Of course.

The interesting part is later on, where the writer point out that the difference in WAR between Rickey and Brett was bigger than the difference between Brett and Mattingly - that Rickey had one of the all-time great WAR seasons.

A big deal was made of Mattingly's 145 RBIs, and I was pretty impressed. But Rickey scored I think 146 - in only 143 games. Much more impressive.

while the Yanks missed the playoffs,

The Yanks finished two games behind Toronto that year. Between the All-Star break and the time that the Yanks were eliminated in the final week of the season, Ed Whitson had exactly two games scores over 50.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with the tendency of MVP voters to attach great weight to late-season performance in pennant races, it is a well established tradition. A recent and striking case in point: by late August of the 2006 season the AL MVP debate included only two names: Jeter and Ortiz. Justin Morneau wasn't even in the discussion, but he won the MVP award on the basis of a torrid September finish that powered the Twins' drive into the post-season.

Mattingly won because he was A BEAST down the stretch as the Yanks' almost caught the Blue Jays. He batted .350 and slugged .681 in August and Sept/Oct, driving in 66 runs in 62 games. Henderson was the greatest offensive player I'd ever seen for three months from May to July, but had a terrible August/September. And Brett batted just .260 and slugged .512 in September for the Royals as they held on to win the AL West. True, Brett had many timely hits for the Royals, driving 26 runs in 35 games in Sept/Oct, but Mattingly drove in 40 runs in 34 games in Sept/Oct.

I recall the '85 pennant race distinctly, and Mattingly was a one-man gang in August and September. Henderson and Winfield each batted around .240 over the last two months. Mattingly almost single-handedly kept the Yanks in the race and brought them to within two games with two to play after trailing by 9.5 games in early August.

I can hear the stat geeks now: "A game is a game, and it doesn't matter if it's played in April or September." Tell it to the MVP voters, friends. And tell it to the fans, too. Every Yankee fan I knew was touting Henderson for MVP at the end of July, but by the end of the season Donnie enjoyed unanimous support from Yankee fans because of his amazing finish.

Henderson and Winfield each batted around .240 over the last two months

That's a little disingenuous. Henderson had the low average but still had a .401 OBP in September and .391 if you push it back to the start of August.

EDIT: If you are going to be comparing RBI between Brett and Mattingly it probably makes sense to point out that while Henderson was getting on base at a .391 pace in August/September while Willie Wilson (KC's leadoff hitter) was throwing up a robust .286 OBP.

Tommy, you really are cute. With a little polish, you could be a political spin doctor.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with the tendency of MVP voters to attach great weight to late-season performance in pennant races, it is a well established tradition. A recent and striking case in point: by late August of the 2006 season the AL MVP debate included only two names: Jeter and Ortiz. Justin Morneau wasn't even in the discussion, but he won the MVP award on the basis of a torrid September finish that powered the Twins' drive into the post-season.

Mattingly won because he was A BEAST down the stretch as the Yanks' almost caught the Blue Jays. He batted .350 and slugged .681 in August and Sept/Oct, driving in 66 runs in 62 games.

And Brett batted just .260 and slugged .512 in September for the Royals as they held on to win the AL West.

On Sep 30, 1985, the Royals went into Anaheim for a 4 game series, down by one to the Angels with 7 to play. From that day until the end of the season, George Brett went 8/20 with 5 HR, 8 runs scored, and 11 RBI as the Royals Won the west by 1 game.

Morneau's "torrid finish" wasn't in the same universe as Brett's. Brett hit 5 HR drove in 11 runs in the last 6 games. Morneau needed 54 games to hit his last 5, and 23 games to drive in his last 12. George Brett had one of the all time great torrid finishes in history. Possible second only to Yaz 1967. Don Mattingly won the MVP because of 145 RBI. Period.

But Rickey scored I think 146 - in only 143 games. Much more impressive.

Most runs scored in the AL in something like the last 70 years. Yeah, that's pretty good.

Tell it to the MVP voters, friends. And tell it to the fans, too.

We do, early and often. It doesn't make us any less right.

I'd like Tommy to expand on this alleged Morneau "torrid finish". In Sep/Oct 2006, Morneau hit 2 HR and drove in 20, his lowest HR month, and his second lowest RBI month of the season. In the last week, when the Twins were neck and neck with the Tigers, his seasonal stats cratered, going from .325/.381/.570 on Sep 26 to .321/.375/.559 at the end. He drove in 1 run and scored 2 in that last week.

They could have chosen any one of those three (Mattingly, Brett or Henderson) for that 1985 MVP and it wouldn't have been any great injustice. They all had monster years and none of them were undeserving. This is a bit like Rice vs Guidry in 1978, in the sense that everybody's right and nobody's particularly wrong.

Boggs shouldn't be forgotten. He had 8.5 WAR, more than Brett and much more than Mattingly, for a .500 team, and the 240 hits was a story. Henderson was in his own world at 10 WAR in 143 games.

While Rickey unquestionably had a great season in '85, that 10.0 WAR should be taken with a grain of salt - by CHONE's numbers, that was by far the best defensive season of Rickey's career. Generally, Rickey's defensive numbers suggest he was consistently one of the best defensive LFs in the league, but not so great that he'd be legitimately great in CF. 1985 is the one season where Rickey was simply the best outfielder in baseball, a +14 CF. I tend to be skeptical of that number, especially since we're dealing with a non-PBP defense metric. (What did ZR say? Where is that data available?)

You can't really go wrong with any of them. Bogg's WAR advantage over Brett is all defense (7 runs better in TZ), so that should also be regressed a bit in our analysis. Mattingly rates as merely an average defender by TZ, when he was generally appraised as excellent. So give Mattingly a few more runs on defense, and he's pretty close to the other three.

If baseball is a marathon then basically Barry Bonds sprinted the last 5 or 6 miles of the 1998 marathon like it was a 100m race.


His last two months
.340/.466/.755
.389/.491/.778

And then in the actual 100m race (the last 7 games of the schedule) he went .462/.548/.962 to force a one game playoff with the Cubs. The Giants went 6-1 through that stretch. Or perhaps you want the 200m race where Bonds went .404/.483/.904.

Nah. Brett vs. Mattingly is pretty straight-forward. Brett produced significantly more runs with the bat and played a more difficult position. Even if you make Mattingly +5 with the glove, Brett was still a lot better. Henderson vs. Mattingly is also straightforward. Rickey produced the same number of runs as Mattingly with the bat, but was (of course) a terror on the bases, plus played centerfield. Even if you make Mattingly +5 with the glove and Henderson 0 with the glove, Henderson was a lot better.

To decide between Rickey and Brett, you need to balance Rickey's noticeably better overall offensive performance with defense and perhaps account for the stretch drive.

On Sep 30, 1985, the Royals went into Anaheim for a 4 game series, down by one to the Angels with 7 to play. From that day until the end of the season, George Brett went 8/20 with 5 HR, 8 runs scored, and 11 RBI as the Royals Won the west by 1 game.

We're awarding the MVP for a one week performance? Brett's September stats before his last week: .210 BA, .340 slugging ave. It wouldn't have been such a close race if Brett hadn't completely disappeared for the first 28 games of September. In fact, the only reason the Royals were still in the race is because they went on a 13-2 tear from Sept. 2 to Sept. 15. Brett batted .151 during that streak.

Regarding Morneau in 2006, I should have said "allegedly torrid" finish. I seem to recall that was the rationale given by the MVP voters. Obviously, I believe the 2006 MVP vote was a travesty. It should have been Jeter or Ortiz - either would have been an excellent choice. The Morneau vote was one of the more absurd MVP votes in recent memory.

OK, so best 100M races (last 7 games of the season, or last 7 games before clinching), in a tight pennant race.

Brett 1985 .434/.500/1.217 5 HR 8 R 13 RBI
Bonds 1998 .462/.548/.962 2 HR 8 R 7 RBI
Yaz 1967 .560/.600/1.000 3 HR 8 R 13 RBI
Morneau .286/.310/.428 1 HR 4 R 4 RBI

Any other contenders? Right now I put it at Yaz, Brett, Barry, 8 million others, Morneau.

I must be misremembering the 2006 season because in my memory Morneau was in the discussion for MVP not because of some hot finish but because of his production durin the Twins turnaround in June and July. Heading into June the Twins were 4 games under. Heading into August they were 18 over and since by then the story on Morneau had already been written him fading from there on out was largely ignored.

Any other contenders?

Robin Yount, 1982: .379/.441/.793 3 HR 8 R 6 RBI. Includes 4 4 3 2 game with 2HR on the last day of the season with the division championship still undecided.

Not really equivalent to the guys Misirlou lists but just for what it's worth;

Joe Mauer's final 7 games, 2006 - .393/.433/.679, 2 HR, 5 RBI

Yeah, Yount. He's certainly up there with Yaz.

edit: OCF, did you change Yount's numbers? When I posted my comment, I could have sworn they were better than .379/.441/.793. Obviously not as good as Yaz, Brett, or Barry, but he was a SS for crissakes.

Any other contenders?

Joseph Patrick Mauer .393/.433/.679.

That (as I wrote on the blog in response to the same comment Tommy posted above) is what makes the Morneau comparison so perfect: the voters relied on their perception of who carried the team down the stretch, which led to a severe overreliance on HR and RBI. Rickey was at least as important to the Yanks' stretch run as Mattingly; Mauer was far more important to the Twins' run (and entire season) than Morneau.

It's not the performance down the stretch, it's how the performance down the stretch makes an impression in the voters' fickle minds. And so it all comes back to that big sexy RBI total.

Tom Brunansky - 1990 - .364/.400/1.182 - 5HR, 11 RBI, one ridiculous season saving catch. The 5 HR and 9 of the 11 RBI came in a 3 game series with the Blue Jays team the Red Sox were fighting with for the division.

Well, Ted kind of gets screwed because the Yankees were pretty darn good during his career but in 1941 his last 7 games had this line: .429/.613/1.048 with 4 homers.

Yeah, I first posted Yount's numbers as OBP/SLG/OPS and then changed them to BA/OBP/SLG.

Tom Brunansky - 1990 - .364/.400/1.182 - 5HR, 11 RBI, one ridiculous season saving catch.

I still refuse to believe that he actually caught that ball.

Vlad Guerrero's last seven games of 2004: .536/.594/1.286. Angels ended up beating the A's for the AL West title by one game.

I still refuse to believe that he actually caught that ball.

It's amazing that ESPN did not have a camera angle that got a decent look at it, at least on replay.

Babe Ruth, 1920: .500/.581/1.192 with 5 homers
Babe Ruth, 1923: .533/.622/1.100 with 4 homers
Babe Ruth, 1926: .429/.586/1.143 with 4 homers

If Henderson was average defensively in center, which is quite plausible, he was of about the same value as Boggs. I have no problem believing 1985 Boggs +8 and Brett +1 defensively.

.340/.466/.755
.389/.491/.778

Hot danm. That's Chris Coghlanesque!

The Mets missed out in '07 and '08 but not because of Wright:

'07: .400/.455/.467
'08: .417/.531/.542

Rickey was at least as important to the Yanks' stretch run as Mattingly; Mauer was far more important to the Twins' run (and entire season) than Morneau.

It's not the performance down the stretch, it's how the performance down the stretch makes an impression in the voters' fickle minds. And so it all comes back to that big sexy RBI total.

Mattingly's OPS+ in August and September was over 190. Rickey's was 126. Rickey's .391 OPB over Aug/Sept is good, but that doesn't translate into 59 runs in his last 58 games unless Mattingly is ON FIRE. Lot's of guys have an OBP of .391 each year, but none of them average a run per game. Besides, it was Winfield who benefited from Rickey being on base, not Mattingly. Winfield knocked in 50 runs in his last 60 games over Aug and Sept despite slugging about .470.

To suggest that Rickey was as instrumental in the Yanks' stretch drive as Mattingly is ridiculous.

Ty Cobb, 1909: .577/.731 That is BA/SLG
Ty Cobb, 1910: .625/.750
Ty Cobb, 1911: .480/.760
Ty Cobb, 1913: .480/.680
Ty Cobb, 1916: .586/.759
Ty Cobb, 1922: .579/.632

Tommy: First of all, you need to make up your mind on whether you're touting Mattingly's August-October or September-October. If the former, Brett at least arguably beats him; if the latter, Henderson does. In either case, both of them were so much better than Mattingly over the full season that it's hard to see how Mattingly's play down the stretch was so much better than the others that it could possibly push him over the top.

Of course you need a very good hitter behind you to score 59 runs in 58 games. Nobody's arguing that Mattingly wasn't a very good hitter (great, even). It just doesn't say anything for him at all about the comparison to Brett or Rickey. And Rickey's baserunning had a hand in those runs being scored, too. And he was a centerfielder.

Besides, it was Winfield who benefited from Rickey being on base, not Mattingly. Winfield knocked in 50 runs in his last 60 games over Aug and Sept despite slugging about .470.

Winfield got a lot of RBI, so Mattingly must not have been helped by batting behind Henderson? Does not compute. If anything, that just shows exactly how instrumental Henderson (and to a lesser extent Randolph) was to their offense, and what a mistake it is to give all the credit to the big guys who happen to log the RBI.

A big deal was made of Mattingly's 145 RBIs, and I was pretty impressed. But Rickey scored I think 146 - in only 143 games. Much more impressive.

Esp. since it is impossible to have more than 1 run scored in a PA (after a, rather), while you can have up to 4 RBIs.

Yaz 1967 .560/.600/1.000 3 HR 8 R 13 RBI

Yaz also did this in a league that averaged 3.7 runs a game.

Tommy: First of all, you need to make up your mind on whether you're touting Mattingly's August-October or September-October. If the former, Brett at least arguably beats him; if the latter, Henderson does.

Brett, Aug-Oct: .306 BA, .598 SA, 172 OPS+
Mattingly, Aug-Oct: .350 BA, .681 SA, 191 OPS+

Brett "arguably beats" Mattingly? Man, I want some of what you're smoking.

Henderson, Sept/Oct: .244 BA, .401 OBP, .429 SA, 128 OPS+
Mattingly, Sept/Oct: .317 BA, .357 OBP, .634 SA, 165 OPS+

Gosh, BillP, this one is even sillier than your claim that Brett was arguably better than Mattingly during Aug-Oct. These aren't RBI totals, BillP, these are fundamental productions statistics. You're familiar with OPS+, I assume?

Lou Gehrig, 1928: .478/.571/1.043 with 3 homers
Lou Gehrig, 1934: .524/.643/1.000 with 3 homers

Brett's September stats before his last week: .210 BA, .340 slugging ave. It wouldn't have been such a close race if Brett hadn't completely disappeared for the first 28 games of September. In fact, the only reason the Royals were still in the race is because they went on a 13-2 tear from Sept. 2 to Sept. 15. Brett batted .151 during that streak.

And the only reason that streak was more than a footnote in a disappointing season is that Brett hit .432/.534/.726 in July and .365/.458/.708 in August. The Royals were 7.5 games back on Jul 10, and 1.5 out on Sep 3, when Brett finally cooled off.

Brett was better overall. Brett was far better in the final week crunch time. Mattingly was better the first three weeks of September. Big deal. Cherry pick all you want, it still comes down to the RBIs as the only explanation.

Brett was better overall. Brett was far better in the final week crunch time. Mattingly was better the first three weeks of September. Big deal. Cherry pick all you want, it still comes down to the RBIs as the only explanation.

Just the first three weeks of September? What a credibility shattering statement for you to make, Misirlou.

Mattingly was better the entire second half.

Mattingly: .340 BA, 26 HR, .660 SA
Brett: .309 BA, 18 HR, .592 SA

Check your calendar, Misirlou. That ain't three weeks. That's more like three months.

Mattingly was better in August, FAR better in September, and, most importantly, he never disappeared on the Yanks like Brett disappeared on the Royals for most of September.

Brett, Aug-Oct: .306 BA, .598 SA, 172 OPS+
Mattingly, Aug-Oct: .350 BA, .681 SA, 191 OPS+

Brett "arguably beats" Mattingly? Man, I want some of what you're smoking.

Once you adjust for position and baserunning, yes. Ditto for Henderson. Or is OPS+ the sole criteria you use for judging performance?

Tris Speaker, 1923: .583/.706/.875 with 1 homer and 15 runs but amazingly only 3 RBI.

Joe Jackson, 1912: .500/.500/.833
Joe Jackson, 1917: .524/.565/.571

Just the first three weeks of September? What a credibility shattering statement for you to make, Misirlou.

Mattingly was better the entire second half.

Mattingly: .340 BA, 26 HR, .660 SA
Brett: .309 BA, 18 HR, .592 SA

Check your calendar, Misirlou. That ain't three weeks. That's more like three months.

Mattingly was better in August, FAR better in September

And, co-incidentally, all those stats contain the first three weeks of September. Look, if you bowl 180, 180, 180, 300, 180, and I bowl 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, I can accurately say that you really only beat me in one game. You can't counter with "What do you mean? I beat you in the series, in best 4 game average, in best 3 game average, and in best 2 game average." Mattingly was far superior to Brett in that 3 week September stretch, just like you were far superior to me in game 4 of our hypothetical bowling match. But Mattingly was not superior, and frequently inferior to Brett in any period not containing those 3 weeks.

most importantly, he never disappeared on the Yanks like Brett disappeared on the Royals for most of September.

Mattingly June .269/.317/.380. Yankees June 13-14. That cold streak probably cost the Yankees the division.

Brett, Aug-Oct: .306 BA, .598 SA, 172 OPS+
Mattingly, Aug-Oct: .350 BA, .681 SA, 191 OPS+

Brett "arguably beats" Mattingly? Man, I want some of what you're smoking

To expand on what Confined... said, 1Bs are supposed to hit. If you take out Brett's and Mattingly's numbers, 3Bs collectively hit .271/.330/.417 (about a 105 OPS+) and 1Bs hit .279/.344/.448 (about a 120). A 172 from a 3B is likely about as valuable as a 191 from a 1B.

And you keep conveniently forgetting the more important aspect of OPS...they're close for those last two months, but not over the entire second half. Brett was a better hitter over the second half (and crushed him in the first half, which, you know, counts). Altogether, even cherry-picking as you are the very most favorable arguments in Mattingly's favor, you can't make a terribly convincing case for him.

Gosh, BillP, this one is even sillier than your claim that Brett was arguably better than Mattingly during Aug-Oct. These aren't RBI totals, BillP, these are fundamental productions statistics. You're familiar with OPS+, I assume?

Apparently more familiar with it than you are, Tommy. It doesn't do a very good job at comparing production between different kinds of hitters. OBP is the far more important aspect of OPS. Henderson's huge OBP advantage is more important than Mattingly's huge SLG advantage.

To be more accurate about it, 1.3*OBP + SLG, last two months:
Henderson .950
Mattingly 1.100

Would you really take a plodding 1B with a 1.100 over a brilliant defensive and baserunning CF with a .950? Because if so, I want you in my fantasy baseball leagues and such.

And as I keep saying, it's hard to see how it matters. The rest of the season counts too, and even if you believe that the end of the season counts more, the gulf between Mattingly on one end and Henderson and Brett on the other is so huge that there's just no way you could close it with stuff like this even if Mattingly did have an overwhelmingly superior stretch run. Which he didn't.

And you keep conveniently forgetting the more important aspect of OPS...they're close for those last two months, but not over the entire second half. Brett was a better hitter over the second half

What? Brett's OPS+ over the 2nd half was 173. Mattingly's was 184.

At this point I'm finding it difficult to have a sensible conversation with you. Apparently, unless I'm willing to concede that a LOWER OPS+ means one is a BETTER hitter, we'll continue to disagree.

See comment #48. A lower OPS+ absolutely can mean the better hitter if he has a considerably better OBP. OPS+ is not nearly as meaningful as you seem to think it is.

But since you are so attached to OPS+, explain to me how a first baseman who maybe arguably can be said to have had a just slightly better last few weeks or couple months was more deserving of the MVP than a guy who played a much more challenging position, was a better baserunner, and out-OPS+ed him by more than 20 points for the season...

Mattingly's OPS+ in August and September was over 190. Rickey's was 126. Rickey's .391 OPB over Aug/Sept is good, but that doesn't translate into 59 runs in his last 58 games unless Mattingly is ON FIRE. Lot's of guys have an OBP of .391 each year, but none of them average a run per game. Besides, it was Winfield who benefited from Rickey being on base, not Mattingly. Winfield knocked in 50 runs in his last 60 games over Aug and Sept despite slugging about .470.

To suggest that Rickey was as instrumental in the Yanks' stretch drive as Mattingly is ridiculous.

I'm fully aware that MVP voters tend to overemphasize the late games in an exciting pennant race. However, to suggest that Rickey was not as instrumental as Mattingly is beyond ridiculous for the simple fact that without Rickey's first half, there would not have been a pennant race to begin with.

Yes. I know the BBWAA likes to fetishize September. But anyone with any basic common sense realizes that a game won in April counts the same in the final standings as a game won in September. Without Rickey's start, the Yanks may have finished the season 7 games out instead of two. And were that the case, the writers would have ignored Donnie's stretch run and given the MVP to Brett.

So... Don Mattingly can thank Rickey Henderson for his MVP.

And, co-incidentally, all those stats contain the first three weeks of September. Look, if you bowl 180, 180, 180, 300, 180, and I bowl 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, I can accurately say that you really only beat me in one game. You can't counter with "What do you mean? I beat you in the series, in best 4 game average, in best 3 game average, and in best 2 game average." Mattingly was far superior to Brett in that 3 week September stretch, just like you were far superior to me in game 4 of our hypothetical bowling match. But Mattingly was not superior, and frequently inferior to Brett in any period not containing those 3 weeks.

Even this analogy is doing Brett a disservice, because Brett was a better hitter on the season than Mattingly and his July was better than Mattingly's September. I'm fairly certain looking at the month by month splits that Brett not only had the better season totals hitting, he probably also had the better x-week stretch for any given x. It's only if you choose that one particular 3 week set in Sept. that Mattingly comes out better. I could be wrong, but Mattingly hit .390/.447/.737 in Sept. Brett hit .432/.534/.726 in July. I imagine he probably had pretty sick 1,2, & 3 stretches in July.

Lot's of guys have an OBP of .391 each year, but none of them average a run per game.

None of them steal bases and run the way Ricky did.

Also, make up your mind, troll:

Did he score those runs because "Mattingly is ON FIRE", or does he score those runs because "Winfield knocked in 50 runs in his last 60 games over Aug and Sept despite slugging about .470"?

Any other contenders? Right now I put it at Yaz, Brett, Barry, 8 million others, Morneau.

Willie Mays 1959: .542BA .633OBP 1.042SL, for a 1.675 OPS.

After the season he had X-rays on his right hand because it had been bothering him down the stretch. It was broken.

he never disappeared on the Yanks like Brett disappeared on the Royals for most of September.

Brett in Sept - .260/.358/.512
Mattingly in June - .269/.317/.380

Oh, but you want to take out the games Brett played well, let's do that;

Brett 9/1-9/20 - .197/.330/.352 - OPS .682
Mattingly 6/4-6/26 - .247/.315/.309 - OPS .624

Really, he never "disappeared" like Brett did?

Just remembering the nightmare end of 1987 when the MVP voters went for Bell over Trammell.
Bell last week: 111-250-111 (team 0-7)
Trammell last week: 333-419-519 (team 5-2)

I have yet to figure out why Bell won the Jays only MVP award that year (OK, RBI/HR, but still...)

I have yet to figure out why Bell won the Jays only MVP award that year (OK, RBI/HR, but still...)

I'm guessing that most voters submitted their ballots at least a bit before the deadline, when it still looked like the Jays were a near-lock for the playoffs.

FWIW, Boggs vs. Rickey was an easy one too. Equivalent performances as hitters, while Rickey's baserunning advantage was so huge that even if you give Boggs the benefit of being significantly above average on defence and Rickey not, that Rickey ends up with the better season. The classical estimators actually understate the difference, because as leadoff hitters, the baserunning advantage turns out to be more significant than it would be for a 3 hitter.

Yaz also did this in a league that averaged 3.7 runs a game.

In 1910 Ty put up at least a .625/.679/.750 (I know for sure he got 4 walks but he might have gotten several more) with 9 runs in a 3.64 rpg era.

FWIW, Boggs vs. Rickey was an easy one too. Equivalent performances as hitters, while Rickey's baserunning advantage was so huge that even if you give Boggs the benefit of being significantly above average on defence and Rickey not, that Rickey ends up with the better season.

Because of much more playing time at a similar rate, Boggs was marginally more valuable on offense than Henderson before including baserunning. If you are willing to spot Boggs a fielding advantage as well, it is pretty unclear that the baserunning makes up for the other factors so much that you can distinguish the value between the two.

The classical estimators actually understate the difference, because as leadoff hitters, the baserunning advantage turns out to be more significant than it would be for a 3 hitter.

Is this really true? The Book as I recalled showed a slight preference for putting base thieves in the middle of the order (really the key being to have the fast guy followed by good hitters with low ISO) because a SB is less valuable in front of a high ISO guy, and a CS is worse in the high run environment of the top of the order. I'd be surprised if the net effect of having the fast guy hit leadoff vs the average lineup position from which the estimators assume makes much of a difference.

Joe Jackson, 1912: .500/.500/.833
Joe Jackson, 1917: .524/.565/.571

Heh. That second line is amusing. What did he have besides singles? 2 walks and a triple?

Yep, that is why I posted it. If i remember correctly it was two walks and a double.