Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Hall of Merit > Discussion
Hall of Merit
— A Look at Baseball's All-Time Best

Sunday, August 03, 2008

Ranking the Hall of Merit Left Fielders - Discussion

These are the Hall of Merit left fielders to be voted on (in alphabetical order):

Jesse Burkett
Fred Clarke
Ed Delahanty
Goose Goslin
Charley Jones
Charlie Keller
Joe Kelley
Ralph Kiner
Sherry Magee
Joe Medwick
Minnie Minoso
Stan Musial
Tim Raines
Jimmy Sheckard
Al Simmons
Willie Stargell
Harry Stovey
Zack Wheat
Billy Williams
Ted Williams
Carl Yastrzemski.

The election will start on Aug 10 and end on Aug 24.

John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: August 03, 2008 at 11:19 PM | 178 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

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.

Page 2 of 2 pages  < 1 2
   101. sunnyday2 Posted: August 07, 2008 at 04:57 PM (#2894116)
It will seem odd someday to do this, however:

1. Bonds
2. T. Williams
3. Musial
4. Rickey
.
.
.
.
.
10. Manny
   102. AJMcCringleberry Posted: August 07, 2008 at 07:25 PM (#2894424)
Prelim:

(Bonds)
1. Musial
2. Williams
(Rickey)
3. Yaz
4/5. Delahanty/Raines
6. Burkett
7. Simmons
(Manny)
8. Clarke
9. Williams
10. Medwick
11. Stargell
12. Goslin
13. Wheat
14/15/16. MaGee/Sheckard/Kelley
(Bob Johnson)
(Luis Gonzalez)
17. Minoso
18. Stovey
--PHOM line--
19/20/21. Kiner/Keller/Jones
   103. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: August 07, 2008 at 07:47 PM (#2894458)
AJM, do you not give war credit? Otherwise, you must be doing some pretty convoluted gymnastics to get Stan the Man, great as he was, over Teddy Ballgame.
   104. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: August 07, 2008 at 07:53 PM (#2894467)
Sunnyday, what Clarke and Williams have on Stargell, Magee, and Goslin is defense, in a major way. Sheckard is the best glove of the bunch, but his hitting was well below the Clarke/Williams standard.

I have Keller *way* ahead of Kiner. Again, fielding is the major factor: Keller could catch the ball, and Kiner REALLY couldn't. Your lists are differing from the consensus here because you vote based on Win Shares, which crams the range of corner OF defense into a VERY narrow range of about +/- 1 win (e.g., the Win Shares Gold Glove winner at LF/RF will be credited with about 5 runs above average, and the Leaden Glove laggard at the position will be credited with about 5 runs below average). In reality, the range is more like +/- 3 wins (e.g, +15 to -15). Thus, if you vote exclusively on Win Shares, you will underrate all the good fielders and overrate all the bad ones at the positions where WS really cramps the stdev of fielding (1B, 3B, LF, and RF). This in addition to all of the other caveats about WS, of course.
   105. Chris Cobb Posted: August 07, 2008 at 08:26 PM (#2894493)
Another thing that Billy Williams has over Willie Stargell in a big way is durability.

I am often one to make the case that durability is overrated, but in extreme cases it is a significant factor, and Williams and Stargell are extreme cases at their position.

Williams played 162 games almost every year during his prime. Over his 11-year prime, 1962-72, he averaged 160 games per year.
Stragell never played more than 148 games in a season in his career. Over his 11-year prime, 1965-75, he averaged 138 games a year.

So Williams gave his teams 22 more games per pennant race than Stargell did, almost 15% more playing time per year during their primes. Stargell would have to have been a lot better on a per game basis than Williams to overcome that durability difference. He was better, I think, but not by that much.
   106. AJMcCringleberry Posted: August 07, 2008 at 10:04 PM (#2894607)
AJM, do you not give war credit?

I do not.
   107. Paul Wendt Posted: August 07, 2008 at 10:06 PM (#2894608)
DanR #53
Paul Wendt, 0.3 FWS per 1000 is *big*--over 3.5 runs per season, after you expand the stdev of FWS at corner outfield to match Chris Dial's numbers. Over a 15-20 year career, we're talking 6-7 wins there!

I take the point, only wanted to makes sure you didn't overlook Clarke reading the print Win Shares. There aren't many LF within 0.3 of Clarke and he is closer to Sheckard than to the pack. Clarke is high enough you should probably reign him in also, if suspicion of the method leads you reign in Sheckard.


73. OCF Posted: August 05, 2008 at 06:03 PM (#2891683)
Raines didn't make Paul's list in #59 because he only played 165 games in CF, which is less than I remembered. (And 53 games at 2B early in his career, which I didn't remember at all). Rickey Henderson, who had 446 games in CF didn't make Paul's list because he isn't in the HoM - yet. But his 2009 election is such a foregone conclusion that he might as well be.

CF careers
major league full seasons equivalent games
2.80 Rickey Henderson (DH 0.98, RF 0.16)
1.02 Tim Raines (DH 0.82, 2B 0.33)

Raines did not play CF or 2B during the strike seasons so those numbers are close to CareerFieldingGames/162. He was DH about 20% of 1995 but that season was not much shortened.


81. sunnyday2 Posted: August 05, 2008 at 08:56 PM (#2891960)
Goslin last!? Wow.

It takes me back to "Duck, Duck, Goose". In whoisallhedges' favor, he does put the Duck second last, only one rung higher.


Brock #90
Regarding Chris' comment and Musial: Stan came up as, basically, a raw center fielder. He was famous for his speed (his initial nickname was "The Donora Greyound," which indicates that the observers of his time were more impressed with his speed than with anything else about him(!)), but he hadn't been a position player for very long.

That could go back to high school track, sprinter or quarter-miler of local renown. (in my limited knowledge and opinion and I don't know whether Musial did run track)


Brock #98
I would really love to see some play-by-play database kick out modern hit-into-error stats so we could check up on what sorts of hitters hit into more errors than others. It would at least give us some sort of window into the 19th c. - Brock

That has been done. But in practice those databases kick out data directly into the analytical study of someone who knows how to use them (our Mike Emeigh, probably; Retrosheet's Dave Smith, certainly). Occasionally a Retrosheet user posts some data or sends some to the RetroList egroup but for the most part what's needed is generated on the fly, internal to the study.

I agree about the value or need for information about the whos and whats of errors in early major league baseball. Some of the questions could be answered with a database that is incomplete, such as compiled from newspaper accounts in two cities. So I am more optimistic that we will see it sometime in the 'teens.


DanR,
As I understood OCF's argument years ago, with nothing to contradict the interpretation this week, he loosely infers that Stovey was one of the players with exceptional base-running skills from the runs scored and other data. If this seems like a non sequitur, there is no quotation here because I am not now reading your discussion of measurement error (I think).
   108. Paul Wendt Posted: August 07, 2008 at 10:23 PM (#2894632)
98. bjhanke Posted: August 07, 2008 at 05:35 AM (#2893791)
Regarding the thread including posts 22 and 24 (too long to quote): One of my little insider things is that, one year, Bob Broeg asked me to work up the American Association to see if there was a Hall of Famer there and if so, then who. What had apparently happened was that the committee had reduced its consideration of the AA to Pete Browning for about 3 decades(!) and had finally decided not to induct him, and someone had suggested Harry Stovey.

Working with SABR, Cooperstown appointed a Blue Ribbon Panel to cover 19th century candidates for the Hall, not only to nominate but to prepare portfolios. The panel urged election of six players and one other contributor, fewer than asked to nominate, but may have listed or even ranked the requested number also.
From memory --Fred Ivor-Campbell's report in the newsletter, I wasn't on the panel--
Hulbert.
McPhee, Davis, Dahlen, Glasscock, Stovey, Browning.

The arrangement yielded nothing except perhaps evidence that it would never yield anything. Maybe there were two veterans committee elections before the new arrangement with SABR to run special ballots for 19th century and Negro Leagues candidates, elect as many as one from each.
Bob Broeg and in principle everyone on the committee would have seen the report, with opportunity to examine the portfolios, maybe before the 1993 election.
   109. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: August 07, 2008 at 10:57 PM (#2894660)
I might even rein them in, Paul Wendt. :)
   110. RobertMachemer Posted: August 07, 2008 at 11:21 PM (#2894664)
AJM, do you not give war credit?

I do not.
What do you do about Musial's 1943 and 1944? Count it fully?
   111. sunnyday2 Posted: August 08, 2008 at 01:33 AM (#2894753)
Well, I don't vote solely on WS. OPS+ is in there, and a lot of other stuff. But yes, WS is about 1/3 of it, nothing else has that much weight.

But tell me. Stargell at career OPS+ 147 + replacement player is not better than Billy at 131?
   112. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: August 08, 2008 at 01:57 AM (#2894773)
I was only a lad, but I would agree purely on subjective opinion that Kong was better than Kiner. Charlie was a better all-around player.

Of course, I saw Keller maybe three times in his prime and Kiner maybe ten. So familiarity bred contempt. Ha! (joking that ten times constituted familiarity)
   113. bjhanke Posted: August 08, 2008 at 02:16 AM (#2894786)
Paul's post 108 contains the list "McPhee, Davis, Dahlen, Glasscock, Stovey, Browning." That's a pretty good list from the NL and AA combined, although I'm surprised not to see Swartwood. He was the big find for me. Everywhere I looked, he showed up, and I had never heard of him before. But I agree that the first two I would pick are Browning and Stovey, and of the two, I would pick Stovey. And the time frame mentioned is about right. It may well have been as a result of that committee work that Broeg was asking me questions. I don't know any more than that because Bob, while he did not exactly swear me to secrecy, sort of implied that he was stretching the boundaries by letting me know much of anything about the internal process of the HoF. He's dead now, so I feel more free to speak.

Post 107 has, regarding The Donora Greyound, "That could go back to high school track, sprinter or quarter-miler of local renown. (in my limited knowledge and opinion and I don't know whether Musial did run track)." This is one that Broeg knew well, or at least thought he did, and he was in a position to know. He was sure it was a minor league nickname, picked up when Musial converted from pitcher to outfielder. Hence "Donora," which, as it identifies his city of origin, seems much more likely to get into a non-local nickname, although Musial's local region might have used it. I'm using Broeg as my source because he was there and because I don't know anyone from Donora, PA during the 1930s. In either case, the main point was that, at least when young, Musial could really, REALLY run, not just really run.

And, "That (hit into errors data for modern players) has been done. But in practice those databases kick out data directly into the analytical study of someone who knows how to use them (our Mike Emeigh, probably; Retrosheet's Dave Smith, certainly). Occasionally a Retrosheet user posts some data or sends some to the RetroList egroup but for the most part what's needed is generated on the fly, internal to the study." Well, thank you, Paul! I don't know a whole lot about the modern databases, because I missed when they started to get good The only reason I was able to do the Collins ISO thing was that I was at Don Malcolm's, and Don knows how to manipulate Retrosheet and some of the others. I'll ask him how to pull out the error data. He might know. Again, thanks! I did my main analyses of the 19th c in the early and mid 1990s. I know that I'm out of date regarding current databases. But, as my Sutton/Collins post (hopefully finished tonight) will show, I learned to ask weird questions as a result of not having much data.
   114. Chris Cobb Posted: August 08, 2008 at 03:04 AM (#2894815)
But tell me. Stargell at career OPS+ 147 + replacement player is not better than Billy at 131?

On a per season basis, the difference is small, once in-season durability is accounted for, _before_ factoring in defensive value.

Let's look at what WS shows us, since you do WS, sunnyday.

For his career, Stargell has 339.1 bws in 9026 PA. Let's say that a game is 4.2 plate appearances, and Stargell plays 138 games in a season: his average during his prime.

A little multiplying and dividing tells us that in his average prime season--that is a season at career average offensive production and prime-average durability--

he earns 21.8 batting win shares in 138 games.

For his career, Williams has 329.1 bws in in 10519 PA. In his prime, he averaged 160 games per season, so, after doing the math, we find that

he earns 21.0 batting win shares in 160 games.

So the difference is whatever the batting value of the replacement player will be in 22 games. If you treat the win shares zero point as the true meaning of replacement level, their real value as hitters on a seasonal basis during their primes is nearly identical.

If you set replacement level higher, then obviously Stargell's advantage would increase a bit.

How high would replacement level have to be to offset Williams' advantage in fielding value?

Now, WS (which, as has been pointed out many times, underestimates the range of fielding values at low-defense positions) sees Billy Williams as earning 3.5 fws/season during his prime, while Stargell is earning 2.2 fws/season during his prime. So, combining our batting hypotheticals with Williams' actual fielding advantage, a replacement hitter would have to earn .5 ws in 22 games to make up the difference (let's assume, as BJ asserts, that replacement level for fielding is average--not true, but since we're playing with WS, let's stick with its rules).

.5 ws in 22 games is 3.7 ws in 162 games. High enough, or not? Real replacement level is probably twice that, which means the replacement player would earn 1 win share, putting Stargell .5 ws/season ahead of Williams. But if we are going to start acknowledging reality, then we have to recognize that its fielding values are way too low, and that with a proper value set to fielding, Stargell has a lot more ground to make up with his bat.

Even if you go with straight win shares, it's hard to see how one takes Stargell over Williams as a total package.

By win shares over 11 consecutive prime seasons (and if you look at both players you'll see this actually captures the heart of their careers pretty precisely), we would expect Williams to be slightly ahead, by about 5 win shares. In fact, win shares has Williams farther ahead: he earned 297 win shares over 11 prime seasons, while Stargell earned 274.

Now, if you are a peak voter and look just at the top seasons by win shares, Stargell has a nice top pair: 36, 35, then 29, 27, 26
Williams has 33, 32, 30, 29, 28.

Edge, Stargell for the very top seasons, but for the top 5 taken together, he is only 1 win-share better.

But as the prime totals show, Williams pulls way ahead over the next six (to finish out the 11-year primes).

Williams: 28, 28, 26, 24, 21, 18
Stargell: 25, 22, 21, 20, 17, 16

Bigger edge, Williams: he is 1-2 wins better every year here, and these are all above average seasons, except the last one, which is average. (He and Stargell both have one 20+ win-share season outside these 11-year primes, so that balances, also).

Career win shares: Williams 374, Stargell 370.

So, if we trust win shares, Stargell's 147 OPS+ to Williams' 131 is _almost_ enough of an advantage to make up for the advantages Williams enjoys everywhere else.

If you trust the other comprehensive metrics, it's not as close as that.
   115. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: August 08, 2008 at 04:19 AM (#2894854)
Indeed. Here are my charts on the two:

Stargell

YEAR SFrac BWAA    BRWA FWAA Replc    WARP
1963  0.49  0.5    
-0.1 -0.7  -0.3     0.2
1964  0.66  1.5     0.0 
-0.7  -0.5     1.4
1965  0.86  2.5     0.0  0.9  
-0.6     4.1
1966  0.81  5.0    
-0.1 -0.1  -0.6     5.4
1967  0.80  2.6     0.1 
-0.4  -0.6     2.9
1968  0.74  2.2     0.2  0.1  
-0.5     3.1
1969  0.88  5.0     0.1 
-0.4  -0.7     5.4
1970  0.77  1.8    
-0.1  0.4  -0.6     2.7
1971  0.90  6.8    
-0.1 -0.3  -0.7     7.1
1972  0.88  5.4    
-0.1 -0.6  -0.0     4.6
1973  0.90  6.7    
-0.2 -0.1  -0.6     7.1
1974  0.88  5.4    
-0.1 -0.4  -0.6     5.5
1975  0.77  3.4    
-0.1 -0.2  -0.1     3.2
1976  0.72  2.0     0.0 
-0.5  -0.1     1.7
1977  0.32  1.3    
-0.1 -0.1  -0.1     1.1
1978  0.67  3.4     0.0 
-0.3  -0.2     3.3
1979  0.71  2.4    
-0.3  0.0  -0.3     2.4
1980  0.34  1.0    
-0.1 -0.3  -0.2     0.8
1981  0.15  0.2     0.0 
-0.2  -0.1     0.0
1982  0.13  0.2     0.0 
-0.2  -0.1     0.0
TOTL 13.38 59.3    
-1.0 -4.1  -7.5    62.0
AVRG  1.00  4.4    
-0.1 -0.3  -0.6     4.6 


3-year peak: 19.7
7-year prime: 39.2
Career: 62.0


Williams

YEAR SFrac BWAA    BRWA FWAA Replc    WARP
1960  0.08  0.2     0.0  0.0  
-0.1     0.3
1961  0.90  1.7     0.2 
-0.8  -0.6     1.7
1962  1.02  2.4    
-0.1  0.7  -0.7     3.7
1963  1.03  3.9     0.0  1.6  
-0.7     6.3
1964  1.06  4.8     0.0  0.0  
-0.8     5.6
1965  1.06  5.4     0.3 
-0.2  -0.8     6.3
1966  1.08  3.0     0.1 
-0.1  -0.8     3.9
1967  1.06  3.5     0.2  0.6  
-0.8     5.0
1968  1.05  4.6     0.2 
-0.3  -0.8     5.3
1969  1.05  2.2     0.1  0.8  
-0.8     3.9
1970  1.04  4.5     0.2  1.2  
-0.8     6.7
1971  1.00  3.4     0.0  0.8  
-0.8     5.0
1972  1.00  6.0     0.4  0.8  
-0.7     8.0
1973  0.97  2.1     0.0  0.8  
-0.7     3.5
1974  0.69  2.2    
-0.1 -0.2  -0.0     2.0
1975  0.89  1.4     0.2  0.0  
-0.0     1.6
1976  0.61  0.1     0.1  0.0  
-0.0     0.2
TOTL 15.59 51.4     1.8  5.7  
-9.9    69.0
AVRG  1.00  3.3     0.1  0.4  
-0.6     4.4 


3-year peak: 21.0
7-year prime: 43.2
Career: 69.0

So, um, yeah, sunnyday, it's really not close. Yes, Stargell was definitely a better hitter, averaging 4.4 batting wins per full season to Williams's 3.3, a gap of 1.1 a year. But Williams makes up 0.9 wins a season on baserunning and defense, so overall rate is almost a wash. At that point, Williams's durability advantage becomes decisive, because it enabled him to pack over two extra seasons' worth of play into the same career length. That gives Williams decisive edges on all of peak, prime, and career.

BTW, an interesting point about Stan the Man: He may be the only player where my 50-PA minimum cutoff actually affects him, since he actually accumulated real value in his 49-PA cup of coffee in 1941 (.426/.449/.574). Probably worth nearly a win above replacement.
   116. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: August 08, 2008 at 04:31 AM (#2894857)
A further note on Williams vs. Stargell: Stargell was excellent at avoiding the DP (he hit into 41 fewer than average, given his opportunities), but Williams was even better (66 fewer). Each marginal DP is worth about half a run.
   117. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: August 08, 2008 at 04:33 AM (#2894858)
Actually, that seems strange, given that Williams had 60 more actual GIDP than Stargell, but that's what BP's NetDP numbers say at any rate.
   118. whoisalhedges Posted: August 08, 2008 at 02:46 PM (#2895024)
#82:
3. Ed Delahanty - greatest hitter before Ruth


You wouldn't like the Georgia Peach when he's angry. Guy put up a 195 OPS+ for a decade before Ruth became a full time position player.

Yeah, I clearly posted that wrong. I think I meant to call him the greatest hitter of the 19th century, but took it a little too far. ;)
   119. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: August 08, 2008 at 07:00 PM (#2895383)
Was Delahanty a greater hitter than Brouthers?
   120. mulder & scully Posted: August 08, 2008 at 07:25 PM (#2895436)
Dan R,

You may have mentioned this, but I do not know where. Where are the current dollar figures for various players located? The spreadsheet figures I have of yours result in most left fielders having career totals in the 80-110 millions range (with obvious exceptions).

Thanks,

Kelly
   121. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: August 09, 2008 at 05:00 AM (#2896342)
mulder & scully,

Thanks very much for your interest in my research. I have two salary estimators. The one on the sheet was Nate Silver's original version, based on 2005 salaries, which I tweaked to be applied to a player's WARP per season rate and then multiplied by his playing time. This is the version which appears on my spreadsheet.

Subsequently, Nate published a revised 2007 estimator, which has much higher dollar values on the whole (not that the absolute values are relevant, only the ordinal ranking), and is less peak-oriented (the exponent is 1.5 rather than 2). I have chosen to apply that to seasonal WARP totals rather than rates, on the grounds that my prior method (the one used on my spreadsheet) had the effect of raising replacement level above where it has been empirically demonstrated to lie. Those numbers (for career totals, including minor league, holdout, and war credit) are available on the thread devoted to my WARP, I believe in a post numbered in the 400's. The formula is simply 380000 + 1200000*WARP^1.5. This is the one I am using now, but the rate-based one still appeals more to some voters (presumably those concerned with ability more than value). Neither one is "right," they're just different approaches to Merit.
   122. whoisalhedges Posted: August 09, 2008 at 01:19 PM (#2896396)
Was Delahanty a greater hitter than Brouthers?

Considering quality of competition, I think he was. I know 18 points of OPS+ is significant, as is the Baker Bowl, but yeah. I think Big Ed was a better hitter than Brouthers.
   123. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: August 09, 2008 at 02:09 PM (#2896413)
Was Delahanty a greater hitter than Brouthers?


Nope. Even considering the quality of competition, too.
   124. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: August 09, 2008 at 02:13 PM (#2896415)
although I'm surprised not to see Swartwood. He was the big find for me. Everywhere I looked, he showed up, and I had never heard of him before.


While he was a good player, I don't see a HoM case for him at all. I don't think he ever received a vote from us either.
   125. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: August 09, 2008 at 02:16 PM (#2896416)
I was only a lad, but I would agree purely on subjective opinion that Kong was better than Kiner. Charlie was a better all-around player.


With WWII credit, I don't see a case at all for Kiner as greater than Keller.
   126. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: August 09, 2008 at 02:20 PM (#2896418)
As for Stargell-Williams, I would take Willie myself even with the in-season durability problems, but it's not a slam dunk, IMO.
   127. Howie Menckel Posted: August 09, 2008 at 02:31 PM (#2896421)
OPS+ ranks of the contenders
now all that's needed is to adjust for defense, in-season durability, career length, quality of league, quality of era, peak, prime...
:)

Which reminds me - who are your biggest boosts re defense in LF, and who gets dinged the most in your system?


Ted Williams.......191 OPS+ in 9791 PA (1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 3 3)

Stan Musial.........159 OPS+ in 12712 PA (1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 4 4 5 6 7 7 9)

Ed Delahanty......152 OPS+ in 8389 PA (1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 4 5)

Charlie Keller.......152 OPS+ in 4604 PA (1 2 4 4 6)

Charley Jones.....150 OPS+ in 4009 PA (2 3 3 5 5 5 6 7)

Ralph Kiner.........149 OPS+ in 6256 PA (1 1 1 4 4 7)

Willie Stargell......147 OPS+ in 9026 PA (1 1 2 2 3 5 7)

Harry Stovey........143 OPS+ in 6832 PA (2 2 3 3 4 5 10 10)

Jesse Burkett......140 OPS+ in 9605 PA (1 3 4 4 5 6 8 8 9 10)

Sherry Magee......136 OPS+ in 8546 PA (1 2 3 3 3 5 6 9)

Joe Medwick........134 OPS+ in 8142 PA (1 4 5 6 7 8 10)

Billy Williams.......133 OPS+ in 10519 PA (1 3 7 8 8 9)

Joe Kelley...........133 OPS+ in 8120 PA (2 4 5 6 7 9)

Fred Clarke.........132 OPS+ in 9819 PA (1 1 2 4 5 8 8 9)

Al Simmons.........132 OPS+ in 9515 PA (3 3 4 5 6 7 7 8 9 10)

Minnie Minoso......130 OPS+ in 7710 PA (3 3 5 5 6 7 7 9)

Carl Yastrzemski..129 OPS+ in 11988 PA (1 1 1 1 2 7 9 10)

Zack Wheat.........129 OPS+ in 9996 PA (2 3 5 5 5 6 8 9 10)

Goose Goslin.......128 OPS+ in 9822 PA (3 3 4 5 7 9 9)

Tim Raines..........123 OPS+ in 10359 PA (2 3 8 9 10 10)

Jimmy Sheckard...120 OPS+ in 9118 PA (3 4 7 8 9)
   128. Paul Wendt Posted: August 09, 2008 at 06:05 PM (#2896510)
Brock quoted me and replied
"That (hit into errors data for modern players) has been done. But in practice those databases kick out data directly into the analytical study of someone who knows how to use them (our Mike Emeigh, probably; Retrosheet's Dave Smith, certainly). Occasionally a Retrosheet user posts some data or sends some to the RetroList egroup but for the most part what's needed is generated on the fly, internal to the study." Well, thank you, Paul!

A few early, incomplete league seasons have been incorported in the Retrosheet web encyclopedia. One is NL 1911. For example visit Fred Clarke: 'ROE' is null except '12i' in 1911, his last season. That means he reached base on error 12 times in the games where that data has been recovered --and for now that appears to be the complete play-by-play games.
Fred Clarke, 1911 daily
His daily column is nearly full of zeros but there are several ones and several nulls (missing games). . . only seven games missing, four played at Cincinnati and three played at St Louis.
You might learn a lot from that league-season alone, although you'll deal with a higher missing rate than Fred Clarke suffers (only about 5% for his team).

Perhaps pbp is complete for the entire world series history. I see for Clarke five ROE in 15 Series games. It doesn't hurt to be fast and lefty.
   129. EricC Posted: August 09, 2008 at 06:07 PM (#2896513)
Prelim

1. T. Williams
2. Musial
3. Yaz
4. Raines
5. Simmons
6. Stargell
7. Delahanty
8. B. Wiliams
9. Goslin
10. Burkett
11. Keller
12. Minoso
13. Clarke
14. Wheat
15. Medwick
16. Kelley
17. Kiner
18. Magee
19. Sheckard
20. Stovey
21. Jones
   130. Paul Wendt Posted: August 09, 2008 at 06:47 PM (#2896539)
> Was Delahanty a greater hitter than Brouthers?

1.
With the Phillies under Harry Wright, Ed Delahanty played 2b-lf as a part-timer in 1888-89 and then took the opportunity to go home to Cleveland where he played more SS than anything else in the Players League. Philly picked up Billy Hamilton and retained Sam Thompson. They played left and right with Eddie Burke/Billy Sunday in center. When Delahanty returned, Wright put him in center for two seasons, and Wright also made the left-center switch with Hamilton for 1893.

Delahanty wasn't much of a batter during his first four seasons. His breakout was 1892, his last season in center.

According to the "age tool" at baseball-reference, OPS+ 90 in about 1700 pa through 1891, ages 20-23.
In his twelve seasons 1892 to death, 167 in about 6700 pa.

OPS+, rank in league
42511321-21i Delahanty 1892-1903 (i = ineligible, part of 1903)
   131. Blackadder Posted: August 09, 2008 at 06:50 PM (#2896541)
Dan, if you get the chance, can you do Kiner vs Keller?
   132. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: August 09, 2008 at 11:59 PM (#2896805)
I forget where I found Keller's 1938 MLE line, could someone repost it?
   133. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: August 10, 2008 at 12:01 AM (#2896808)
Also, does Keller deserve credit for his missing games in 1939?
   134. mulder & scully Posted: August 10, 2008 at 06:40 AM (#2897202)
Dan,

Thanks for the response about the salary estimator.

Re: Keller and 1938 MLEs. I have been trying to Google Search BTF. The closest I can figure is sometime before 1976.

Anybody else?

Kelly
   135. Tiboreau Posted: August 10, 2008 at 07:46 AM (#2897225)
James Newburg's MLEs for Charlie Keller can be found in the 1975 Ballot Discussion thread in post #146:
YEAR LG AGE PO  AVG  OBP  SLG G  PA  AB H  TB BB opssfws
--------------------------------------------------------------------
1937 IL 20  of .338 .412 .511 145 590 524 177 268 66 139  28.2
1938 IL 21  of .334 .431 .519 150 645 551 184 286 94 145  30.1 

I believe that '37 is Keller's first year in professional baseball.
   136. Tiboreau Posted: August 10, 2008 at 07:48 AM (#2897227)
Sorry, here's the link in question. . . .
   137. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: August 10, 2008 at 10:29 PM (#2897689)
Man, Keller MLE'd to a 139 OPS+ at age 20? Badass.

OK, here's Keller vs. Kiner. I am giving Keller no credit for 1937, and MLE credit for 1938 scaled to the 3/4 of a season he played in 1939. I increase his park factor by 10 for 1943 and by 20 for 1945, and cut his defense by 2 runs/162 in 1943 and 4 runs/162 in 1945. Then I fill in war credit by taking the 42-43-partial45-46-47 average. Kiner's getting one year of credit at the beginning.

Keller

YEAR SFrac BWAA    BRWA FWAA Replc    WARP
1938  0.73  3.0     0.0  0.0  
-0.6     3.6
1939  0.73  3.5     0.0  0.4  
-0.6     4.5
1940  0.92  3.9     0.2  0.4  
-0.7     5.2
1941  0.91  5.6     0.0  0.6  
-0.7     6.9
1942  1.02  6.3     0.4  0.4  
-0.8     7.8
1943  0.95  5.2     0.1  0.9  
-0.8     7.0
1944  0.95  5.6     0.0  0.5  
-0.8     6.9
1945  0.97  5.7    
-0.1  0.8  -0.7     7.1
1946  1.01  5.9    
-0.1  0.1  -0.8     6.7
1947  0.30  1.9     0.0  0.1  
-0.2     2.2
1948  0.44  0.6     0.0 
-0.2  -0.4     0.7
1949  0.22  0.3     0.1 
-0.3  -0.2     0.3
1950  0.10  0.6     0.0 
-0.2  -0.1     0.4
1951  0.11  0.3     0.0  0.0  
-0.1     0.4
TOTL  9.36 48.4     0.6  3.5  
-7.5    59.7
AVRG  1.00  5.2     0.1  0.4  
-0.8     6.4 


3-year peak: 21.9
7-year prime: 47.8
Career: 59.7


Kiner

YEAR SFrac BWAA    BRWA FWAA Replc    WARP
1945  0.75  1.0     0.0 
-0.6  -0.6     1.0
1946  0.89  1.6     0.0 
-0.8  -1.0     1.8
1947  1.02  6.6    
-0.1  0.0  -0.8     7.4
1948  1.03  4.5    
-0.1  1.2  -0.9     6.5
1949  1.01  7.6     0.0 
-0.7  -0.9     7.8
1950  1.03  5.0     0.0 
-0.9  -0.9     5.0
1951  1.02  7.8     0.0 
-0.8  -0.9     8.0
1952  0.99  4.3     0.1 
-1.0  -0.9     4.3
1953  1.02  3.6     0.0 
-0.4  -0.9     4.1
1954  0.98  2.1     0.1  0.5  
-0.8     3.6
1955  0.59  1.3     0.0 
-0.4  -0.5     1.3
TOTL 10.33 45.4     0.0 
-3.9  -9.1    50.8
AVRG  1.00  4.4     0.0 
-0.4  -0.9     4.9 


3-year peak: 23.2
7-year prime: 43.1
Career: 50.8

So, given my assumptions, Keller absolutely blows Kiner out of the water. He wasn't quiite as great a hitter at his absolute best, but he was definitely a better hitter for his career. And he was a real asset in the field, while Kiner was a real liability. Keller is an easy pick for my PHoM ($175M), and Kiner is a bit short ($146M). But obviously, there are a heck of a lot of assumptions in there, and yours may vary.
   138. Blackadder Posted: August 11, 2008 at 12:18 AM (#2897721)
Damn, that is a rout. Keller ends up with a pretty solid career figure, basically one prime season behind Paul Molitor.

Even taking out all of the bonusesn(which I don't think is fair to him), Keller ends up with about 44 WARP for his career. That is low, but still comparable to a lot of people the BBWAA likes. How many people realize that Keller's actual, 1170 game major league career had just much value as Lou Brock's 2612 game career?
   139. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: August 11, 2008 at 03:00 AM (#2898000)
Hey Dan, how about tossing Albert Belle in there if you get a chance? I've always pretty much equated Belle to Kiner. Just curious how close it comes out. Plus, it's somewhat relevant to the current real life ballot (I think, Belle didn't drop off, did he?)
   140. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: August 11, 2008 at 03:01 AM (#2898003)
OK, but is that so surprising? Replacement OPS+ for corner OF is about 80, no? So in Keller's case, 150 - 80 = 70 * 1170 = 82000, while in Brock's, 110 - 80 = 30 * 2610 = 78000. Brock has baserunning to add to that, but Keller has defense. So it should be pretty close on career value just from eyeballing it, no?
   141. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: August 11, 2008 at 03:10 AM (#2898007)
Sure thing, Joe, although you have the same spreadsheet that I do!

Albert Belle

YEAR SFrac BWAA    BRWA FWAA Replc    WARP
1989  0.34 
-0.6    -0.1 -0.1  -0.6    -0.2
1991  0.72  1.3    
-0.2 -0.6  -1.3     1.7
1992  0.95  1.8     0.3  0.0  
-0.0     2.1
1993  1.00  3.7     0.2 
-0.1  -1.7     5.5
1994  0.97  7.3    
-0.3 -0.5  -1.7     8.1
1995  1.01  5.7     0.1  0.8  
-1.7     8.4
1996  1.01  4.6     0.2  0.0  
-1.7     6.4
1997  1.01  1.1    
-0.3 -0.4  -1.7     2.0
1998  1.02  6.3    
-0.2 -0.6  -1.6     7.1
1999  1.03  3.8    
-0.1 -0.5  -1.6     4.8
2000  0.89  0.3    
-0.5 -1.6  -1.4    -0.4
TOTL  9.95 35.3    
-0.9 -3.6 -15.0    45.5
TXBR  8.72 35.6    
-0.3 -1.9 -13.0    46.1
AVRG  1.00  3.5    
-0.1 -0.4  -1.5     4.6 


3-year peak: 23.6
7-year prime: 42.4
Career: 46.1

Yes, Kiner and Belle are pretty close twins, but I still prefer Kiner thanks to his having a nudge more career value.
   142. Yoenis Cespedes, Baseball Savant Posted: August 11, 2008 at 06:41 AM (#2898066)
Dan, what does Minnie Minoso's career look like with his MLE seasons?
   143. Blackadder Posted: August 11, 2008 at 09:09 AM (#2898080)
Oh sure, I don't think this is one of the "surprising" results of your system, like Campaneris = McCovey. I just think it is a somewhat counter-intuitive result, relative to "raw" intuition. I think the more standard ways of thinking about career value--be it career milestones/records or career WARP3 and WS--are so tied to a low replacement level that one really has to force oneself to see matters correctly.
   144. Paul Wendt Posted: August 11, 2008 at 02:35 PM (#2898168)
133. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: August 09, 2008 at 08:01 PM (#2896808)
Also, does Keller deserve credit for his missing games in 1939?

The Yankees couldn't make up their minds what to do with Joe DiMaggio, George Selkirk, Tommy Henrich, and Keller. Teammate talent was the "problem" in 1939 and plausibly in 1938 too. Selkirk, Henrich, and Keller --three lefties, platoon possibilities only with DiMaggio.
Go back to 1937 Yankees (bb-ref) and look at the team batting and outfielding.


Joe
> Belle didn't drop off, did he?)

The writers killed him. Dave Concepcion expired.


Black
> Keller's actual, 1170 game major league career had just much value as Lou Brock's 2612 game career?

The Cardinals were never loaded like the Yankees, so Brock could make a bigger difference in the World Series. In retrospect they should have dropped him after he didn't slide home in '68. ;-)
But the early and mid-1970s Cardinals are the all-time leader in number of players with 200 career win shares, 250 cws, 300 cws (detail forgotten). They enjoyed some talent and easily might have returned to the fall classic.
   145. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: August 11, 2008 at 03:39 PM (#2898236)
I suspect Campaneris will fall back behind McCovey in a future version of my WARP, because I'll be regressing those defensive stats much more than I do now to reflect the uncertainty in non-PBP fielding metrics. Campaneris is only equal to McCovey if Stretch was really a huge liability with the glove.

It's definitely not Keller's fault that he wasn't playing full-time in 1939 then. I am going to give him an extra .17 SFrac for the '38 and '39 seasons, taking off a nudge from his rate in case he would have had to face more LHP. That increases him from $175M to $183M.

I start giving MiƱoso credit for his age-21 1947 season. It seems like Fielding Win Shares were never posted, so I'm just using his rate from the 1950's to measure the quality of his fielding for those years (which comes out to an extremely high +9-+10 per full season). I'm also correcting the data in the spreadsheet for his multi-positional '51 and '52, and incorporating the most recent version of BP FRAA. Here's what I get:


Year SFrac BWAA    BRWA FWAA Replc    WARP
1947  0.96  1.1    
-0.1  0.9  -0.8     2.7
1948  0.96  2.0    
-0.1  0.9  -0.8     3.6
1949  0.70  0.3    
-0.1  0.7  -0.6     1.5
1950  0.89  2.0    
-0.1  0.8  -0.8     3.6
1951  0.94  4.4     0.2 
-0.5  -0.9     5.1
1952  1.00  2.5    
-0.2  0.8  -1.2     4.3
1953  0.99  3.1    
-0.2  1.5  -0.9     5.4
1954  1.02  5.1     0.0  1.9  
-0.9     7.8
1955  0.92  1.7     0.1  1.1  
-0.8     3.7
1956  1.00  5.0     0.0 
-0.4  -0.8     5.5
1957  1.04  4.1    
-0.3  0.8  -0.8     5.3
1958  0.98  4.2    
-0.4  0.1  -0.8     4.7
1959  0.99  3.7    
-0.4  1.7  -0.7     5.8
1960  1.02  3.6    
-0.2 -0.4  -0.7     3.6
1961  0.93  2.0     0.0 
-1.1  -0.6     1.5
1962  0.16 
-0.6     0.1 -0.1  -0.1    -0.5
1963  0.53 
-0.9    -0.1 -0.9  -0.4    -1.6
TOTL 15.03 43.4    
-1.8  7.8 -12.6    62.0
TXBR 14.35 45.0    
-1.7  8.8 -12.1    64.1
AVRG  1.00  2.9    
-0.1  0.5  -0.8     4.1 


3-year peak: 19.0
7-year prime: 39.5
Career: 64.1

In my salary estimator, that's $173M, which is Kelley/Sheckard level. I would subjectively dock him a bit for league strength. Also, a very big chunk of his value is locked up in defense, so if you don't trust Fielding WS and BP FRAA, you might want to push him down as well. (TotalZone agrees with their take starting in 1956). On another note, his manager should never have allowed him to steal.
   146. DL from MN Posted: August 11, 2008 at 05:36 PM (#2898372)
[Musial] actually accumulated real value in his 49-PA cup of coffee in 1941 (.426/.449/.574)

One thing we never seem to consider in these lists is minor league credit for the really good players. They never needed it to get elected so it sort of gets brushed aside. Now in these apples-to-apples lists I'm afraid giving one player minor league credit without looking into the others in detail will lead to distortions.

Here's my prelim

1) Ted Williams
2) Stan Musial
(Rickey) I only rate retired players so no comment on Barry
3) Tim Raines - barely ahead of...
4) Carl Yastrzemski - there's 15 wins difference in baserunning between Raines and Yaz.
5) Ed Delahanty - I think I've reversed the consensus order by voting pure career. Unfair his career was cut short but that's how it goes.
6) Fred Clarke - even with Delahanty
7) Jesse Burkett
8) Billy Williams
9) Al Simmons
10) Jimmy Sheckard - I'm not discounting the ridiculous defensive numbers
11) Zack Wheat
12) Joe Kelley - 12 through 17 could be picked out of a hat
13) Willie Stargell
14) Goose Goslin
(Bob Johnson)
15) Charlie Keller
16) Charley Jones
17) Sherry Magee
18) Minnie Minoso
19) Joe Medwick - Medwick in and Bob Johnson out still irritates me
20) Harry Stovey
21) Ralph Kiner - just not enough career, hitter comparable to Belle or Manny but not for long enough. Not in my PHoM.
   147. Paul Wendt Posted: August 11, 2008 at 06:01 PM (#2898417)
There have been some general inquiries about fielding and OCF has covered most of the candidates in a way.

At this stage it may be most important for Goslin, partly because there is more play in his ranking down near the bottom (in contrast nothing will bump Musial up or down). DanR picks him out with Stargell and Kiner as poor fielders in contrast to Clarke and Williams. Is that a consensus opinion? not yet, I suppose

Back in the first BJ Historical Baseball Abstract (2d ed), Goslin was one of BJ's favorite players. The timespan for player blurbs and career rankings is Fred Clarke to Eddie Murray, a little more than eighty years where we have almost 120 years. So Delahanty, Kelley, and Burkett were too early for James.

He made Goslin #4 in leftfield.
(some classifications:
LF Jackson, Irvin
CF Manush, Simmons
RF Sheckard[alphabetically next to teammate Schulte])

Among all players in the timeframe he made Goslin #48 --far behind the big five CFs (all in the top 20) and even with the fifth RF Reggie Jackson #47, just ahead of Kaline and Waner.
Quoting James
One of the really good ones; one of the few stars of his era who was every bit as good as his numbers. . . . outstanding speed, a good arm, and good strike zone judgment.
. . . 1923-29 in Griffith Stadium . . . 22 homeruns at home, 82 on the road.
. . .
Goslin had the skills that we would usually associate with an outstanding right fielder, and played that position later in his career. He played left field most of his life for two reasons: (1) The Senators had another Hall of Famer in right, Sam Rice, and (2) it was 401 feet to left field in Griffith Park.


By the way, James loosely identified every old-timer with a "comparable recent player".
Goslin ~ Al Kaline
Medwick ~ Hal McRae
Manush ~ Jose Cardenal
!
   148. Paul Wendt Posted: August 11, 2008 at 06:23 PM (#2898433)
Years later here are some of the Bill James letter grades for corner outfielder. Recall, he handles "outfield" as one position occupied by three players on a team, so the grades for career LFs and RFs are compressed.

A: Sheckard [anyone else?]
A- Kelley, Clarke [anyone else?]
B+
B: Burkett, Stan
B- Delahanty, Wheat, Sam Rice, Magee, Medwick, Kaline
C+ Joe Jax, Goslin, Keller, Yaz[exc rep]
C: Ted[bad rep]
C- Kiner, Stargell, Reggie Jax

(Manush, only a C despite the time in center)
If the win shares system is perfect in its own terms, those ratings will be distorted by time in centerfield, eg two years as a regular for Delahanty.

There seems to be a clear time pattern, high letter grades for HOM outfielders in Fred Clarke's time. Here are some more career corner OF from that time
C+ Keeler
C: Tiernan, Flick, Crawford[some CF]
C- Thompson

that's all, folks
   149. TomH Posted: August 11, 2008 at 07:12 PM (#2898535)
honest, open question - not intending to start a flame war:

The Red Sox are famous for lagging in integrating black players. Likely this hurt their team.

What is the consensus on any role their star player had in this? Obviously ownership/management and general climate in Boston had influence.
   150. Paul Wendt Posted: August 11, 2008 at 07:46 PM (#2898631)
Ted - no rumor here, no clue except his ethinc background and Hall of Fame address.

--
If you mean the long slow integration that was still ongoing at his death, there is consensus that Yawkey was unusually chummy with Yaz or unusually deferential to Yaz on more points than salary. But I haven't heard anything about which players crossed Yaz or didn't appeal to him. Someone who lived in Eastern New England between 1967 and Yawkey's death may know several names.

Afterward there were some complaints or denigrating observations by black players that the Red Sox organization was not one to say anything if one of the boys' favorite restaurants refused black customers. (Someone struck closer to home than one of the boys favorite restaurants but I don't recall enough to use another example.)

--
Regarding the early days I think GM Eddie Collins must be in the story (died 1951), and maybe manager Joe Cronin (1935-47).
   151. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: August 11, 2008 at 08:26 PM (#2898761)
DL from MN, Dan Fox's EqBRR (which are more reliable than my BRWAA, I just haven't had the time to incorporate them yet) put the Raines-Yaz baserunning gap at 129 runs. At something like 9 runs a win in their combined run environments, that suggests a 14-win baserunning gap rather than 15. Somehow I doubt that affects your placement too substantially.

Paul Wendt--huh? Goslin was a *good* fielder, he gets +4.4 FWAA in my system...when did I ever suggest otherwise?

I would be open to giving Goslin a favorable tiebreak for a nasty component-park effect.
   152. DL from MN Posted: August 11, 2008 at 08:36 PM (#2898801)
Yaz and Raines are _really_ close so anything may tip the balance. Was Yaz really a much better fielder than Raines like I'm pulling from your previous numbers (4 wins)? Shrinking that gap could offset the baserunning numbers.
   153. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: August 11, 2008 at 08:58 PM (#2898868)
TotalZone is gaga about Yaz, has him at +130, including a +15 in 1967 and a +23 in 1968, which if true gives him an absolutely historic, jawdropping peak. Twenty-three runs in 1968 is what, three wins? It sees Raines as league average. The inner workings of DRA are a little more exposed: it shows Yaz as average before accounting for Fenway, but Humphreys says that putting up a league-average defensive statistical line in front of the Green Monster means that Yaz was actually the finest fielding LF of his era. It also has Raines as average. Based on that evidence, it seems to me that a four-win defensive gap between Raines and Yaz actually seems too conservative, perhaps 6 or 7 would be more reasonable.
   154. DL from MN Posted: August 11, 2008 at 09:37 PM (#2898915)
That settles it, Yaz over Raines.
   155. Paul Wendt Posted: August 11, 2008 at 09:54 PM (#2898943)
DanR #151
Paul Wendt--huh? Goslin was a *good* fielder, he gets +4.4 FWAA in my system...when did I ever suggest otherwise?

Excuse me, I should have found the quotation so you might confirm, correct, or adjust interpretation.
I did remember correctly that you grouped Goslin with Stargell in response to Marc's preference for the latter.

104. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: August 07, 2008 at 03:53 PM (#2894467)
Sunnyday, what Clarke and Williams have on Stargell, Magee, and Goslin is defense, in a major way. Sheckard is the best glove of the bunch, but his hitting was well below the Clarke/Williams standard.
   156. Mike Green Posted: August 11, 2008 at 10:17 PM (#2898966)
There is, as far as I know, no defensive system that provides a reasonable basis for quantifying left-fielder defence in Fenway. If you want to compare Yaz' defence with Raines' defence, you are best off, in my view, to use Total Zone or DRA or something else, but for road games only.

I saw them both, and I can tell you that if you have Yaz as 20-30 runs better than Raines in a season with the glove, you are doing something wrong.

If you want to choose Yaz over Raines for other reasons, that is entirely justifiable. For instance, Raines did not have a season like Yaz' 1967 when Yaz was clearly the best player in the league and led an otherwise mediocre club to a pennant. On other hand, you could argue that Raines never had that opportunity at his peak.
   157. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: August 11, 2008 at 10:20 PM (#2898975)
Yeah, I was really referring to Clarke's fielding brilliance rather than any particular weakness on the part of Goslin. I mentioned him because of where he ranked in sunnyday's perceived "tiers." Magee was nearly average with the glove, and Goslin above. But Clarke was downright badass.
   158. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: August 11, 2008 at 10:33 PM (#2898995)
I certainly think there's a place to talk about defensive reptuations when you're dealing with something as nebulous as Fenway LF D. How was Yaz's fielding thought of in the mid-to-late 60's?

I'll ask Michael and Sean about a home/road breakdown.
   159. Blackadder Posted: August 11, 2008 at 11:29 PM (#2899044)
Dan, which version of TotalZone are you using? I ask because Sean update his system a few months ago, and corrected a mistake he was making in calculating park factors for Fenway LF. Yaz drops down to +81 runs, which is still the best ever for a LF, but not quite as absurdly singular. See this article:

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/measuring-defense-for-players-back-to-1956-part-2/
   160. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: August 11, 2008 at 11:31 PM (#2899047)
Oh, I clearly have an outdated version then. I'll ask him for the new data. Thanks for letting me know.
   161. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: August 12, 2008 at 01:13 AM (#2899143)
TotalZone says that Yaz was +38 at home, +45 on the road in LF, while +32 at home and +15 on the road at 1B. The 1B spread is large but no reason to expect Fenway would have anything to do with it, and I certainly imagine that's well within the realm of random fluctuation. And Blackadder, I see I *was* using the right version of TZ, I was just summing Yaz's performance in LF and 1B.

It seems all the available metrics agree that at the very least, Yaz was a Gold Glove-caliber OF in the late 60's, precisely the same period as his offensive peak. His best seasons are thus completely comparable to Musial's--if you were a pure "two year peak" voter, you'd have the pair very close. But, Stan the Man had 6 years at that historically great level and 7 more as an MVP candidate, while Yaz had just two historically great seasons and two more MVP-type seasons.
   162. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: August 12, 2008 at 01:18 AM (#2899146)
Yaz did win seven Gold Gloves...in and of itself, that doesn't mean anything, but it certainly gives credence to the quantitative evidence.
   163. RobertMachemer Posted: August 12, 2008 at 01:35 AM (#2899177)
And, in fact, Yaz won Gold Gloves in 1963, 1965, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1971, and 1977. Even back then, I suspect it wasn't typical for a left fielder to win the award.

*checks*

Nope. 'Twasn't typical.

1962: Mantle (CF), Landis (CF), Kaline (RF)
1963: Yaz (LF), Landis (CF), Kaline (RF)
1964: Davalillo (CF), Landis (CF), Kaline (RF)
1965: Yaz (LF), Tresh (CF/LF?), Kaline (RF)
1966: Agee (CF), Oliva (RF), Kaline (RF)
1967: Yaz (LF), Blair (CF), Kaline (RF)
1968: Yaz (LF), Stanley (CF), Smith (CF)
1969: Yaz (LF), Stanley (CF), Blair (CF)
1970: Berry (CF), Stanley (CF), Blair (CF)
1971: Yaz (LF), Otis (CF), Blair (CF)
1972: Murcer (CF), Berry (CF), Blair (CF)

From 1962-1972, Yaz was the only LF winning a Gold Glove in the AL (depending on what the heck we call Tom Tresh the year he won the award). When Yaz wasn't winning, some CF typically was. Whether or not this is particularly compelling evidence that Yaz was a very good fielder, it at least suggests that people at the time thought he was pretty damned good. Tim Raines never won a Gold Glove. Nor did Rickey Henderson. (Barry Bonds won eight).

For whatever it's worth.
   164. Howie Menckel Posted: August 12, 2008 at 01:57 AM (#2899221)
Well, LF in Fenway is a unique challenge, and Yaz handled it with aplomb, and I remember a fair bit of it.
That's the park he was given.

Could other LFs have handled it as well with regular opportunities?
Hard to tell - not a lot of other options from 1939-1970s, woulda been less if a more peaceful time.

I give Yaz a + for fielding, but I'd be hesitant to place him above other good defensive OFs on this measure. And he never played in another home field, which is unusual.

I don't remember Yaz well enough in road games; I don't think he was poor but I don't recall him as that guy you utterly feared on every fly ball or throw to the plate. I think he was consistent and no significant flaws; add in an edge handling the Green Monster, and he's a real asset there.

Would love to hear more feedback on this.
   165. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: August 12, 2008 at 02:09 AM (#2899240)
Here's Humphreys on Yaz:

"I have found, by analyzing part-time fielders in Fenway, that there has been a very consistent 10-runs-per-1450 innings Green Monster impact over the years...I have Yaz at about 104 runs saved in left over his career, of which 34 is attributable to his arm.

Yes, the 1966-1968 numbers (+32, +14, +29) seem high, but (a) he was young, (b) he had just gotten himself into sensational shape, (c) he played in a quasi-segregated league, and (d) it's not unusual for *somebody* to be that good in left in a particular year. Also, until 1972 he was consistently better than his teammates in left, usually be two to five runs, which is difficult to do when you're playing full-time, and the team rating is essentially the starting player's rating.

He was a very good fielder. I think, given Sean's numbers, that we can be confident he saved at least 100 runs."
   166. Howie Menckel Posted: August 12, 2008 at 03:19 AM (#2899300)
No Dummy Hoy thread?

Well, this is interesting:

http://cincinnati.reds.mlb.com/news/article_entertainment.jsp?ymd=20080811&content_id=3290604&vkey=entertainment&fext;=.jsp

"It was 1961, and Dummy Hoy, 99 years old, threw out the ceremonial first pitch of Game 3 of the World Series between the Reds and the Yankees. He was the oldest living Major League Baseball player at the time. One of his dreams was to live to 100, but he came up a little short. He passed away that December."

oddly, Ty Cobb threw out the first ball at the Angels' first-ever game that season.
He didn't make it 'til the end of the year, either.
   167. OCF Posted: August 12, 2008 at 06:11 AM (#2899353)
No Dummy Hoy thread?

I went looking for Hoy on the 1908 discussion thread. I found, early in the thread, one post of mine. It seems to be in response to a post that doesn't exist any more, and quite a bit of that thread seems to be butchered by the site transition. Did we talk about him anywhere else?
   168. Mike Green Posted: August 12, 2008 at 03:33 PM (#2899541)
Howie Menckel's #164 is exactly how I remember Yaz defensively. Solid. Decent range. Good arm. Played the wall very well. If you mark him down as 5-10 runs per season better than Raines during their years in left-field, I'd buy it.

As for Yaz' defence at first base, I remember it as completely average. He was unusually short for a first baseman.
   169. OCF Posted: August 12, 2008 at 04:08 PM (#2899575)
Following up: my comment about Hoy early in the 1908 discussion thread seems to follow some stuff (primarily about the 1900 American League) that gets talked about in what are now #179 and #180 in the 1907 discussion thread.
   170. Paul Wendt Posted: August 12, 2008 at 05:36 PM (#2899664)
OCF #8 in the 1908 discussion thread
<i>AL 1900

Probably that is my reference to the league, the beginning of a sentence or a heading. One of my webpages provided rosters and identified regular players the eight teams probably with other information such as where they first appeared later in the major leagues. That may be one AL1900 site in references here.

The four leagues AL/NL 1900/1901 would have been the most common "field" of my earliest data-laden contributions here. Maybe some to a centerfield thread.

I don't know the nature of the loss of content here. My #5 in the same thread appears now as a complete one-sentence reference to coverage of Hoy's Cincinnati baseball hof induction. Maybe that was followed by information about AL 1900, a need that was clear at the end of the 1907 discussion.

--
"Center Fielders"
82. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: August 06, 2004 at 12:19 PM (#781099)
I couldn't reconstrust any of the problem posts on this thread. Sorry.
83. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: September 05, 2004 at 06:17 PM (#838361)
Posts have been reconstructed up to #26.
84. Paul Wendt Posted: May 28, 2005 at 10:22 AM (#1367933)
I recall several discussions of the CF position, compare and contrast with LF or RF. I recall that some of that was in a CF thread but I don't find it. Maybe a Win Shares thread.
[next, several data-laden articles derived from career fielding games in LF, CF, RF. For example documenting the surplus of 1500-game centerfielders and the shortage of 100-499 games centerfielders.
--

From me CF and AL1900 would have the likely theme of material related to Dummy Hoy or the point of entry to Dummy Hoy himself.
   171. frannyzoo Posted: August 12, 2008 at 11:33 PM (#2900063)
Lurker alert: I'm just wondering if that "no war credit" guy is gonna actually have a ballot on the other thread. Scary to think of a somehow 4-F Teddy Ballgame playing 43-45 in a war-depleted league. The Bonds/integration argument I have some respect for...but c'mon, between the 43-45 and even the Korean stuff, Splinter would have put up some, as we lurker non-HOM voters types say, sick numbers.
   172. TomH Posted: August 13, 2008 at 12:17 PM (#2900898)
thots on the Splinter and the Man:

Ted Williams was, at least before Bonds came along to muck up the picture, probably what he set out to be: the greatest hitter who ever lived. Yes, Ruth dominated more, but I believe the title "best hitter ever" ought to go to a guy who could flourish in all eras, not just in 1925 when the rest of the world (players, scouts, everyone) hadn't caught up to the new style yet. If ted had not missed time to WWI, we may have seen the best sustained prime ever.

Having said that, Ted's rank in my book as a player is closer to Musial's than others have suggested. I have Williams, without missing time for war adjsutments, as about 15 wins ahad of Musial. I'd give Stand about 9 wins for defense, 5 more wins for league quality, 4 more wins for position flexibility (a 1B-LF-CF-RF as the team needs is a very good thing), and another 4 wins for better clutch play record; Musial's teams won a few close pennant races, unlike Ted's. I don't murder Wiliams for his and the team's 46/48/49 less-than-championship performances like some writers do, but neither do I completely ignore them, as they have been 98% ignored on these threads.

But Ted missed about 3.8 seasons more than Stan in the military. Even giving 80% creidt of that, Ted is ahead. In my all-time rankings, only Hank Aaron comes between Stan and Ted.
   173. OCF Posted: August 13, 2008 at 01:52 PM (#2900962)
In my all-time rankings, only Hank Aaron comes between Stan and Ted.

My ballot (which is a combined LF/RF list) shows Musial ahead of Aaron.
   174. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: August 13, 2008 at 03:32 PM (#2901115)
FOUR WINS for position flexibility, TomH? Get out of here. You need SOME kind of empirical quantitative evidence that said flexibility can make that magnitude of a contribution to a team....that's tacking on an extra full All-Star season.

Musial also needs the air let out of his '43 and '44.
   175. TomH Posted: August 13, 2008 at 03:55 PM (#2901160)
My 5 wins for league qqual includes the 43-44 adjustment.

For 10 years, Musial played any of foru positions, whichever one his team needed. As late as 1952, center field was his primary position for a full year. After that, he only played a little RF, so I'll be conservative and say he was a 1B-LFer until 1962.

And again, this is different than a guy playing 1B for 5 years and then going to LF for 4 more. He was able to move back-and-forth as required, allowing for maximum best use of other players.

So what would 10 years of 4-pos flexibility and 10 more of 2-pos flexibility be worth to a manager? I admit, we in statistician's corner have not spent a lot of time analyzing the value of this. I believe it was Keith Woolner who back in 2000 listed this as one of baseball's 'Hilbert problems', and we have made little progress. But if I postulate the above is worth 2 runs a year (* 20 yrs = ... 4 wins!!), am I completely out to lunch? The burden rests entirely on me to provide quantitative evidence? Believe me, I'd like to. You may be right, I may be crazy (lookin fer a lunatic?). I don't have it. I'm making a reasonable guess. You disagree. Fine. I say poppycock and faht in your general direction.
   176. bjhanke Posted: August 16, 2008 at 01:59 AM (#2905048)
Tom H (post 149) asks, "The Red Sox are famous for lagging in integrating black players. Likely this hurt their team.

What is the consensus on any role their star player had in this? Obviously ownership/management and general climate in Boston had influence."

If you're talking about Ted Williams, I believe the answer is none and maybe less. Isn't Ted the guy who used his Hall of Fame induction speech to vent on the need for the Hall to open to Negro Leaguers? I remember it as being him, but my memory is not perfect and I'm in Indy with no materials.

My personal opinion on this issue, which is informed by a lot of stuff I learned in St. Louis, which was not an AL city when I learned it, is this: it's now well known that the AL responded generally to integration with panic. They were already drawing fewer fans than NL teams and were worried about declining into a minor league (this much I am certain of). They did what they had done in the late 1910s, and fed the Yankees to increase revenue when the Mighty Ones came to their towns, which is why the Yanks were able to pull off so many pennant-winning waiver deals in those years (again, I'm certain of this).

The only AL owner willing to buck the trend was Bill Veeck. The only 3 teams to beat out the Yanks between 1947 and 1964, I think, had 2 things in common. They had Larry Doby, and they had been built by owner Bill Veeck (48 and 54 tribe and 59 go-gos). Doby wasn't much of a force on the 59 Chisox, but I think they had Minoso, didn't they? I don't think that's coincidence. Veeck was willing to fight the Yanks, and he was the only owner to beat them. So if I were to blame someone for late AL integration, it would be the collection of owners not including Veeck, but led by the Yanks. Ted Williams seems to have been at the very forefront of willingness to integrate. It is possible - I am speculating here - that the Yanks were more than willing to shift blame to the Bosox when Boston proved even slower to get with the program. But the real blame goes to the 7 owners other than Veeck. No one player is going to sway 7 owners in a state of panic.
   177. Howie Menckel Posted: August 16, 2008 at 02:47 PM (#2905338)
Correct on the Ted Williams speech in 1966:

http://www.nlbpa.com/ted_williams.html

"I hope some day Satchel Paige and Josh Gibson will be voted into the Hall of Fame as symbols of the great Negro players who are not here only because they weren't given the chance."
   178. TomH Posted: August 16, 2008 at 06:02 PM (#2905452)
Yeha, I assumed that Teddy's HoF speech endorsing the NgLg studs was common knowledge. But I'm ignorant on his influence as a player. I know Yawkey has a rep as a Whites-only guy, but I don't know if the rep is deserved or not.
Page 2 of 2 pages  < 1 2

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
BDC
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 1.2910 seconds
49 querie(s) executed