material at least deeply enough to judge it so harshly [and personally] overall.

I don't believe anyone was making any comments about the author being dense or incompetent. The criticism was coming from that one piece of the author's writing, not necessarily the writer himself. It wasn't the whole book about Gabby Hartnett and all the historical research put into that which was the issue, it was the statistical method being used and the claim that this method was some kind of breakthrough, revolutionary method at the forefront of sabermetrics.

I agree with the premise. McNeil probably is a very good historian and I do not doubt his talent for writing great historical books (though I personally have never read a whole book of his). However the claim he made about the Rosciam data being some kind of revolutionary research is just not right and yes it does do a disservice to those who have come up with far superior methods.


So, I'd suggest you get cracking.

I don't have desire to make up a system such as the Rosciam one because I don't find it to be very useful. There's no reason to just throw a bunch of numbers together like that-it doesn't mean anything and isn't logically put together. However what I meant by saying that is that all the numbers put into it (OBP, SLG, Batting Runs, RC/G, Win Shares, Games Caught/Season, Assists/Game, Errors/Game, Range, and Throwing) I could easily find and put together myself and pass that off as legit historical research. The worst part to me is that apparently raw OBP, SLG, and RC/G were put into it along with Batting Runs and Win Shares. So the offensive part is including Win Shares (which are a total player metric) and raw numbers to go along with context adjusted ones. It just doesn't make any sense, I'm shocked that something would be accepted in a SABR Research Journal and then cited by a published author.

[BigRon]

I don't believe anyone was making any comments about the author being dense or incompetent. The criticism was coming from that one piece of the author's writing, not necessarily the writer himself. It wasn't the whole book about Gabby Hartnett and all the historical research put into that which was the issue, it was the statistical method being used and the claim that this method was some kind of breakthrough, revolutionary method at the forefront of sabermetrics.

I agree with the premise. McNeil probably is a very good historian and I do not doubt his talent for writing great historical books (though I personally have never read a whole book of his). However the claim he made about the Rosciam data being some kind of revolutionary research is just not right and yes it does do a disservice to those who have come up with far superior methods.



I don't have desire to make up a system such as the Rosciam one because I don't find it to be very useful. There's no reason to just throw a bunch of numbers together like that-it doesn't mean anything and isn't logically put together. However what I meant by saying that is that all the numbers put into it (OBP, SLG, Batting Runs, RC/G, Win Shares, Games Caught/Season, Assists/Game, Errors/Game, Range, and Throwing) I could easily find and put together myself and pass that off as legit historical research. The worst part to me is that apparently raw OBP, SLG, and RC/G were put into it along with Batting Runs and Win Shares. So the offensive part is including Win Shares (which are a total player metric) and raw numbers to go along with context adjusted ones. It just doesn't make any sense, I'm shocked that something would be accepted in a SABR Research Journal and then cited by a published author.

Round and round we go. To 538280s first point. Here are quotes from SABRMatt.

"When was this book published? Because if it was after about 2002, the auther is lying in his claims about this being the first comprehensive catching analysis."

"It amuses me what passes for research these days."

"OK...I'll amend my statement. He's either lying or is so ill-informed about a field he claims to be an expert on that he deserves ridicule."

"Neither Rosciam nor McNeil knows enough about sabermetrics to say anything as confidently as they said things in their publications."

"And if you folks want to dismiss me because I have a harsh tone in this thread...fine, whatever...I get grumpy when confronted with a scientific fraud."

Those are pretty strong statements- lying, deserves ridiicule, scientific fraud. My complaint is that those comments are obviously intended to be demeaning to the author (McNeil and also Rosciam) even though by SABRMatt's open admission he has not read one word of McNeil's work. Of course he can disagree with McNeil's ranking of Hartnett, and of course he can argue that there are methods which will show that Hartnett is not the best catcher of all time. But... he does not have to bash the guy mercilessly while doing so- particularly since HE HAS NEVER READ A WORD OF HIS WORK.

To your next point. Nowhere in this thread is there any evidence that McNeil used or attributed Rosciam's work. Perhaps he did, but since only Cubfan97 and AstrosFan may have read McNeil's book, none of the rest of us know.

Patriot brought up the topic of Rosciam:

There is also an article in the latest edition of the Baseball Research Journal by Chuck Rosciam, which rates catchers and ranks Hartnett #1 all-time (followed by Dickey, Bench, Campanella, Carter, Rodriguez, Cochrane, Munson, Freehan, and Berra.

Patriot made no claim that McNeil used or referenced Rosciam's work.

I'm not on a vendetta against SABRMatt. My original points were (and still are) 1: that I think a number of knowledable BBF contibutors are overly condescending and insulting when they don't need to be. SABRMatt obviously knows a lot and taks his research seriously. He might find some of us more receptive to his points of view if he were somewhat less dismissive of others, but that's just my opinion; and 2:a lot of BBFers jump to conclusions without even reading the posts accurately. This thread is an excellent case in point. Nobody except Cubsfan97 and perhaps AStrosFan has read McNeil. Apparently only Patriot read Rosciam. Yet McNeil's work and Rosciam's work are being tied together (and excoriated by some) without any evidence.

By the way- I think Hartnett ranks around number 8 or 9 among ML catchers, but he was very good. He was hitting for a lot of power and a good average and playing terrific defense. The gap among the top guys doesn't appear to be real big- they all had flaws or shortcomings or injury problems.

[Patriot]

BigRon: You're right, I misunderstood your post. With all of the confusion between the two authors I thought you were referring to my summary of Rosciam's article. My fault.

[leewileyfan]

I am taking this opportunity to delete several independent lists I have posted: ratings; plate protection; baserunner management and overall agility in order to present a single post that condenses each and summarizes all in a manageable size.

I believe the lists are sound and valid. However, lists without context can be misinterpreted and don'r invite informed feedback.

Comprehensive list, with context will follow soon.

[SABR Matt]

All of those quotes you used from me, BigRon...every last one of them is directed at the specific quotes cited in this thread...not at McNeil or Rosciam's historical research background. You can be a great historian and still merit ridicule when you stick your neck into an area you don't belong and act like you know it. If you can't stay current and do the proper basic background research in sabermetrics...don't use sabermetrics in your book. Period.

[leewileyfan]

Data be compiled in overall context.

[SABR Matt]

How did you go about generating this data on blocking the plate?

[leewileyfan]

Data being collectivized in full context.

[leewileyfan]

I never alleged no one at all was talking about the Japanese leagues...I alleged that the majority of baseball analysts don't take Japanese players as seriously as they take negro leaguers. Perhaps you should quit putting words in my mouth. Thank you.


The negro leagues, the Japanese leagues (why are people so eager to credit negro leaguers and yet you never heard people say boo about Japan...or the 1930s PCL which was undoubtedly a better league than the negro leagues ever were, etc?)...they have to be considered too.

You're welcome.

[SABR Matt]

I don't see any sign of anything that contradicts what I said in that quote leewiley. Nowhere in that quote did I say NO ONE is researching Japan or the PCL...I complained that most researchers seem to be more willing to give credence to the Negro Leaguers than they are to Japanese Leaguers or 1930s PCLers. Quit putting words in my mouth or much angrier words will actually come from my mouth.

[brett]

Call it by an name you like, this listing is in rank order of controlling opposing runners on base, largely based on catcher CS%.

Baserunner Mgmt

Sewell, L.
Gowdy
O'Farrell
Lopez, A.
Pytlak, F.
Tebbetts, "B."
Rosar, "B."
Danning, H.
Kling
Ruel
J. Wilson
Ferrell, R.
Dickey, B.
Cochrane, M.
Richards
Early
Berra, Y.
Hegan, J.
Campanella, R.
"B." Bergen
Kluttz
Crandall, D.
Berg
"B." Rogers
W. Cooper
W. Schmidt
S. O'Neill
House
S. White
Y. Molina
Rodriguez, I.
Mancuso
S. Lake
Hartnett, G.
M. Heath
Gibbs
Dalrymple
Bench, J.
Lollar, S.
Perkins
Cooper, W.
Bresnahan, R.
Johnson, C.
Schalk, R.
Garagiola
R. Hundley
M. Ryan
"D." Brown
Killefer
Schreckengost
Munson, T.
Schang, "W."
Dempsey
McCullough
Wynegar
Essian
Bo. Boone
"S." Davis
Karkovice
Masi
Swift
"R." Wilson
Ainsmith
D. Rice
Roseboro
Sundberg

Where did you find Hartnett's throwout rates?

[leewileyfan]

I don't see any sign of anything that contradicts what I said in that quote leewiley. Nowhere in that quote did I say NO ONE is researching Japan or the PCL...I complained that most researchers seem to be more willing to give credence to the Negro Leaguers than they are to Japanese Leaguers or 1930s PCLers.[

I quoted you above, already - or maybe you just didn'y like having it quoted. I am not stupid enough to patch and paste it AGAIN about nobaody saying boo.


Quit putting words in my mouth ....

Not guilty, yoah honah .....


or much angrier words will actually come from my mouth.


oh, boy .... that sounds perversely like a threat of some kind. You really do not want to go there.

Now, if we may be permitted, back to baseball - and catchers.

[538280]

Where did you find Hartnett's throwout rates?

The ESPN Baseball Encyclopedia shows relative SBs allowed per inning for catchers. They have Harnett 38% above average for SBs allowed, and 8 percent above average on CS per inning (obviously SB are the best way to evaluate because teams run less on catchers with a good arm).

[leewileyfan]

Where did you find Hartnett's throwout rates?

Somewhere here in these threads I earlier posted the methodology I used to construct stolen base throw-out rates for catchers during seasons when those records were not kept.

It is based upon certain known data:

-games/innings played behind the plate per season;

-stolen bases [attempts are available for some seasons even when CS are not]; and for those scattered seasons where full data is avaiable, one can reasonably construct a realistic model.

-say, just tossing out numbers here for example, between 1901-1910 MLB averaged 675 stolen bases for each league, in 150 average games. We can use data available to construct a basic model for successful throw-out rates.

-At a 35% standard 675 steals suggests 675/.35 = 1,929 attempts in each league. With 8 teams in each league, that further indicates an average of 1,929/8 = 241 attempts per team. 241 attempts divided by 150 = @ 1.60 as a model for stolen base attempt "atmosphere" for a season, even a decade or more.

-The individual variations come into play when we inspect each catcher's known data, especially assists and double plays; and it is from that data I construct an [E] throw out rate for each catcher.

As for the ESPN Baseball Encyclopedia, I haven't seen it. However, IF they have Hartnett allowing 38% more stolen bases than an average MLB catcher of his time, then they are saying his throw out rate in a 40% league would be 24.8%. In a 35% league, it would be 21.7%. I'd be more than a bit dubious about that, especially since they have him 8% better than average per inning caught.

Since Hartnett caught in a league where CS was @ 37-39% [as I recall], 8% would put him @ 41%, ballpark with my estimate, but a bit low. Thirty-eight percent better than my conservative 35% would put him @ 48%, pretty close
to my estimate.


I don't have the numbers for Hartnett right in front of me; but I believe I have him @ 46+%, which would be 31.4% > a league model of 35%.

I my estimates do err, I try to be sure they are on the conservative side. Some guys, though, have put up some mind-blowing numbers that are documented; soone cannot fear what may be the absolute truth.

Thanks for the feedback.

[SABR Matt]

I quoted you above, already - or maybe you just didn'y like having it quoted. I am not stupid enough to patch and paste it AGAIN about nobaody saying boo.

....

Not guilty, yoah honah .....




oh, boy .... that sounds perversely like a threat of some kind. You really do not want to go there.

Now, if we may be permitted, back to baseball - and catchers.

Let me spell this out very carefully so that your mind can process it and perhaps so that you can learn something. Nobody saying boo about the Japanese leagues doesn't mean nobody ANYWHERE...do you really imagine I haven't spoken to Jim Albright? One of this site's chief contributors and an expert on Japanese baseball? Do you think I'm that blind to what little commentary there is on Japanese baseball history? Nobody saying boo refers to the typical lists of greatest baseball players of all time. I encourage you to find an all-time ranking list...any all-time ranking list other than the one or two guys who comment on Japan here that places Sadaharu Oh anywhere near the likes of Josh Gibson. Here's a tip...you can't...because there is none. McNeil might have written something about Japan...he certainly hasn't put forth a list of the greatest players of all time that includes a fair sampling from Japan.

Find me a well known baseball researcher who puts Japanese players on the same level as Negro Leaguers where they belong...and I'll concede that point. Until then, I've got nothing further to say to you.

[leewileyfan]

Let me spell this out very carefully so that your mind can process it and perhaps so that you can learn something. Nobody saying boo about the Japanese leagues doesn't mean nobody ANYWHERE...do you really imagine I haven't spoken to Jim Albright?{/quote]

Please - quit the transparent attitude, which I must remind you, imbues you with all the toughness, mental agility and convincing curriculum vitae of a pinada].

The surest sign an arguer has nowhere else to go is name-dropping.


Nobody saying boo refers to the typical lists of greatest baseball players of all time. I encourage you to find an all-time ranking list...any all-time ranking list other than the one or two guys who comment on Japan here that places Sadaharu Oh anywhere near the likes of Josh Gibson.

Then post it that way. God lord, you remind us often enough of what a scientist you are. Write like one: clear, concise and unburedened by need to re-has what you really meant.

Any list I write, or ever have written, evaluating baseball players, has [I]always been framed just that way: MLB players; and I also make it more precise by defining my historic parameters, 1901 to present. Don't paper my walls with rants about Sadaharu Oh or negro league players.

Why do I do it this way?

1. There is not enough data on Negro Leagues players to frame intelligent evaluations for them. Much of what is known is oral history as reiterated in print media. Doubtless, many would have starred in MLB had there not been a color barrier. I was lucky enough to see Satchel Paige pitch to Josh Gibson at Dexter Park on the Maspeth-Brooklyn border @ 1943 or 1944. My father urged me to listen to the reverberating sounds from Gibson's catcher's mitt, explaining that I was looking at [and hearing] one of the few pitchers in the fireball class of Walter Johnson, Joe Wood and Bob Feller.

2. Japanese baseball, by my observation and from what I've read, is comparable to AAAA ball, like the Pacific Coast League in its heyday. PCL players often shunned MLB: the weather was great; the pay was comparable [to better]; the aura was more laid-back; the fans were appreciative; and there was solid chance of scoring both on and off the field with a celeb of starlet.

3. What would you like to know about Sadaharu Oh?




Here's a tip...you can't...because there is none. McNeil might have written something about Japan...he certainly hasn't put forth a list of the greatest players of all time that includes a fair sampling from Japan.

If that's what he did not set out to do in the first place, then there's no problem. That doesn't make him a "clown."

{quote]Find me a well known baseball researcher who puts Japanese players on the same level as Negro Leaguers where they belong...and I'll concede that point. Until then, I've got nothing further to say to you.

As to the first part, I am not well known [alas, poor me]; but I put them on the same plane, perhaps a notch higher - for the simple reason that those leagues are highly organized, tightly structured and almost militarily trained on the basics.

As to the final point - may I take that as a promise?

[AstrosFan]

Chris posted this a long while ago. A 138, as in the case of Hartnett, means he was 38% better at preventing SB, not that he allowed 38% more SB.



The 2005 ESPN Baseball Encyclopedia has data on SB and CS off catchers for all of baseball history going back to the 1890s (no Buck Ewing data is perhaps the most notable they're missing). But this was data considered unavailable until this now as far as I know. Anyway they present percentages above average for catchers in stolen bases allowed per inning. This is the best way to gauge stopping the running game because CS per inning often has the best catchers low because teams rarely run on them. By using 'steals allowed per inning' we not only see the catcher's actual performance in shutting down the running game but also how often other teams attempted, which can also show how other teams thought the catcher could throw. Anyway here are some marks for some notables (just like other relative stats, 140 is 40% above average, 80 20% below, you all know how that works):

Ivan Rodriguez; 203 (through 2004)
Johnny Bench: 170
Roy Campanella: 153
Thurman Munson: 153
Gabby Hartnett: 138
Ray Schalk: 130
Bill Dickey: 130
Martin Bergen: 126
Del Crandall: 126
Jimmy Archer: 122
Gary Carter: 120
Yogi Berra: 115
Johnny Kling: 115
Joe Torre: 110
Mickey Cochrane: 109
Carlton Fisk: 107
Roger Bresnahan: 106
Gene Tenace: 105
Ernie Lombardi: 102
Bill Bergen: 99
Ted Simmons: 97
Mike Piazza: 78 (through 2004)

[SABR Matt]

If I were publishing a book to make money and inform readers like McNeil, I would certainly have been more direct and less colorful in my language choice to describe my opinion regarding the miscasting of Japan vs. the Negro Leagues...this is an internet forum...a free internet forum...and not a publication bearing significant responsibility.

[leewileyfan]

Data being compiled, condensed, in context.

[leewileyfan]

Same as other lists. Being consolidated.

[BigRon]

If yo can identify a catcher whose career began during or after 1901 and has played 7,500 innings [@ 7 seasons @ 125 games, or 875 games], PM me or post name[s] here; and I will incorporate them into the study.

leewileyfan- I haven't done any kind of detailed search, but you should add Sanguillen and Kendall- and surely some others.

Question- from your last list are you inferring that Hartnett, Cochrane, Dickey are in fact your choices for top catchers of all time, or is there more number crunching and evaluation still to come?

[leewileyfan]

leewileyfan- I haven't done any kind of detailed search, but you should add Sanguillen and Kendall- and surely some others.

B~R: Thanks for the input and for Jason Kendall, a favorite of mine whom I inadvertently omitted. Insert him on my run production rate list right behind Dalrymple @ .1226 net runs/PA. [I've inserted him in bold type].

As for Sanguillen, I have him rated, too; but he did not make the top 50. For context, right after W. Schmidt, here are those that follow:

Triandos .1186
T. Haller .1186
S. White .1183
McCullough .1174
Schreckengost .1171
House .1157
B. Molina .1156
E. Rodriguez .1144
T. Pena .1147
Scioscia .1145
Dempsey .1145
Sanguillen .1143
Wynegar .1141
Berg .1132
Roseboro .1131

The thing I like about the format of the presentation is that a reader/observer/poster can take this data and make any personal argument he can reasonably make that would re-arrange the order by jis own personal priorities.

Say a poster equates ultimate value with longevity. Then he/she can multiply the rate per PA by the number of PA and argue the relative value by total runs.

I make it clear here that my focus is on defense, while holding defensive skills up to a standard of overall production [which includes offense]. Thus, the rates approach. Some players have both. Some have an excess of one while lacking in the other.

Beauty is thus in the eye of the beholder[s].


Question- from your last list are you inferring that Hartnett, Cochrane, Dickey are in fact your choices for top catchers of all time, or is there more number crunching and evaluation still to come?

From 1901 - present, that's how it's measuring up; and I don't find anyone right now who will upset it too much.

[leewileyfan]

As I update catcher evaluations, filling in blanks and moving forward, instead of new posts for each update, I'll simply add new entries in boldface on each initial list: catcher ratings, late protection, baserunner management, etc., placing each added player name in its proper place.

Consolidated evaluations will include additional catchers.

[leewileyfan]

Catchers

This post will distill and summarize my catcher evaluations for those catchers whose careers were significantly represented between 1901 and the present.

During that period, of the catchers I’ve studied, there have been 40 who, by my template, have produced 100 or more defense runs above Major League average during their careers; and I have included three others, who for various reasons, came close enough by my reckoning:

-Roy Campanella, tragic accident

-Frankie Pytlak, WW II

-Chuck Essian, solid rate, short career

Catcher evaluations must be sensitive to changes in equipment, game strategies, physical layout and maintenance of the playing surface and the dramatic changes in catcher involvement and positional demands over more than a century.

There have been no less than seven “generations” between 1901 and 2009; and within those, there have been at least three additional overlapping periods of transition. In all, there are at least 10 models of expectation at work.

These evaluations are by descending rank order, beginning with the 100 Club in defensive runs saved. This class also gives a hint at longevity, with highest numbers suggesting more catcher seasons. In arriving at defense runs, I consider innings played behind the plate converted into the equivalent of 120 games or more to constitute a season.

Defense Runs, Ranking Order

Hartnett 274
Lopez, A. 261
Carter, G. 241
Ruel 238
R. Ferrell 225
Rodriguez, I. 205
G. Mancuso 203
Dickey, B. 199
Parrish, L. 194
Sundberg 188
Berra, Y. 184
T. Pena 176
Bergen 170
Ausmus 164
Bo. Boone 97
Dalrymple 145
Tebbetts 161
Crandall, D. 159
Killefer 159
Rosar, "B." 156
S. O'Neill 148
Bench, J. 141
"S." Davis 141
Dempsey 132
Schalk, R. 129
Schang, "W." 128
Lollar 126
Yeager 125
Munson, T. 123
Kling 122
W. Schmidt 119
G. Gibson 115
Danning, H. 109
M. Owen 106
Blanco 105
L. Sewell 104
Azcue 103
Hegan 101
Johnson, C. 101
M. Tresh 101
Essian 100
Sewell, L. 100
Pytlak, F. 98

Roy Campanella’s actual estimate is 88; but 100 seems to have been assured without the tragic accident that ended his career.


Plate Protection


The second listing is my estimate of plate protection; and this list will be different from the first because it is a specific skills area subset. Numbers serve to allow sorting in whatever order.



Rosar, "B." 1.0323
Pytlak, F. 1.0155
Johnson, C. 1.0037
Johjima 1.0000
Schneider 0.9987
Ausmus 0.9954
Berra, Y. 0.9932
Blanco 0.9909
Lollar 0.9886
Hoiles 0.9881
Dyer 0.9839
Richards 0.9834
Hegan 0.9826
DeSautels .9802
La Valliere 0.9780
Hogan 0.9772
"D." Brown 0.9770
Crandall, D. 0.9759
Carter, G. 0.9709
Dickey, B. 0.9709
Schalk, R. 0.9708
Lopez, A. 0.9700
Ruel 0.9692
W. Schmidt 0.9691
Berres .9674
M. Hill 0.9662
Danning, H. 0.9659
Dempsey 0.9644
E. Howard 0.9632
Mauer 0.9630
T. Pena 0.9628
Sundberg 0.9628
"S." Davis 0.9625
Bench, J. 0.9602
R. Martin 0.9589
Dalrymple 0.8002
Berg 0.9582
Jorgens .9562
Stearns 0.9542
House 0.9517
Kendall 0.9510
B. Molina 0.9507
Rodriguez, I. 0.9505
Wynegar 0.9505
Bassler 0.9495
Campanella 0.9482
R. Hayworth .9482
M. Ryan 0.9480
McCullough 0.9480
R. Hundley 0.9472
Freehan, B. 0.9467
Moeller 0.9463
C. Berry 0.9453
Westrum 0.9453

Baserunner Management

This list is based on more than pure catcher throw-out rates on baserunners.

Rosar, "B." 1.0000
Pytlak, F. 0.9767
Ausmus 0.9606
Schneider 0.9598
Johnson, C. 0.9561
Hoiles 0.9498
Lollar 0.9494
DeSautels .9488
Berra, Y. 0.9463
Johjima 0.9415
M. Hill 0.9361
Hogan 0.9341
Blanco 0.9329
Crandall, D. 0.9321
La Valliere 0.9314
Lopez, A. 0.9312
Hegan 0.9304
Dyer 0.9283
Carter, G. 0.9273
Richards 0.9243
Dickey, B. 0.9238
Ruel 0.9237
R. Martin 0.9236
Danning, H. 0.9222
Dempsey 0.9201
Mauer 0.9173
"D." Brown 0.9138
W. Schmidt 0.9131
"S." Davis 0.9130
Moeller 0.9104
Schalk, R. 0.9100
Stearns 0.9069
McCullough 0.9052
Dalrymple 0.9090
Jorgens .9076
Berres .9046
T. Pena 0.9037
Bench, J. 0.9018
Downing 0.8998
Masi 0.8995
Campanella 0.8989
Kendall 0.8981
Bassler 0.8962
House 0.8957
Rodriguez, I. 0.8945
E. Howard 0.8923
Kluttz 0.8914
R. Hundley 0.8903
Wynegar 0.8899
Sundberg 0.8896
Essian 0.8889
S. White 0.8880
S. Lake 0.8873
R. Hayworth .8860
C. Berry 0.8836
B. Molina 0.8832
Gibbs 0.8832
Berg 0.8816
Karkovice 0.8806
Y. Molina 0.8805

Combined Runs Created/Saved … Defense @ Position Only


This exercise is intended to isolate defense behind the plate only. It is career-based. If a player was versatile enough to have played at many positions, with Catcher not being dominant among them, he will not be listed here. This list, even upon completion, [I am sure there are some omissions that need to be added], is not intended to be comprehensive.

Also, if a catcher also played OF or 1B, or whatever position, I am considering his bat separate from his catching defense. Catching defense is isolate to that position only. However, it is not my purpose or focus to isolate batting runs created to only plate appearances in games where the player caught. I’ll leave that kind of refinement to others.

Here, without attention to career length is the run production rate per plate appearance with net catching defense runs.


Hartnett 0.1981
Dickey, B. 0.1950
Cochrane 0.1878
Campanella 0.1750
Berra, Y. 0.1720
Johjima 0.1711
"S." Davis 0.1707
Phelps 0.1664
Schang, "W." 0.1644
Piazza, M. 0.1632
Lombardi, E. 0.1621
Ferrell 0.1608
Bench, J. 0.1600
Danning, H. 0.1598
Bresnahan, R. 0.1591
"B." Hargrave 0.1591
Pytlak, F. 0.1584
Ruel 0.1582
Tenace, G. 0.1581
Rodriguez, I. 0.1578
Mauer 0.1570
Carter, G. 0.1554
Cooper, W. 0.1541
Tebbetts 0.1510
J. Posada 0.1502
"Ch." Meyers 0.1500
Hogan 0.1486
Lollar 0.1486
Torre, J. 0.1483
Hoiles 0.1482
Essian 0.1467
Westrum 0.1467
Gowdy 0.1465
G. Mancuso 0.1465
Kluttz 0.1460
Parrish, L. 0.1456
Munson, T. 0.1455
Johnson, C. 0.1447
R. Martin 0.1447
Stearns 0.1440
Ross 0.1436
Rosar, "B." 0.1435
Seminick 0.1427
Early 0.1420

I won't quibble with anyone who argues, "But hey, not all this guy's batting runs were created while he was a catcher." That is none of my concern. My focus is on first building a catcher profile that includes stars, whether primarily offensive or not, but bringing in the oft-forgotten guys whose defensive skills might have contributed more than their bats ever could. Batting runs are batting runs. Catcher defense runs saved are added; poor defensive - runs are subtracted. Career PA comprise the denominator.

I am also studying various data sources to build a rated roster of greatest game-callers, whose defense and command of battery dynamics maximized pitcher effectiveness. So far, N.L. [1901-1925 looks promising; but I'm about two-three months or so from completing data organization and proofing through 2009 with enough confidence to post that data.

[barzilla]

So I see our running and gunning battle is still going on. I will say a couple of things on the subject:

1) I try not to say anything critical or otherwise before reading a work, however I would tend to agree that anyone that says they're first when they are not is playing with fire.

2) I won't dismiss research out of hand, but I am a bit skeptical when I see Hartnett rated first. It reminds of the book I read (can't remember the exact title) that had Tony Gwynn as the best hitter of all-time. There was a methadology there, but it wasn't what I would consider to be enlightened.

3) As someone that dabbles in sabermetrics I can certainly appreciate someone that combines the historical nature of the game (I am also a history buff) with the statistical. I've found it to be very important that you make that point clear from the get go. If the author does that in his book I am fine with it.

[leewileyfan]

So I see our running and gunning battle is still going on. I will say a couple of things on the subject:

There is absolutely no "running and gunning" battle going on. If there is, I am not a participant. I am talking baseball. Right now, the focus is on catchers, as suggested by the thread-starter, with Gabby Hartnett gives particular focus. In fact, after a recent set of exchanges here, I've promised myself never to engage in unproductive nonsense again. On-topic discussions, questions, observations of ratings given - feedback!!!! = great! I'm all-in. The rest: no.


1) I try not to say anything critical or otherwise before reading a work, however I would tend to agree that anyone that says they're first when they are not is playing with fire.

I would agree with the general statement. However, I have seen nothing specific from you [or others] which would refute the reasonable suggestion [thread title] that Gabby Hartnett is a suitable candidate for consideration.

The thread title ends with a ?, not with a !


2) I won't dismiss research out of hand, but I am a bit skeptical when I see Hartnett rated first. It reminds of the book I read (can't remember the exact title) that had Tony Gwynn as the best hitter of all-time. There was a methadology there, but it wasn't what I would consider to be enlightened.

Not being rude here; but I've put too much work into this to be de-railed by unspecified books related to Tony Gwynn's hitting, when the thread topic asks whether Gabby Hartnett is the greatest catcher ever.


3) As someone that dabbles in sabermetrics I can certainly appreciate someone that combines the historical nature of the game (I am also a history buff) with the statistical. I've found it to be very important that you make that point clear from the get go. If the author does that in his book I am fine with it.

I have repeatedly made clear what my area[s] of focus are.

[barzilla]

I was referring to the book and not your work in particular. In addressing your work, I would say that I have no issue with calling Gabby Hartnett a candidate for best defensive catcher of all-time. I'm not sure I would agree, but I would say he is certainly in the debate. Yet, I would not consider him to be the best hitting catcher because he lacks the volume needed. At his very best he was as good as the others at their very best, but he didn't seem able to sustain good health and that has to be a factor. I'm still working on my rating system myself, so I will release what I have soon.

[leewileyfan]

Critical to any evaluation metric is a clearly defined outline of what you intend to measure, within a framework that allows as much variation in reader/observer interpretation as the basic effort will allow:

1. I demand of my metric that it recognizes at least a solid portion of players who excelled defensively while they performed at the MLB level, some even putting in 10-12 season careers behind the plate with fewer than 500 games played.
I was getting into a slow boil over one whom I remember old-timers and broadcasters singling out as a defensive genius and just couldn't get my head around his name. It finally came through this morning .... Ray Berres [1934-1945]. So I got into his records; and he was no disappointment, except with the bat, where he was a lot better than Bill Bergen, but very few others.

2. Doing the Ray Berres numbers, I came upon some others, previously ommitted, two back-ups and two regulars. The back-ups are Art Jorgens and Gene DeSautels; and they are now incorporated into my primary list in the original post [see earlier post above with master listing by qualifying segments].

The regulars are Mike Tresh and Ray Hayworth. Tresh appears only in the >100 DR column. He was solid in all categories, but not in the top 50 or so in any of the sub-categories.

[barzilla]

Just a question as to methadology. When I was first beginning my HOF index I had difficulty in two primary areas. First, I had metrics that compared players with a league average and then metrics that compared players with a margin. Second, I had run based statistics and then win based statistics. I noticed that you had run based statistics and rate statistics and wondered how you reconcile the two.

As to the first, I would think that comparing with the average player will reward players that might have shorter careers, but are able to sustain excellence throughout that short career while comparing to a margin would give more credit to those that sustain a longer career. I've always believed both points of view have value and so I've always tried to balance the two. I do this because I have found that when you favor one over the other you get results that are skewed in relationship with what most casual observers would say should be the final result.

That being said, whenever findings are made on this level I think those that make the findings (again referring to the author and not you specifically) has to know that their findings go against the conventional wisdom. This means I need to make doubly sure that my methods are clear of bias. If I go through my HOF index and find anyone but Honus Wagner as the best shortstop it doesn't necessarily mean I am wrong, but it means I better be able to explain myself clearly because those reading my work will assume I am wrong going in.

When I made my Tony Gwynn reference, it was only related in the fact that the author used a flawed approach and came up with an answer that was outside of the mainstream. The finding itself didn't make him wrong, but it certainly put his methodology under further scrutiny. Similarly, most so-called experts would not call Gabby Hartnett the best catcher of all-time, so anyone that calls him that has to understand that since they are working against the norm they will have to expect scrutiny of their methods.

[leewileyfan]

Just a question as to methadology. When I was first beginning my HOF index I had difficulty in two primary areas. First, I had metrics that compared players with a league average and then metrics that compared players with a margin. Second, I had run based statistics and then win based statistics. I noticed that you had run based statistics and rate statistics and wondered how you reconcile the two.

I hope you find this responsive to the questions in he context you intended.

1. My catcher evaluations are an individual portion of a 1901-present study of position defense, intended to reflect changes in the game, field layout, rules, uniforms, equipment, ball COR, mound and other dynamics that modify position demands across decades.

2. My initial approach was a what if approach suggesting deserving defensive award winners pre-GG [and challnging actual GG awards from inception].

3. Dissatisfied with the mercurial nature of Replacement Level and it deep discount, and desirous of avoiding slavishness to annual averages at each position, I constructed a model Player X for each position, all inputs determined by me, so that the model would reflect a level of defensive play at each position that would be reflective of the playing generation.

4. Player X then would be held up against a model of excellence at his position established by outstanding performance by peers. The model was intended to convert to a basic range of evaluation between .900 and 1.000. This was for ease of identification by surface resemblance to the old standby, fielding %, which it is NOT.

5. Then, each season's defensive leaders would be measured by rating and defense runs against the template. I first converted ratings into defense runs +/- Player X.

6. I am now working on a second study, dfese-driven on a team level.
Here, I am dealing with League average rather than Player X.

To sum up, the metric is input-to-template driven, with templates subject to change to reflect positional demands as the game evolves. The feedback is provided by ratings increases or declines that signal changes in the game at that position[s] calling for an adjustement in template[s].


As to the first, I would think that comparing with the average player will reward players that might have shorter careers, but are able to sustain excellence throughout that short career while comparing to a margin would give more credit to those that sustain a longer career. I've always believed both points of view have value and so I've always tried to balance the two. I do this because I have found that when you favor one over the other you get results that are skewed in relationship with what most casual observers would say should be the final result.

At the risk of being criticized for non-adherence to rigorous "structure." I believe the long-range product of any intense study where one is peoposing an evaluation model is solely guided and contained by the purpose[s] of the study in the first place.

1. I have always been drawn to the defense. I am not fixated on defense; but I am drawn to it. If I create a model of defensive excellence, then defensive excellence MUST be the star of the show.

2. Take the case of my several day struggle recalling the name of a catcher whose name for some time was nudged into my head as being that "super defense" back-up guy, in print, radio and conversational exchanges among my elders. My attitude was, "Hey, you're compiling all this work and you can't recall this guy who so many knowledgeable people considered the 'cat's meow' behind the plate?"

Then it came to me: Ray Berres. Eleven or twelve years in MLB and catching @ 400 games? But running his data demands he be included, because in limited playing time [weak bat] he earned his accolades.

Peak? He virtually had none. Similarly, a gutty brick wall behind the plate like Gene DeSautels goes into nobody's Hall of Fame; but was he an excellent catcher? You bet.

They belong because the focus of this portion of he study is Catchers.

My primary emphasis is defense [while they had the chance to play]. Then, overall evaluation introduces offense.

Bottom line: a great glove guy playing at a rate of +15 defense runs above MLB average may actualize only +47 in a ten year career due to playing time. A solid 1st stringer, pretty good behing the plate and handy with a bat may last 15 seasons @ + 6 DR and end up at +90.

The final product should give [B]each his due.


That being said, whenever findings are made on this level I think those that make the findings (again referring to the author and not you specifically) has to know that their findings go against the conventional wisdom.

A fair observation. However, conventional wisdom has a partially earned reputation as an epithet "damning with faint praise, bringing us more problems than solutions.


This means I need to make doubly sure that my methods are clear of bias. If I go through my HOF index and find anyone but Honus Wagner as the best shortstop it doesn't necessarily mean I am wrong, but it means I better be able to explain myself clearly because those reading my work will assume I am wrong going in.

If you stick to your focus and do not jerry-rig a hodge-podge from other existing metrics, you're probably on the right track. Don't we all like surprises?


When I made my Tony Gwynn reference, it was only related in the fact that the author used a flawed approach and came up with an answer that was outside of the mainstream.

One Tony Gwynn #1 evaluator re-configured batting dynamics [as I recall] so that Ted Williams came off as a .320 guy and Gwynn came out @ .345. I appears there are a number of such [I]even-the-playing-field models afoot, rigorously vetted mathematically. I don't feel compelled to grant infallibility to that kind of rigor.


The finding itself didn't make him wrong, but it certainly put his methodology under further scrutiny.

Agreed, depending on who is doing the scrutinizing; how they express themselves constructively; their own focal points and biases.


Similarly, most so-called experts would not call Gabby Hartnett the best catcher of all-time, so anyone that calls him that has to understand that since they are working against the norm they will have to expect scrutiny of their methods.

That opener need some specific references to suit me, particularly use of the word most.

Then, too, there is the "all-time" kicker, which eliminates me for careers before 1901.

The word norm needs defining for me to buy into it.

Then too, there is always the ultimate question: What does the person have in mind when saying best catcher of all tim?

-best defender?
-best vs. baserunners?
-best game caller?
-best plate blocker;
-best in hearts of his pitchers?
-best overall with glove + bat?

I take 1-5 above as my defensive focus, as far as that can take me. The last, the bat, combined with all of the above = RUNS.

That gives me Hartnett, Dickey and Cochrane. Somebody want to shuffle the order? Fine with me.

[SABR Matt]

There was no major flaw in that author's work, Barzilla. There was, however, a major misunderstanding as to what the author meant by "hitter." I think it could very well be argued that Tony Gwynn was the greatest overall CONTACT HITTER ever. The author, when he started out with his project, had a goal of finding out who would have the highest batting average if everyone played on the same level playing field. When you ask THAT question, it's not unreasonable to conclude that Gwynn would win that race. The fault was with the author calling Tony Gwynn the greatest hitter of all time without defining what he meant by "hitter". He followed up that book with a book called "Baseball's All Time Greatest SLUGGERS" and that used the same general methodology with more statistics than just batting average to calculate normalized statistics in BA, HR, 2B+3B, SB, BB, K, RBI and R.

[BigRon]

There was no major flaw in that author's work, Barzilla. There was, however, a major misunderstanding as to what the author meant by "hitter." I think it could very well be argued that Tony Gwynn was the greatest overall CONTACT HITTER ever. The author, when he started out with his project, had a goal of finding out who would have the highest batting average if everyone played on the same level playing field. When you ask THAT question, it's not unreasonable to conclude that Gwynn would win that race. The fault was with the author calling Tony Gwynn the greatest hitter of all time without defining what he meant by "hitter". He followed up that book with a book called "Baseball's All Time Greatest SLUGGERS" and that used the same general methodology with more statistics than just batting average to calculate normalized statistics in BA, HR, 2B+3B, SB, BB, K, RBI and R.

SABRMatt is correct- the first book, by Michael Schell, was focused on finding the ML player with the highest career BA in history, "normalized" for era, ballpark, etc. Gwynn edged out Ty Cobb. The problem was that Schell continuously referred to Gwynn as the greatest hitter in history. In this work he took no notice of extra base hits, slugging, isolated power, walks, etc. It was a very misleading work, at least to those who have a broader definition of greatest hitter.

Schell's more recent work, "Baseball's Greatest Sluggers", is much more comprehensive, in that it attempts to analyze all factors contributing to offense. In my opinion it is a much better work- certainly less misleading- albeit unintentional.

[SABR Matt]

It's only misleading if you don't actually read the entire book. In the opening section of the first book, Shell defines what he means by the greatest hitter very specifically. His word choice might not have been the best, but there's nothing wrong with the underlying work...in fact he uses many methods that I plan on applying to more advanced metrics and that I think are ahead of their time in sabermetrics.

[leewileyfan]

HOWEVER, this particular thread is about catchers. I do not believe Tony Gwynn was a catcher; and, slugger or not, he or books about him, are not directed to the thread topic.

Thanks for the tangential info, though.

[SABR Matt]

This thread is not about catchers, leewiley...this thread is about the merits of a particular author's work...discussion of similar works is well on topic.

[leewileyfan]

Just for your general information, THIS is the thread title:




Gabby Hartnett the greatest catcher ever? (Multi-page thread 1 2 3 4)


Furthermore, throughout the thread, I have repeatedly [and politely] attempted to stay on thread, after repeated tangents where emphasis was made on attacking opinions of others
[McNeill, etc.] – the attacks attempting to take over the thread as the main topic.

Want evidence?

Post 50, page 2


Speaking of which, I am returning to the topic of this thread: CATCHERS.


Then, you can fire away at me; but at least we'll be on topic.[/B]

Post 63, page 3


Now, if we may be permitted, back to baseball - and catchers.

Post 85, page 4


The last appeal for staying on thread.

[SABR Matt]

The title belies the subject matter of the first post. The first post is a question as to whether we should take seriously the work of this particular author. The posts that follow are entirely driven by whether this author is credible and nothing about whether we personally believe Hartnett is the best catcher of all time. Not until you started posting lists did anyone discuss the merits of putting Hartnett first.

[leewileyfan]

Other than PCA what defensive metrics do you consider to be solid in evaluating a catcher's defense?

I believe the thread title speaks for itself. However, after several references to "catchers" was shunted by McNeill critiques and sabermetric generalizations, I believe Honu Wagner Rules [recognizing the primary focus of the thread] tried to get back to the topic.

Please note that prior to HWR's post, I hadn't posted to the thread at all.

[barzilla]

If I may return us to the subject of catchers. Let me answer a few questions that Leewileyfan posed:

1) What do I mean by most?

Your 1901 and forward point is well noted, but I don't think most historians would consider 19th century catchers as serious contenders for any competition. As for most, I would think that most (being a 50 + 1 majority) would name someone other than Hartnett as the best defensive catcher. Since you are focusing on defense only I wouldn't call the notion completely ridiculous on its face though.

2) What do I mean by norm?

Norm was a lazy term as I don't always travel easily between conversational tone and scientific tone. In this sense, norm is meant to mean something more conventional. I don't see Hartnett as a conventional choice. I could be wrong though.

3) Best "Defensive" Catcher

I admire your aims now that I understand them. I would especially love to see the GG findings from 1901 on. From season to season I see using fielding runs as useful as using fielding wins. When you start compounding them I think you have a nice look at excellence even if I fear that any look at value might be skewed. However, for determining GGs, excellence is the key.

[leewileyfan]

If I may return us to the subject of catchers. Let me answer a few questions that Leewileyfan posed:

1) What do I mean by most?

Your 1901 and forward point is well noted, but I don't think most historians would consider 19th century catchers as serious contenders for any competition.

I disqualify myself from evaluating players before 1901, although I include some in my studies, those who had significant career portions at or after 1901.

However, if an outstanding player before 1900 had declining years after 1901, I respect his younger play and consider him a 19th Century player. I do not dis earlier players. I see them as participating in a different game.



As for most, I would think that most (being a 50 + 1 majority) would name someone other than Hartnett as the best defensive catcher. Since you are focusing on defense only I wouldn't call the notion completely ridiculous on its face though.

You have mis-read me on two counts: one: I never alluded to Hartnett as the best defensive catcher. If you refer to my lists, separate for plate protection , baserunner management, the [B]defensive portions, you'll see he is not dominant. He is far above average; but he is not a super-defender as a specialization.

Two: While I definitely do focus on defense, I repeatedly make it clear that overall position ratings must factor in offense. Given the whole picture, Hartnett comes out #1, overall, for me.


2) What do I mean by norm?

Norm was a lazy term as I don't always travel easily between conversational tone and scientific tone. In this sense, norm is meant to mean something more conventional. I don't see Hartnett as a conventional choice. I could be wrong though.

I believe a good solid exploration among player oral histories, media evaluations, statistical summaries will invariably have Hartnett at or near the top.

If you delve into mathematical theory-centric regression studies that purport to level the playing field across generations, while I have studied a few and read several, I don't generally go there, because, pure or not mathematically, they intoduce a virtual reality in a constructed model.

This is not shying away from such studies. I just belief for the niche of my primary interest, I adjust throughout the study to reflect game dynamics changes.


3) Best "Defensive" Catcher

Even that is a tough one, because there were several who excelled behind the plate, some for a long time, some who had only an extended coffee break.

Right now, I am re-visiting Ossee Schreckengost from the first decade of the 1900s - more there than immediately meets the eye. Best I ever saw in action: Jim Hegan, Bill Dickey, Frankie Pytlak, Yadier Molina, Ivan Rodriguez, Gary Carter, Del Crandall, Johnny Bench, Birdie Tebbetts, Paul Richards, probably leaving out a slew of others?

Best reputations by word-of-mouth, older generations: Lou Criger, Gabby Street, Josh Gibson, Johnny Kling, Ray Schalk, Bill Killefer, Hank Gowdy, Muddy Ruel, Gabby Hartnett, Luke Sewell, Rick Ferrell, Al Lopez [I saw him] and Gus Mancuso [him, too] and Harry Danning. [Oh, and the elusive Ray Berres].


I admire your aims now that I understand them. I would especially love to see the GG findings from 1901 on. From season to season I see using fielding runs as useful as using fielding wins. When you start compounding them I think you have a nice look at excellence even if I fear that any look at value might be skewed. However, for determining GGs, excellence is the key.

That [fielding runs as part of the whole, by position and by team] is the larger project I'm working on right now, stalled focusing on catchers, having covered 1901-1984. Got to get back to those last 25 years.

[Second Base Coach]

I read about a fourth of the posts on this thread, and I can't help but wonder how far an author will go to sell a book.

Would he be the first to make an outrageous statement to make you wonder what else he has to say?

And would that curiosity make you want to read the book? And after flipping through some of the pages, would you be curious (or amused) enough to want to buy it?

Sounds like a ploy to me, or the results of the efforts of a Cubs fan. Maybe Hartnett was the favorite player of the author's father, or something.

People want to believe all kinds of things. People who believe in UFOs will sometimes write a book about it, just to help build a case for their existence.

Then go around quoting their own book at parties, claiming their thoughts on the matter must be true as there have been books written about the subject.

Was the research done before the book was started? I would want to know that... and I would want to know if this guy thinks fielding percentage or throwing out runners is nearly as important as a catcher's offense.

After a google search of the author, he has written more than just this book. He has a book just on Hartnett, one on baseball in Latin America and Cuba, one on the Negro Leagues, one on power hitters, and what appears to be something worth reading about the old California Winter League (which was integrated). Dodger fans might enjoy his Dodgers Encyclopedia.

So this appears to be an author of note. Why he would call his research groundbreaking might be the idea of the publisher.

[leewileyfan]

I read about a fourth of the posts on this thread, and I can't help but wonder how far an author will go to sell a book.

Would he be the first to make an outrageous statement to make you wonder what else he has to say?

And would that curiosity make you want to read the book? And after flipping through some of the pages, would you be curious (or amused) enough to want to buy it?

Sounds like a ploy to me, or the results of the efforts of a Cubs fan. Maybe Hartnett was the favorite player of the author's father, or something.

People want to believe all kinds of things. People who believe in UFOs will sometimes write a book about it, just to help build a case for their existence.

Then go around quoting their own book at parties, claiming their thoughts on the matter must be true as there have been books written about the subject.

Was the research done before the book was started? I would want to know that... and I would want to know if this guy thinks fielding percentage or throwing out runners is nearly as important as a catcher's offense.

Running a few chapters behind, I just re-visited this thread. The above seems a shopping list of questions and posed conjectures, obliquely hinting at a cynical opinion regarding the topic, the thread and the author in question.

Is this a fair assessment; or have you formed personal opinions on any of this, like Hartnett, for example?

[Second Base Coach]

Is it a crime to want to read fair and honest biographies?

Should anyone be surprised by an author taking an extreme position to help sell a book, especially if it is not his first book?

If you answered no to both of those questions, then you understood the meaning of my earlier post. My position on books like these apparently needed two posts to clarify.

[leewileyfan]

Is it a crime to want to read fair and honest biographies?

Well, since the title of this thread is Gabby Hartnett: the Greatest Catcher Ever? and the book title that was under much discussion is Backstop: A History Of The Catcher And Sabermetric Ranking Of 50 All-time Greats by William F. McNeil and Foreword by Pete Palmer (Paperback - Dec 13, 2005), I have no clue at all as to what fair and honest biography you are alluding to?


Should anyone be surprised by an author taking an extreme position to help sell a book, especially if it is not his first book?

I have no factual, clearly defined and documented evidence that McNeil did any such thing, merely allegations attributed to him for making claims not really documented. What extreme positions are you alleging? What possible difference would it make if it were the author's 1st or 50th published book. I'd think a new writer on the market would take steps not to blow his credibility coming right out of the chute.

A veteran writer would not risk an established reputation, either.


If you answered no to both of those questions, then you understood the meaning of my earlier post.

But I could not answer no to #1 because there was no biography for me to reference. No. 2 made far too many assumptions for me to consider any response other than the one I just made before your reply, quoted in part here.



My position on books like these apparently needed two posts to clarify.

Apparently. Maybe three, since your response was far more defensive than it was expository..

[Second Base Coach]

Apparently. Maybe three, since your response was far more defensive than it was expository... >>><<<

Are you so bored that you have to bait a total stranger on a obscure baseball message board?

Read the book, and then tell me if you think it is one of those tomes where the writer is trying to sell his own opinion to the masses.

And if it ain't that, then YOU tell ME what kind of biography it happens to be... a true account of actual events, or just another compilation of quotes, box scores and stolen material referenced back to yet other books trying to make the same point over and over again.

And in case you still don't know what I mean... here it is directly...

It is my personal experience, after reading many many biographies on ballplayers, that any book written WELL after the death of a player contains no more than five percent new material. Anything more than that is opinion by the author himself, poorly disguised as research.

If this book is not THAT, then it is very rare indeed.

[leewileyfan]

I read about a fourth of the posts on this thread, and I can't help but wonder how far an author will go to sell a book.

You did write this, right?


Would he be the first to make an outrageous statement to make you wonder what else he has to say?

........ and this, too, correct?


And would that curiosity make you want to read the book? And after flipping through some of the pages, would you be curious (or amused) enough to want to buy it?

Maybe. If I realized the the extent of the writer's published body of works.


Sounds like a ploy to me, or the results of the efforts of a Cubs fan. Maybe Hartnett was the favorite player of the author's father, or something.

People want to believe all kinds of things. People who believe in UFOs will sometimes write a book about it, just to help build a case for their existence.

Rambling here, but you do condescending leap to a conclusion that Cubs' fans; Hartnett champions; and UFO proponents have much in common [daftness???]


Then go around quoting their own book at parties, claiming their thoughts on the matter must be true as there have been books written about the subject.

Sounds like you were mingling at these parties and rubbed shoulders with this provocateur.


Was the research done before the book was started? I would want to know that... and I would want to know if this guy thinks fielding percentage or throwing out runners is nearly as important as a catcher's offense.

Sounds like you did not read this book; or, if you did, maybe just a quarter of it, like this thread.


After a google search of the author, he has written more than just this book. He has a book just on Hartnett, one on baseball in Latin America and Cuba, one on the Negro Leagues, one on power hitters, and what appears to be something worth reading about the old California Winter League (which was integrated). Dodger fans might enjoy his Dodgers Encyclopedia.

Tadaahhhh!!!


So this appears to be an author of note. Why he would call his research groundbreaking might be the idea of the publisher.

..... and you accuse me of baiting a stranger on some obscure board. After pages of posters contributing efforts to evaluate, you come up with this, after reading one-quarter of the thread?

[leewileyfan]

Are you so bored that you have to bait a total stranger on a obscure baseball message board?[

This is what prompted my response above.


And if it ain't that, then YOU tell ME what kind of biography it happens to be... a true account of actual events, or just another compilation of quotes, box scores and stolen material referenced back to yet other books trying to make the same point over and over again.

Why? You have yet to show you know what a biography is.

[Second Base Coach]

I am sorry, but I have to stop here. You are lumping my comments in with what was said by other people.

I am sure it is a fine book, and perhaps an easy read if you are a Cubs fan.

I hope they all enjoy it, and with any luck there is more than the aforementioned five percent new material to make it worth the purchase price.

And hopefully the new material is more research than opinion which is just one way to judge the quality of a biography and distinguish it from just another fan's essay on his favorite player separated out by tired metrics in the disguise of something seemingly new.

After you read the book, let me know what you think. I look forward to your informed opinion of this particular book. I stopped reading biographies written about people long since dead, unless it is a first attempt to capture the man in print. Too bad this comes 37 years after his death. All we have is player who were coached by him to lean on for their opinions on the man's ability to coach rather than play. Any quotes about his playing ability will of course be recycled from other sources, as they usually are.

[leewileyfan]

What we have here is failure to communicate.

Usually, when two posters are so completely at odds with each others’ content, there has to be an underlying cause for miscommunication. I believe I’ve found ours.

1. The starter of this thread made reference to a book by William F. McNeil, one that clearly included sabermetric evaluations of the top 50 catchers of all time. The thread writer, presumably prompted by the book and its author’s conclusions, posed the question having to do with Gabby Hartnett being the greatest.

This is the McNeil book that triggered the entire thread:

Backstop: A History Of The Catcher And Sabermetric Ranking Of 50 All-time Greats (Paperback)
~ William F. McNeil (Author), Foreword by Pete Palmer

It is not biography. It profiles catchers and evaluates them.

2. You have made repeated reference to “honest” biography. This book, also by the same author, is biography; but it has nothing to do with the
thread under discussion. That book is:

Gabby Hartnett: The Life and Times of the Cubs' Greatest Catcher by William McNeil

I have been discussing the topic of the thread [inspired by book #1], taking the word of the poster that McNeil has Hartnett at #1. I have made clear throughout my participation in the thread that I am offering my own rankings, generally agreeing with McNeil.

I had no need to read the book. I simply questioned the determined conviction of those who claim he has made some fraudulent, or at best, misleading claims, as a “pioneer” in his study. None offered supporting, convincing quotes from McNeil himself to convince me that their afforded some cachet for McNeil’s credibility, as did the volume of his other published works.

As to the biography, I don’t have it on my immediate read list.