— Twenty-four, Twenty-five, Twenty-six.... ?
Results Are In!
Thanks to all those who voted (or in some cases, voted, then thought about, then re-voted, then though about it...). Results are below, listing only those teams that got ten votes or more. In order to reflect the sprit of the exercise, if someone voted for, say, the 1929 A’s, I counted that vote to team on the ballot (in this case, the 1931 A’s) in order to more accurately reflect voting totals for a dynasty. This was especially relevant for the Bobby Cox Braves teams, which easily drew the most support without one team really pulling away.
Teams in the Sims(Vote Total Out of 58)
1998 Yanks (57)
1927 Yanks (54)
1906 Cubs (51)
1975 Reds (51)
1984 Tigers (50)
1986 Mets (50)
1970 Orioles (49)
1939 Yanks (48)
1955 Dodgers (48)
1995 Braves (46)
1931 A’s (44)
1953 Yanks (41)
2001 Mariners (41)
1911 A’s (40)
1942 Cards (40)
1995 Indians (39)
1974 A’s (38)
1961 Yanks (36)
1988 A’s (36)
1912 Red Sox (35)
1909 Pirates (33)
1968 Tigers (32)
1954 Indians (26)
1967 Cards (25)
1976-8 Yanks (22)
1905 Giants (22)
1946 Red Sox (22)
1948 Indians (22)
Teams out of the Sims (Vote Total Out of 58)
1897 Beaneaters (21)
1902 Pirates (20)
1912 Giants (19)
1896 Orioles (18)
1923 Giants (18)
1917 White Sox (17)
1957 Braves (15)
1932 Yanks (14)
1992 Jays (13)
1985 Cards (12)
1931 Cards (10)
1963-6 Dodgers (10)
2004 Red Sox (10)
Update
We would like to make sure that the teams from the dynasty groups are the consensus choices to represent their respective dynasty. Therefore, we’d like to conduct another vote in this thread, which would encompass choosing one team from each of the groups below:
1910 A’s
1911 A’s
1929 A’s
1930 A’s
1931 A’s
1953 Dodgers
1955 Dodgers
1969 Orioles
1970 Orioles
1971 Orioles
1972 A’s
1973 A’s
1974 A’s
1976 Yanks
1977 Yanks
1978 Yanks
1988 A’s
1989 A’s
1990 A’s
1993 Braves
1995 Braves
1998 Braves
1999 Braves
-edited by SG in ATL
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Which version of that team are you going with?
...
2004 Red Sox (10)
figures.
For example, the 1910 A's are clearly better than 1911. This should be an easy one, like the 1939 Yankees over 1936-38, and is a glaring error if not addressed. The 1976-78 Yankees are obviously not yet settled. Others that I think merit debate would include the 1929-31 A's, 1969-71 Orioles, 1972-74 A's, 1975-76 Reds, 1988-1990 A's, and 1990's Braves. I think the above list is about 50% right on these 8 dynasty teams. The other 20 teams on the list were either one-hit wonders or the inarguable peak of a dynasty.
Something like vote for one in each group:
1910 A's
1911 A's
1929 A's
1930 A's
1931 A's
1969 Orioles
1970 Orioles
1971 Orioles
1972 A's
1973 A's
1974 A's
1975 Reds
1976 Reds
1976 Yanks
1977 Yanks
1978 Yanks
1988 A's
1989 A's
1990 A's
1993 Braves
1995 Braves
1998 Braves
So, does this team get to pick and choose players from different years?
The 1976 versions of Nettles, Rivers, Chambliss, White, Thurman, Catfish, and Sparky.
The 1977 versions of Reggie and Lou.
The 1978 version of Guidry, Figueroa, and Goose.
IF you are going to do something like that, then maybe it should be the 1969-70 Baltimore Orioles (or 1969-71) and the 1975-76 Cincinnati Reds, among others?
I didn't vote for either of the top Yankee vote getters.
1995 Braves
1998 Braves
I think your other groupings have a point, DCA. But five years between the first and last of these = an unacceptable length of time, IMO.
Can anyone who knows anything about baseball NOT think that the '27 Yankees are at least CLOSE to the best ever?
(It seems obvious to me that they WERE the best ever)
I don't even like the Yankees, but common sense prevails.
1916 Red Sox (only 3 starting positional players & none of the main pitchers from 1912)
1918 Red Sox (only Hooper left from 1912)
1924 Senators
1926 Cards ('31 got votes, but Bottomley only notebly contributor on both teams)
1943 Yanks
1944 Cards
1945 Tigers
1960 Pirates
1969 Mets
1987 Twins
1988 Dodgers
1990 Reds
1997 Marlins
2003 Marlins
The 1960 Pirates were the only team to lead the league in RA, RS, & the ring and not get any votes.
IMHO, the question isn't length of time, but who are the key contributors. The '93 & '99 Braves rotations were both anchored by Maddux, Glavine, & Smoltz. That's not a minor concern given that both teams had OPS+s a little over 100, and ERA+s waaaaay over 100.
At any rate, hardly anyone voted for the '93 Braves. It was all either 1995 or 1998. Maybe with a little '99 tossed in.
As I see, it's your call if we do it SG. After all, you're the one running the sims. I'd like a vote just so I could see if I could get the '98 Braves in.
FWIW, if it does go down that route, a few notes:
- No one voted for the 1907 or 1908 Cubs, so they wouldn't be necessary.
- Ditto '28 Yanks. Or '64 Cards. Or '15/'16 Red Sox.
- There were maybe 2 people who voted for the '76 Reds.
- The 1950s Dodgers should be included as some preferred the '53 team (more than preferred the '76 Reds, IIRC).
So it would be on the teams in post #4 plus the '53/.55 Dodgers. The '99 Braves should be represented for the Cox teams.
Frankly though, if you wanted to go ahead and just start it SG, that's fine with me as well. You're the one willing to do the work for this.
Chris, I think we should vote. I'm running the sims but this should be a community effort. I also would prefer that the '98 Braves get in over the '95 ones.
As far I see it, here are the teams up for debate.
As stated above, the Reds vote was so heavily swayed towards the '75 team that I don't know that we should bother debating the merit of including the '76 team.
karlmagnus, I didn't vote for the Beaneaters, not because I felt that they didn't belong, but because I didn't think they would work in the sim as constructed. As much as I'd like to think that Diamond Mind's era adjustments could handle them, in some sims I tried it didn't do a good job with them at all. They were scoring 1300 runs a season and giving up 1000. We could revisit this later with a deadball grouping perhaps.
I didn't vote for the Yankees not because I'm a total moron, but because I didn't vote for any AL or NL pre-integration teams. I outlined my thinking in the other thread. I'm sorry if you think I don't know anything about baseball.
Did you vote for the '98 Yankees?
Sure, I can put one up. Does anyone have anything they want me to change on my list in post 18?
But to echo SG's question, why not the 1998 team?
I didn't vote for either of the top Yankee vote getters.
Eraser-X is dominating this site! Posted: January 11, 2006 at 02:09 PM (#1816440)
I didn't vote for the Yankees not because I'm a total moron, but because I didn't vote for any AL or NL pre-integration teams.
Someone might want to mention to Bernie, Mariano, El Duque, Strawberry, Raines, Mendoza, etc that the 1998 AL was not integrated.
Before hounding eraserX off the site and making oh so clever retorts, give him a chance to explain. The top Yankee team was 1998, but the next two were 1927 and 1939. He may have missed the fact that 1998 was on top, and was referring to 1927 and 1939.
I agree with Andy here, 100% -- there are a handful of teams I voted for that didn't make it, but they were at the lower end of my list, and their replacements are quite fine, all of them just missed my list and were "shame I don't have room for them" instead of "in the next tier." And the dynasty quibbles are no biggie, even the second best of each group is worthy of inclusion. In particular, I'm also happy that the 95 Indians made it, I didn't want mine to be the no vote that kept them out, since they were a extremely difficult last cut.
Well you know there are always going to be one or two who think no team should be a unanimous first-ballot "Best Team of All Time Tournament" nominee....
No objection from me.
1910 A’s
1929 A’s
1955 Dodgers
1970 Orioles
1972 A’s
1978 Yanks
1989 A’s
1995 Braves
1929
1955
1970
1974
1978
1989
1995
1910 A's
1929 A's
1953 Dodgers
1970 Orioles
1974 A's
1977 Yankees (although I hate this team with a white-hot passion)
1989 A's
1995 Braves
1929 A's
1955 Dodgers
1970 Orioles
1973 A's
1977 Yankees
1995 Braves
Tks SG for your efforts....this is going to be good...
1929 A's
1955 Dodgers
1970 Orioles
1977 Yankees
1989 A's
1995 Braves
Spivey, you obviously missed the Rose Bowl.
1929 As
1953 Dodgers
1969 Orioles
1972 As
1977 yankees
1989 As
1998 Braves
1929 A’s
1953 Dodgers
1970 Orioles
1973 A's
1978 Yankees
1989 A’s
1995 Braves
I made a dumb mistake and looked pretty stupid, but I also was pretty civil in my tone. Thanks for those who helped clarify my position!
In case other folks need a dart board for further ridicule, here's was my list.
1924 Monarchs
1931 Grays
1933 Giants
1935 Crawfords
1938 Grays
1953/54 Yankees
1954 Indians
1955 Dodgers
1957 Braves
1961 Yanks
1964 White Sox
1968 Tigers
1969/70 Orioles
1971 Pirates
1972 or 74 A’s
1975 Reds
1977 Dodgers
1978 Yanks
1979 Pirates
1986 Mets
1988 A’s
1995 Indians
1995 Braves
1998 Yanks
2001 A's
2001 Mariners
2004 Cardinals
2005 White Sox
Let's see if this shows up how it should:
{PRE}[PRE]
Year Team BRAR FRAR PRARWARP3 RAR
1910 Philadelphia (A) 243 242 22765.6 712
1911 Philadelphia (A) 219 200 17753.3 596
1929 Philadelphia (A) 211 212 33166.9 754
1930 Philadelphia (A) 182 187 30356.9 672
1931 Philadelphia (A) 166 233 32163.4 720
1953 Brooklyn 332 214 32872.7 874
1955 Brooklyn 292 209 36672.1 867
1969 Baltimore 283 257 42480.6 964
1970 Baltimore 257 220 42071.8 897
1971 Baltimore 285 218 36970.1 872
1972 Oakland 227 197 35562.1 779
1973 Oakland 226 233 30559.8 764
1974 Oakland 174 202 35757.8 733
1976 New York (A) 233 231 31864.2 782
1977 New York (A) 260 222 34367.2 825
1978 New York (A) 184 218 38263.0 784
1988 Oakland 261 218 39070.2 869
1989 Oakland 220 224 39068.5 834
1990 Oakland 260 251 39675.1 907
1993 Atlanta 204 235 45075.8 889
1995 Atlanta 126 172 45064.8 748
1998 Atlanta 273 208 46978.9 950
1999 Atlanta 206 189 50673.2 901
</PRE>{/PRE}[/PRE]
Based on the above, I vote for the following:
1910 Philadelphia (A)
1929 Philadelphia (A)
1953 Brooklyn -- much closer than I would've otherwise thought
1969 Baltimore
1972 Oakland
1977 New York (A)
1990 Oakland -- not how I voted in the top 28, but great defense breaks the BR/PR tie between '88 & '90
1998 Atlanta -- '95 team is the worst of the choices - by regular season of course
Year Team_____ BRAR FRAR PRAR W3 RAR
1910 Philadelphia (A) 243 242 227 65.6 712
1911 Philadelphia (A) 219 200 177 53.3 596
1929 Philadelphia (A) 211 212 331 66.9 754
1930 Philadelphia (A) 182 187 303 56.9 672
1931 Philadelphia (A) 166 233 321 63.4 720
1953 Brooklyn 332 214 328 72.7 874
1955 Brooklyn 292 209 366 72.1 867
1969 Baltimore 283 257 424 80.6 964
1970 Baltimore 257 220 420 71.8 897
1971 Baltimore 285 218 369 70.1 872
1972 Oakland 227 197 355 62.1 779
1973 Oakland 226 233 305 59.8 764
1974 Oakland 174 202 357 57.8 733
1976 New York (A) 233 231 318 64.2 782
1977 New York (A) 260 222 343 67.2 825
1978 New York (A) 184 218 382 63.0 784
1988 Oakland 261 218 390 70.2 869
1989 Oakland 220 224 390 68.5 834
1990 Oakland 260 251 396 75.1 907
1993 Atlanta 204 235 450 75.8 889
1995 Atlanta 126 172 450 64.8 748
1998 Atlanta 273 208 469 78.9 950
1999 Atlanta 206 189 506 73.2 901
FWIW, my list of WS champs without votes was incomplete. To add to it:
1933 Giants (I thought Eraser X's vote was for them, but apparently he meant a Negro League team)
1959 Dodgers
1931 A's
1955 Dodgers
Orioles - no preference
1972 A's
1978 Yanks
1990 A's
1998 Braves
1930 A's
1955 Dodgers
1970 Orioles
1974 A's
1978 Yankees
1989 A's
1999 Braves (so that the 28 teams in the sim represent 28 different years)
1931 A’s
1955 Dodgers
1969 Orioles
1972 A’s
1977 Yanks
1990 A’s
1998 Braves
1910 A's(rather easily)
1911 A's
1929 A's
1930 A's (very close second)
1931 A's
1953 Dodgers
1955 Dodgers (began 21-2 and won Series)
1969 Orioles
1970 Orioles
1971 Orioles
1972 A's
1973 A's
1974 A's(also very close, but had strongest postseason competition and won both series in the fewest games)
1976 Yanks
1977 Yanks
1978 Yanks (only one with Gossage)
1988 A's
1989 A's
1990 A's
1993 Braves
1995 Braves
1998 Braves
1999 Braves
Since there's really not that much difference among the teams in any of these groups, I see no reason not to use a ring as a tiebreaker. Of course if like some people, I'd thrown out the postseason, many of my picks might have been different.
1929 A’s
1953 Dodgers
1969 Orioles
1972 A’s
1977 Yanks
1990 A’s
1998 Braves
BTW, I've seen work down based off thousands of simulations for DMB for their fielding ratings (which I don't agree with, BTW):
1B PR -16
1B FR -10
1B AV 0
1B VG 7
1B EX 20
2B PR -21
2B FR -8
2B AV 0
2B VG 4
2B EX 20
3B PR -25
3B FR -10
3B AV 0
3B VG 10
3B EX 20
SS PR -14
SS FR -12
SS AV 0
SS VG 8
SS EX 15
LF PR -17
LF FR -11
LF AV 0
LF VG 11
LF EX 12
CF PR -13
CF FR -8
CF AV 0
CF VG 12
CF EX 13
RF PR -24
RF FR -10
RF AV 0
RF VG 4
RF EX 16
These Range ratings should be unbiased by errors. Rauseo did some work in our DMB league, based off this original work. Each position is based off of 100 season sims (they used 1980) for each level of quality fielder. Some positions might have some interrelatedness (2b and SS, mainly). You can read the original thread to see if you find any. I haven't completely read it, but have read some of it.
Naturally, there is going to be some error even with that many sims, but it shows how they consider a top 1B to take away as many balls as a 2B (and more than a SS, but that is possibly error). This isn't to the putouts aren't generally pretty accurate to real life - just that those 'tweener balls that some players get to and some don't - they seem to be just about the same at every position for every position in the IF, and for every position in the OF.
Furthermore, catcher range makes basically no difference, however catcher arm and hold rating can lower your runs scored significantly (this can be viewed in the linked thread).
************
As you can see, the ratings will make a big difference - how you decide if a guy is a very good fielder or an excellent fielder can make all the difference. Plus DMB seems to think that a top 1B or 3B is as valuable or more valuable than good MIs. Ditto corner outfielders with centerfielders.
In the timeline on this page, you can see the dismantling unfold. Scroll down.
going by my unofficial tally (which is virtually identitical to RB's official tally - we're off by maybe 1 vote on 1 team) - I have the 2005 Sox with 6 votes.
Teams receiving 9 votes or fewer:
9 votes - 1994 Expos
8 votes - 1921 Yanks
7 votes - 1903 Red Sox, 1934 Tigers, 1947 Yanks
6 votes - 2005 ChiSox
5 votes - 1980 Royals, 2002 Angels, 1942 Yanks
4 votes - 1886 Browns, 1936 Yanks (listed separate from 1939 Yanks), 1941 Dodgers, 1977-8 Dodgers, 1998 Astros, 2001-2 A's, 2004-5 Cards
3 votes - 1905 White Sox, 1925 Pirates, 1949 Dodgers, 1953 Dodgers (separate from '55 Dodgers - no I don't know why I counted them separatedly when at other times I counted them w/ the '55 club), 1979 Pirates,
1991 Pirates, 1999 D-backs
2 votes - 1940 Reds, 1942 Dodgers, 1971 Pirates, 1974 Dodgers, 1975 Red Sox, 1980 Phillies
1 vote - 1899 Spiders, 1919 Reds, 1920 Indians, 1924 Monarchs, 1931 Greys, 1933 Giants (Negro Leaugues), 1935 Crawfords, 1938 Grays, 1946 Cards, 1951 Giants, 1954 Giants, 1958 Yanks, 1962 Giants, 1962 Mets, 1964 White Sox, 1966 Orioles, 1983 Orioles, 1991 Twins, 2001 D-backs, & 2003 Tigers.
1929 A's
1955 Dodgers
1970 Orioles
1974 A's
1978 Yankees
1989 A's
1995 Braves
1929 A's
1955 Dodgers
1970 Orioles
1974 A's
1978 Yankees
1989 A's
1995 Braves
I don't see anything unintuitive about that study at all. It also shows how a PR OF can really hurt you, because many of the plays they miss go for extra bases. I think that's why the RF cost more than the LF, because more of the ones they miss go for triples, due to the long throw.
Player value is:
Batting Runs Above/below replacement
+
Defensive runs above/below average (which is replacement level)
+
Defensive constant, based on position
Matt's study only shows the second term, not the 2nd and 3rd.
If he added a line for 'unrated 1B' or better yet 'PR 1B (NYM version of Mo Vaughn)' or 'DH (Edgar Martinez)' below PR at all of the positions, it'd be interesting to see the difference. That would show just how much more valuable an EX 2B is over an EX 1B.
I tried that once, and the Vlad SS made about 80 errors. The Brian Giles catcher lapped the PB counter. I couldn't figure out why he kept coming up with 5-10 PBs. So I asked DM, and they said it was more like 260-270 PBs, but the binary counter lapped at 256, which is pretty funny.
So it makes sense that the difference between the best and worst is wider at the corner positions. The difference between a Keith Hernandez (who surely could have played a solid 3B if he were given the chance) or a Don Mattingly and a Mo Vaughn or Frank Thomas is pretty huge, compared to the difference between a Dave Concepcion and a ??? I can't even come up with a really bad long-term defensive SS (no Jeter jokes), because they usually just don't let that happen. I'm leaving Ozzie out because he's off the charts, even an EX doesn't really do him justice.
1929 A’s
1953 Dodgers
1970 Orioles
1974 A’s
1978 Yanks
1990 A’s
1998 Braves
I see you had a specific reason - not one I agree with, but that is neither here nor there.
Hey, that's Miserlou, as in the theme song to Pulp Fiction as performed by Dick Dale.
What, don't you know anything about 60's surf music? ; )
That's what I meant. Nevertheless, I don't think that jives with the results from ZR or UZR. It means that every position pretty much has the same number of 'questionable' balls where fielding rating matters. Personally, I don't see how 1B or 3B could have the same number of 'questionable' balls when they have smaller zones and receive less possible chances for balls (and thus questionable balls). A good example someone gave from that original link was comparing it to Strat-o-matic. Those 'questionable' balls are basically like fielding X rolls in stratomatic. The only difference is that in stratomatic, the SS has the most possible X rolls on the pitcher's card - that doesnt seem to be the case here.
I thought those were run values - just double checking, are they runs or plays?
Matt converted those to runs.
I think it also makes sense because the range of players that a team will stick at a middle IF position is pretty narrow. Either you can play there or you can't.
Well, I don't know about that - there are some pretty bad 2B and SS. If you'll notice, it also has defense in the corner outfields being the same as defense in CF (vs. an average defender) - I think UZR and ZR show more variation in CF than elsewhere.
If I get time I'll look at 2003-2005 UZRs (listed on Tango Tiger's website) and calculate the standard deviation for each position. It won't be definitive either way, but it should help answer the question a bit.
You'd have to find a way to reflect the world in a mirror to get that to happen. It's a special feature of 1B - some players with excellent infield-type skills can only play 1B because they throw with their left hands.
Early Athletics: 1910 is my vote over 1911
Depression Athletics: My vote is 1929, though 31 is quite close
Boys of Summer: My vote is 1953, but 55 is very close
Orioles: 1969 is my votel they are much stronger than 70 or 71. The 1969 team can win this thing.
Finley's Boys: 1972 is the strongest and my vote
The Bronx Zoo: 1977 is the strongest of this group
Modern Braves: 1998 is the strongest of this group. Like 1969 Orioles they could win this thing. 1993 is another good choice.
Also, I would take the 76 Reds over the 75 Reds;
You'd have to find a way to reflect the world in a mirror to get that to happen. It's a special feature of 1B - some players with excellent infield-type skills can only play 1B because they throw with their left hands.
I think he means if KH's dad would tie his left hand behind his back when they played catch, and his mom slapped him every time he used the sinister side at the dinner table -- then he would have turned out right-handed like every patriotic American ought to be, had a fine career at 3B, and been elected to the Hall of Fame as a short-career Wade Boggs. I mean, as it's only hitting lefty that has any value for a position player.
1990 is my vote for that team. Eckersley best year and you got Ricky Henderson
1931 A's
1955 Dodgers
1969 Orioles
1973 A's
1978 Yankees
1989 A's
1998 Braves
I did a little work (emphasis on little) - using the 2000-2003 UZR's posted on www.tangotiger.net. Here are the standard deviations I got.
1B: 9.8
2B: 14
2B*: 12.15
SS: 14.47
3B: 14.63
3B*: 13.69
2B*: Polanco is removed because he barely hit the game cutoff and had an outlandish UZR
3B*: Counsell is removed - best UZR (although close to #2) and had low adjusted games total
It looks like 1B clearly has the least deviation between good and bad. 1B did still have a couple of guys who were close to +20 (Helton, Mientkiewicz), but there were plenty of SS who were better than +15 and plenty more who were worse than -15 (BTW, Jeter was the worst at -28, although it's adjusted so that the 2003 season, his worst, is weighted most).
I plan on looking at the OF tonight, and then looking at ZR the next couple of days.
I posted all teh data for '05 defense on my Strangeglove article. And it is adjusted for chances.
Philadelphia A's
1910: 15
1911: 2
Philadelphia A's
1929: 13
1930: 1
1931: 3
Brooklyn Dodgers
1953: 7
1955: 10
Baltimore Orioles
1969: 6
1970: 10
1971:
Oakland Athletics
1972: 7
1973: 3
1974: 6
New York Yankees
1976: 0
1977: 8
1978: 9
Oakland Athletics
1988: 0
1989: 10
1990: 6
Atlanta Braves
1993: 0
1995: 8
1998: 8
1999: 1
Get your votes in if you see something you don't like. I will take votes cast through Monday since I won't have much time to do anything with this over the weekend.
1931 Athletics
1953 Dodgers
1969 Orioles
1974 Athletics
1978 Yankees
1989 Athletics
1993 Braves
1929 Athletics
1955 Dodgers
1970 Orioles
1974 Athletics
1978 Yankees
1989 Athletics
1998 Braves
To make it short, the A's attendance dropped over 40% in 1914. After having finished 1st or 2nd in AL attendance for 9 of their first 14 years, they dropped to 5th in 1914.
Mack also saw the raids from the Federal League, and in addition he figured that many of his stars were starting on their downslide. So he basically dumped the whole team in order to raise cash and reduce payroll.
Precipitous drops in those days weren't all that rare; the Giants went from 1st in 1913 to 8th in 1915 to 1st again in 1917. But the A's didn't have the financial advantages of a New York team, and finished last for 7 years in a row.
1931 Athletics
1955 Dodgers
1970 Orioles
1974 Athletics
1978 Yankees
1988 Athletics
1998 Braves
Heh, good point OCF - what I meant was that he had 3B quality reflexes, etc., but was playing 1B. And I forgot he was LH, like just about every other 1B. Duh.
***************
Good stuff Spivey. Definitely goes against what I would have intuitively thought. Thanks!
1B: 9.8
2B: 14
2B*: 12.15
SS: 14.47
3B: 14.63
3B*: 13.69
LF: 14.91
LF*: 13.70
CF: 19.73
RF: 10.77
LF* in this case was removing Daryl Ward - he was flat out awful in LF, and barely reached the cutoff (although that's mainly because he didn't play in 2003 - he had over 300 games in this period). He seems like a classic case of an organization taking a (probably bad) 1B and playing him unrated (to draw a DMB parallel) in LF. Hilarity ensued.
Defense in the middle flucated most, both in the infield and the outfield.
1B: 10.07
2B: 18.26
SS: 9.68
3B: 17.82 (13.51 if you remove Cantu)
LF: 15.89
CF: 14.51
RF: 8.77
1B still looks to not have much deviation - SS had even less, while 2B and 3B had deviation in line with what you saw with UZR. However, these numbers are adjusted for chances. So really the SS deviation will still be much higher than the 1B deviation. I don't think you want it adjusted for chances since they were not adjusted in the DMB study done by Gary Pierce.
In the OF, LF had the most deviation - mainly because butchers Dellucci and Ramirez were out there. CF would have still had the most deviation if not adjusted for chances. Not surprisingly, LF has far more deviation than RF in this and the UZR numbers - because some teams seem to still think it's a place you can play another DH (or your nominal DH, in the NL). These numbers show that you're giving back pretty much all that offense in the field when you try it though (although that's been shown ad nauseum around this site)
1910 A's
1929 A's
1955 Dodgers
1970 Orioles
1973 A's
1977 Yanks
1989 A's
1998 Braves
--------
trevise
Voting update through 21 ballots:
Philadelphia A's
1910: 18
1911: 3
Philadelphia A's
1929: 15
1930: 1
1931: 5
Brooklyn Dodgers
1953: 8
1955: 13
Baltimore Orioles
1969: 7
1970: 13
1971: 0
Oakland Athletics
1972: 7
1973: 4
1974: 9
New York Yankees
1976: 0
1977: 9
1978: 12
Oakland Athletics
1988: 1
1989: 12
1990: 6
Atlanta Braves
1993: 1
1995: 8
1998: 11
1999: 1
Mack also saw the raids from the Federal League, and in addition he figured that many of his stars were starting on their downslide. So he basically dumped the whole team in order to raise cash and reduce payroll.
All true. In addition, Mack was furious over the team's 4-game-sweep loss in the WS to the huge-underdog Braves, and was likely suspicious about the degree to which a few of his key stars might have played that series "on the square." His complete housecleaning was an angry response as well as a business move.
1929 A's
1953 Dodgers
1969 Orioles
1973 A's
1977 Yankees
1990 A's
1998 Braves
1910 Athletics
1929 Athletics
1955 Dodgers
1970 Orioles
1974 Athletics
1978 Yankees
1989 Athletics
1998 Braves
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main