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

Wednesday, January 18, 2006

Stan Musial

Eligible in 1969.

John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 18, 2006 at 08:45 PM | 50 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.

   1. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 18, 2006 at 09:34 PM (#1827171)
He has the rep as being colorless, but Ebbets Field fans differ (yes, I know he was a Cardinal :-).
   2. karlmagnus Posted: January 18, 2006 at 09:56 PM (#1827209)
Apart from Ted, better than anyone else (retired as of 1969, I haven't benchmarked Mantle/Mays/Aaron) since Gehrig, though. MUCH better than Joe D. Surprisingly dim in people's memories compared to Ted or Joe D.
   3. DavidFoss Posted: January 18, 2006 at 10:30 PM (#1827296)
There's an amusing anecdote from the Ken Burns Baseball documentary. Someone (I believe it was Curt Flood) had asked Musial the secret to his success. Musial replied something like "I see the ball... and I try to hit it as hard as I can".
   4. OCF Posted: January 18, 2006 at 10:51 PM (#1827351)
In the original, mid-80's version of the Historical Baseball Abstract, Bill James ranked Musial as the #1 left fielder of all time, ahead of Williams.
   5. sunnyday2 Posted: January 19, 2006 at 03:19 AM (#1827856)
>In the original, mid-80's version of the Historical Baseball Abstract, Bill James ranked Musial as the #1 left fielder of all time, ahead of Williams.

I always thought that was goofy. Still when I was a kid there was Teddy and Stan the Man as the grand old men of baseball and Mantle and Mays as the young lions. They were it.

I personally have Musial on my 1B list, because I split out the OF positions and Musial moved among all 3 (all 4, including 1B) pretty freely, which is another point to his credit. And I have him as the #1 career 1B ahead of you-know-who. Add in peak/prime and he drops to #2, but still the real deal. He is Speaker to Teddy's Cobb, or Gehrig to Teddy's Babe, or Mantle to Teddy's Mays, or in a sense he is Mays to Teddy's Mantle (i.e. less raw career value but better at his peak).
   6. OCF Posted: January 19, 2006 at 04:05 AM (#1827927)
Still when I was a kid there was Teddy and Stan the Man as the grand old men of baseball and Mantle and Mays as the young lions. They were it.

Henry Aaron's career overlaps those of Williams and Musial by 7 and 10 years, respectively. He debuted just three years after Mays and Mantle, and that's not really a full three years for either Willie or Mickey. sunnyday2 is, of course, reporting the general perception quite accurately. It's just interesting to note how so much of Aaron's career slid by drawing as little notice as it did. (At the end, as 714 drew into sight, things were different. But that's not the time either of us is talking about.)
   7. TomH Posted: January 19, 2006 at 04:42 AM (#1827966)
Stan the Man plays first base for my all-time team. I asked Lou if he'd be okay with that, and he said he feels like the luckiest guy, just being on the bench.

Quiz most are likely to get incorrect: which position did Musial play most in his MLB career? Answer: 1B (if you count RF, CF and LF as different positions)
   8. sunnyday2 Posted: January 19, 2006 at 04:43 AM (#1827967)
Right, I'm talkin' late '50s when, despite his MVP, Henry just was not viewed in anything like the same way as Say Hey and Mick. (The same of course could be said of most of the '60s when, "frankly," Frank Robinson was generally viewed as better than Henry, too.)
   9. DavidFoss Posted: January 19, 2006 at 04:56 AM (#1827989)
Right, I'm talkin' late '50s when, despite his MVP, Henry just was not viewed in anything like the same way as Say Hey and Mick. (The same of course could be said of most of the '60s when, "frankly," Frank Robinson was generally viewed as better than Henry, too.)

Well, as great as Aaron was in the late 50s, he was indeed clearly below Mays and Mantle.

The Frank Robinson comment is interesting. Today he's underrated for being in Aaron's shadow, but at the time, he did have multiple MVP's and a triple crown. I wasn't alive in the 50s & 60s. Is it true that Robinson was generally rated higher at the time and it wasn't until Aaron got his late-career kick and made the move on the Babe that he passed Frank?
   10. sunnyday2 Posted: January 19, 2006 at 04:58 AM (#1827995)
F. Robby probably shoulda been the NL MVP in '62.

>Is it true that Robinson was generally rated higher at the time and it wasn't until Aaron got his late-career kick and made the move on the Babe that he passed Frank?

That is true as I remember it, except that Henry had an MVP in 1958 so I would say Aaron was rated more highly for a while, and then Robby, and then Henry again.
   11. Brent Posted: January 19, 2006 at 05:59 AM (#1828071)
Musial will be the first HoMer I can remember watching. I just located up the game on Retrosheet; it was Stan's last season, and the Cards were playing at Dodger Stadium -- July 4, 1963. Stan the Man went 2 for 5; I remember he got a big round of applause when he was lifted for a pinch runner in the 8th. I remember seeing my first grand slam home run in that game too, though I'd forgotten that it was hit by Ken McMullen. The Dodgers won, 10 to 7.
   12. Brent Posted: January 19, 2006 at 06:14 AM (#1828083)
My other comment on Musial is that in the early 60s, Musial topped a lot of the National League career leaders lists. My guess is that he led in hits, runs, RBIs, doubles (I'm sure yest will correct me if my memory is wrong.) Musial was definitely thought of as one of the all-time greats back then, sort of the NL's answer to Williams and DiMaggio.
   13. OCF Posted: January 19, 2006 at 08:11 AM (#1828138)
F. Robby probably shoulda been the NL MVP in '62.

Yes, maybe. It's not easy to rank-order Aaron, Mays, and Robinson for that particular year. Just think: if we do the picking for a post-season NL All-Star team, the guy with the 150 RBI doesn't even crack the starting lineup.

Of course, they actually gave the MVP to .... Maury Wills.
   14. OCF Posted: January 19, 2006 at 08:25 AM (#1828146)
My other comment on Musial is that in the early 60s, Musial topped a lot of the National League career leaders lists.

Running through bbref's list and trying to work out where Musial ranked for NL counting stats as of his 1963 retirement. I could have gotten a couple of these wrong, (this is very quick and dirty) but it's close:

Category....Rank....Others

Hits: 1st, with 3630 (Anson 3418, Wagner 3415)
Total Bases: 1st, with 6134 (Ott 5041, Wagner 4862)
Doubles: 1st, with 725 (Wagner 640, Waner 605)
Triples: about 10th, with 177 (Wagner 252, followed by Beckley, Clarke, Brouthers, ... everyone ahead of him was pre-1920.)

Home runs: 2nd, with 475 (Ott 511, Mathews 438, Banks 343 - Mathews and Banks were active and moving on the list; I didn't check Mays and Aaron but probably should have)

Runs: 2nd with 1949 (Anson 1996, Ott 1859)
RBI: 2nd with 1951 (Anson 2076, Ott 1860)

Walks: 2nd, with 1599 (Ott 1708, no one else over 1400)
Extra base hits: 1st, with 1377 (Ott 1071, Hornsby 1011)

But then if anyone were publishing these in 1963, Anson (and all of the rest of 19th century baseball) would not have been recognized, so he would have been considered the NL leader in runs and RBI.

Aaron would eventually pass Musial in nearly all of these counting stats, but wouldn't have been close in 1963.
   15. Dizzypaco Posted: January 19, 2006 at 03:04 PM (#1828233)
Putting Musial at first on an all-time team is kind of cheating IMO. He played the outfield for almost all of his best years, and then first base during the decline phase of his career. There is no question that he was thought of as a great outfielder while he played, not a great first baseman. HIs career as a firstbaseman simply wasn't that good, while his career as an outfielder was amazing. Thinking of him as a first baseman is like thinking of Ernie Banks as a first baseman.
   16. sunnyday2 Posted: January 19, 2006 at 03:35 PM (#1828264)
I don't agree. I rate Stan Musial on his entire career. I just happen to put him among the 1Bs when I want to put him somewhere. His entire career is accounted for.

I have him the #1 career 1B and the #2 1B overall. This is unfair? How much higher do you have him as a whatever?

And besides, simply rating somebody as an OF misses the obvious differences between playing L, C and R. The fact that Musial was able to do something that Williams and many other "corner OF" never did--play CF--also works to his credit. L, C and R are different positions just as 1B is a different position. He played more games at 1B than any other position.
   17. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: January 19, 2006 at 04:16 PM (#1828312)
Sunny,

I think that what dizzy is saying is that as a 1B and only as a 1B, Musial wasn't taht great, a la Banks.

I also think that putting him at 1B is a little odd but then I lump RF and LF together (for the most part) since they are pretty interchangable.

Let the gnashing of teeth begin...
   18. Evan Posted: January 19, 2006 at 06:15 PM (#1828510)
Thinking of Stan always reminds me of the great quote by Preacher Roe: "I throw him four wide ones then try to pick him off first base."
   19. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: January 19, 2006 at 06:37 PM (#1828562)
I think that what dizzy is saying is that as a 1B and only as a 1B, Musial wasn't taht great, a la Banks.

I don't know about that, Mark. Going over the numbers, I think Musial had more value at first than in LF. I don't think it's by that much, but enough for me to designate him as a first baseman.

As for lumping all OF games as if they were all the same, I hate that. They might be closer in their responsibilities than the IF positions, but they are not interchangeable, IMO.
   20. Dizzypaco Posted: January 19, 2006 at 07:01 PM (#1828619)
Going back over Musial's career, I think you have more of a case than I first acknowledged - he played first for part of his prime, if not a large percentage of it.

Having said that, I still think of Musial as an outfielder. For some players, left and right field are not interchangeable, but for many others they are - they go back and forth depending on the needs of the team, without any great change in defensive performance. Certainly when Musial played, they were thought of as interchangeable. That's why all star teams had places for outfielders, rather than left, center and right fielders - because most people, including the teams themselves, thought of them as interchangeable.

I stand by my earlier statement that when Musial played, he was thought of as an outfielder who sometimes played first based, rather than the other way around. The fact that he actually did play 1890 games in the outfield and only 1016 at first (most of which after he was 35 years old) provides additional evidence.
   21. TomH Posted: January 19, 2006 at 08:53 PM (#1828891)
Agree with #20. It's just that he CAN make my all-time at 1B, but those corner OF slots are durn competitive....
   22. jingoist Posted: January 19, 2006 at 09:07 PM (#1828936)
My dad's favorite player.
As a kid, from about age 7 to 12, I was taken to Forbes Field for one game a year and ineviably it was when the cards were in town.
My dad wasn't a fan like most folks; he would consult me for who was really hitting/pitching well at any particular point in time but he sure did enjoy taking his young son to the ballpark to watch Stan the Man.

Musial was a local hero of sorts as he came from Donora, PA, a suburb of Pittsburgh, on the Monongahela river.

The definition of "Inner-Circle", Stan was amazingly consistent year in and year out. He was the most dangerous hitter in the NL from the 40's to early 50's and top-ten throughout his career.
He actually began playing 1B early in his career, at age 25, and not at the end as some have previously mentioned,
In fact he finished his career as a 42 year old OF, not at 1B.
Bill White and Joe Cunningham prety much alternated as I recall; Musial would play wherever they needed him. Their strongest lineups had Stan in LF and either White or Cunningham at 1B.

My dad always claimed he'd rather have Musial than Ted Williams playing for his team. He felt Stan was a better all-around player who was a strong fielder and strong hitter. Ted felt playing defense was a necessary evil as he don't get to hit unless he plaed in the field(Ted would have been the dream DH).

I would rank Gehrig as #1 all-time at 1B; had he not had his disease he undoubtedly would have put up similar career counting stats to Musial.
I have Stan as #1 in LF; the "cheater" Bonds gets grudging admiration for his career long hitting abilities and early career fielding exploits in both CF and LF but comes in 3rd behind Stan and Teddy ballgame in my book.
   23. Daryn Posted: January 19, 2006 at 09:19 PM (#1828962)
I like, for fun, to look at players' ordinal ranking in Black Ink, Grey Ink, HoF Monitor and HoF Standards. Lower is better. 4 is the theoretical perfect score -- first in all four categories. Babe Ruth has a 12. Musial has a 13. Aaron is 22. Bonds, Mays and Williams are all between 33 and 35. Musial was good.
   24. Daryn Posted: January 19, 2006 at 09:21 PM (#1828966)
BTW, I think Cobb is the best hitter by this standard, with a 10.
   25. Daryn Posted: January 19, 2006 at 09:22 PM (#1828970)
Walter Johnson is the best pitcher. 6.
   26. DavidFoss Posted: January 19, 2006 at 10:41 PM (#1829096)
Posting from vacation and I can't figure out how to paste on a mac...

Anyhow, Musial shifting positions every year is very interesting. A list of Pos/Yr and who the Cards had LF/RF/CF/1B each year would be quite fun to look at.
   27. DavidFoss Posted: January 19, 2006 at 10:42 PM (#1829100)
Posting from vacation and I can't figure out how to paste on a mac...

Anyhow, Musial shifting positions every year is very interesting. A list of Pos/Yr and who the Cards had LF/RF/CF/1B each year would be quite fun to look at.
   28. sunnyday2 Posted: January 20, 2006 at 12:02 AM (#1829246)
Those who have Musial ahead of Williams, I would guess there is no WWII and Korea extra-credit in those formulas. Ted missed how many years, Stan one. Equalize and it's no contest, unless now you are ranking them on skills. Hitting is one skill, fielding is a skill, etc. Musial had more skills. Those are the only bases I can think of for having Stan ahead.

Add to that the fact that BI and GI is league (competition) specific.
   29. OCF Posted: January 20, 2006 at 01:39 AM (#1829358)
David (#26) - a quick-and-dirty from bbref:

Cardinals, primaries at each of the positions in question:
1941: 1B Mize, LF (open) CF Moore, RF Slaughter (Musial "cup of coffee")
1942: 1B Hopp/Sanders, LF Musial, CF Moore, RF Slaughter
1943: 1B Sanders, LF Litwhiler et al, CF Walker, RF Musial
1944: 1B Sanders, LF Litwhiler, CF Hopp, RF Musial
1945: 1B Sanders, LF Schoendienst (!), CF Adams, RF Hopp/Bergamo
1946: 1B Musial, LF Dusak et al, CF Walker/Moore, RF Slaughter
1947: 1B Musial, LF Slaughter, CF Moore, RF Northey/Dusak
1948: 1B Jones, LF Slaughter/Musial, CF Moore/Dusak/Musial, RF Musial/Northey
1949: 1B Jones/Nelson, LF Slaughter, CF Diering/Musial, RF Musial/Northey
1950: 1B Nelson/Musial, LF Musial et al, CF Dieiring et al, RF Slaughter
1951: 1B Jones/Musial, LF Musial/Rice, CF Lowrey et al, RF Slaughter
1952: 1B Sisler, LF Rice/Lowrey, CF Musial, RF Slaughter
1953: 1B Bilko, LF Musial, CF Repulski, RF Slaughter
1954: 1B Cunningham/Alston, LF Repulski, CF Moon, RF Musial
1955: 1B Musial/Moon, LF Repulski, CF Virdon/Moon, RF (open)
1956: 1B Musial/Moon, LF Repulski, CF Del Greco, RF Moon/Musial
1957: 1B Musial/Cunningham, LF Moon/Ennis, CF Boyer (!), RF Ennis/Moon/Cunningham
1958: 1B Musial, LF Ennis et al, CF Flood, RF Green/Moon/Cunningham
1959: 1B Musial/White, LF White/Cimoli/Oliver, CF Flood/Cimoli, RF Cunningham/Cimoli
1960: 1B White, LF Musial/Nieman et al, CF Flood, RF Cunningham
1961: 1B White, LF Musial, CF Flood, RF Cunningham/James
1962: 1B White, LF Musial/Smith, CF Flood, RF James
1963: 1B White, LF Musial/James, CF Flood, RF Altman

There's an awful lot of instability here, some of it without obvious rhyme or reason. I get the sense that Eddie Dyer like to surprise himself with how he filled out the lineup card each day, and most of the succeeding managers caught various variations of the same bug. Only Eddie Stanky, starting in his second year (1953) seemed to really prefer a fixed lineup. Most of the cases above are more complicated than I've shown, and Musial often played positions other than those listed above.
   30. KJOK Posted: January 20, 2006 at 01:48 AM (#1829373)
<i>Those who have Musial ahead of Williams, I would guess there is no WWII and Korea extra-credit in those formulas. Ted missed how many years, Stan one. Equalize and it's no contest, unless now you are ranking them on skills. Hitting is one skill, fielding is a skill, etc. Musial had more skills. Those are the only bases I can think of for having Stan ahead.<i>

I think besides skill, in terms of VALUE, Musial could also be ranked ahead. Williams provided little value to his teams in '43, '44, '45, '52, & '53, while Musial was "valueless" only in '45.
   31. KJOK Posted: January 20, 2006 at 01:49 AM (#1829376)
Those who have Musial ahead of Williams, I would guess there is no WWII and Korea extra-credit in those formulas. Ted missed how many years, Stan one. Equalize and it's no contest, unless now you are ranking them on skills. Hitting is one skill, fielding is a skill, etc. Musial had more skills. Those are the only bases I can think of for having Stan ahead.

I think besides skill, in terms of VALUE, Musial could also be ranked ahead. Williams provided little value to his teams in '43, '44, '45, '52, & '53, while Musial was "valueless" only in '45.
   32. OCF Posted: January 20, 2006 at 03:24 AM (#1829477)
Terry Moore was almost exclusively a centerfielder; he retired in 1948. Curt Flood was almost exclusively a centerfielder; he became a regular in 1958. For most of the 10 years in between (and also for some of what should be Moore's years), the Cardinals covered CF with players who did not just play CF, but moved around all over the outfield, and in some cases, to other positions. Yes, Chuck Diering was predominantly a centerfielder - but he never exactly owned the position. And Bill Virdon became almost exclusively a centerfielder - after he left the Cardinals. That's the context in which Musial was a centerfielder.

But of course, they did that in part becuase they could. It's still a part of Musial's skill set. It is a little surprising that the franchise player ("the Man") would be moved around so freely; it seems more common for recognized superstars to be firmly planted at one one position, with the rest of the team working around that fact.
   33. KJOK Posted: January 20, 2006 at 06:23 AM (#1829737)
One theory I've been kicking around in my head is that, prior to the 1960's, it was a little 'easier' to play CF than in the 1960's and later. The ballparks started getting much larger, so CF area increased geometrically, making the minimum defensive ability for the position higher?

Maybe that's why we had a bit of a glut of CF'ers by the 1950's vs. other positions, especially RF? Maybe that's why really, really good athletes like Musial & Aaron could pass as CF'ers for a few seasons. Maybe in a different era or a different ballpark Duke Snider is a RFer instead of a CFer.

It's just a theory....
   34. KJOK Posted: January 20, 2006 at 06:25 AM (#1829740)
Also, forgot to mention astro turf, which probably made speed in CF more of a priority...
   35. jingoist Posted: January 20, 2006 at 09:26 AM (#1829880)
KJOK;
I actually think that some of the old ballparks, like Sportsmans Park where Musial played all his home games and Forbes Field where the Pirates played until 1970 had huge centerfields. FF was 457' to deep left-center for all the years I can remember; Sportmans was 422'.
When I read about old ballparks it seems they actually brought the fences in a bit around about the time the lively ball entered baseball in 1920.
Some of the old parks built and played in during the late aughts and teens were absolutely huge and triples were the HR of the day as the ball rolled forever and fences were so far away nobody could hit the ball over them on the fly.
That said I imagine it was actually harder to play CF in the aughts and teens as the geometric area was at it's largest and most likely the field was in poorer condition back then as agronomy hadn't improved to the point where quality turf grasses were prevalent.
My guess is that Stan was good enough to have played wherever it benefitted his manager; his skill set added a degree of flexability in creating an optimal lineup for the field on which any given game was being played.
It would probably be illuminative to get Stan's fielding positioning on a home and away basis over the years to see if this was in fact an aspect that his managers employed in creating their optimal lineups.
   36. Howie Menckel Posted: January 20, 2006 at 02:17 PM (#1829915)
I take it that it's true that Musial had 1,815 hits at home and 1,815 hits on the road?
   37. TomH Posted: January 20, 2006 at 02:54 PM (#1829936)
from the impressive record storehouse of Bill Deane:

......... AB ...hits .AVG .HR ..OPS
home 5401 1815 .336 252 1.011
.road 5571 1815 .326 223 0.945
   38. jingoist Posted: January 20, 2006 at 07:02 PM (#1830328)
Wow; the very definition of consistency.
I'm curious if anyone knows: did Stan's managers tend to play him at different OF positions depending upon the ballpark in which they were playing or were decisions made based upon the opposing pitcher that caused the Cards manager to bat certain player(s), thus requiring the movement of Stan from LF to CF or RF?
A casual analysis of his fielding prowess from bbref shows him to be an above league average fielder in the OF and at 1B.
Does anyone have access to statements about his fielding ability; was he considered an A or A+ fielder?
Likewise, based upon his seasonal batting statistics he could have easily been chosen MVP in 50, 51, 52 and 57.....talk about a player dominating his league for a long stretch!
   39. yest Posted: January 20, 2006 at 08:12 PM (#1830492)
Runs: 2nd with 1949 (Anson 1996, Ott 1859)
RBI: 2nd with 1951 (Anson 2076, Ott 1860)


he was actulay first in those stats you forgot to take out Cap's NA career
   40. OCF Posted: January 21, 2006 at 01:29 AM (#1830998)
You're right. Since the category was "In the National League," the NA clearly should not count.

That would drop Anson to 1719 R, 1879 RBI, and 2995 hits.

Make that change, and in 1963, Musial was the all-time NL career leader in ...

hits, by 215 (6%),
doubles, by 85 (12%),
extra base hits, by 306 (22%).
total bases, by 1093 (18%),
runs, by 90 (5%),
RBI, by 72 (4%),
while being second in HR by 36 (5%) and in walks by 109 (6%).
   41. sunnyday2 Posted: January 21, 2006 at 01:59 AM (#1831028)
So cut to the chase already. Is the guy a HoMer or not? ;-)
   42. OCF Posted: January 21, 2006 at 02:08 AM (#1831041)
I don't see any reason why he wouldn't be unanimous. But I don't think the chances for a unanimous 2nd place vote are as good as they will be in 1982.
   43. karlmagnus Posted: January 21, 2006 at 02:49 AM (#1831078)
Quite correct, OCF. Berra's behind you-know-who. I'm quite prepared to admit Musial was a little better, however.
   44. sunnyday2 Posted: January 21, 2006 at 03:28 AM (#1831123)
Berra is an easy #2 to me. Closer to Stan the Man than to #3.
   45. Mark Donelson Posted: January 21, 2006 at 04:33 AM (#1831159)
Yeah, I think second-best in history (skipping active players for the moment) at a vastly underrepresented position gets my #2 vote. I even had to think about whether that trumps Musial's achievements (not for very long, but I did think about it).
   46. Mark Donelson Posted: January 21, 2006 at 04:35 AM (#1831161)
That wasn't very clear--by "active" I really meant "so far," which is odd because it doesn't mean that at all. I just meant that up to 1969, my catcher list goes 1. Gibson, 2. Berra.
   47. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 21, 2006 at 05:39 AM (#1831218)
On the position classification, I tend to group all of the OF games as 1, then all of the 1B games. Then to decide which OF position I put him at the OF position where he played the most.

LF, CF, RF are all similar - they bear no resemblance to 1B.

You could make a case for doing this with SS/2B/3B also, but it's rare that you have someone splitting time at all of those and then playing 1B for a significant portion of his career.

But it's a personal thing, can't fault sunny for how he does it, but I don't see how anyone could consider Musial a 1B - he basically played 2 1/2 seasons there before the age of 34.
   48. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 21, 2006 at 05:40 AM (#1831219)
"On the position classification, I tend to group all of the OF games as 1, then all of the 1B games. Then to decide which OF position I put him at the OF position where he played the most."

I mean to say, if the guy played more in the OF, then I put him at the OF position where he played the most.
   49. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: January 21, 2006 at 05:43 AM (#1831221)
Karl, I love Beckley, but you can't seriously have Berra behind him can you?

I guess you could answer that on the Berra thread . . .
   50. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: August 16, 2008 at 08:23 PM (#2905523)
Here's Stan the Man, with his rookie cup of coffee added, his '43 and '44 adjusted using my new war deductions, his '45 filled in with my new war credit estimator, and all seasons corrected for any errors introduced by his multi-positionality. I hadn't realized his defense was that good--I guess he was just such a good hitter no one ever bothered to notice, same as with Mel Ott.

An interesting note about his 1948: my modified version of the eXtrapolated Runs estimator likes it a full 9 runs less than BP's UEQR estimator. Why? Because UEQR, which has Total Bases in its formula, weights the double (.84 in 1948) and the triple (1.16 in 1948) more than XR does (.72 and 1.04), and Stan the Man had 46 doubles and 18 triples. At the team level, they both produce the same forecast for the 1948 Cardinals, so it's hard to say which is more accurate in this case; they just divvy up the credit among the team's players differently (my estimator likes Schoendienst and Marion a bit more than UEQR does).

Year SFrac  BWAA BRWAA    FWAA Replc  WARP
1941  0.07   0.6   0.0   0.1  
-0.1   0.8
1942  0.83   4.4   0.0   1.4  
-0.7   6.5
1943  1.07   7.0   0.1   1.9  
-0.8   9.9
1944  1.01   6.0   0.1   1.3  
-0.8   8.2
1945  1.04   6.0   0.0   0.8  
-0.8   7.7
1946  1.08   8.5   0.0   0.2  
-0.8   9.6
1947  1.03   3.3  
-0.1   0.5  -0.9   4.7
1948  1.07   8.6   0.1   0.0  
-1.0   9.7
1949  1.10   7.3   0.0   0.8  
-1.1   9.1
1950  0.98   5.8  
-0.1   0.0  -0.9   6.7
1951  1.03   8.1   0.0   0.9  
-1.0   9.9
1952  1.05   6.6   0.0  
-0.2  -1.3   7.8
1953  1.07   6.7   0.0  
-0.2  -1.0   7.5
1954  1.08   6.4  
-0.2   0.2  -0.9   7.3
1955  1.01   5.4  
-0.1   0.5  -0.7   6.6
1956  1.05   4.5   0.0   0.6  
-0.6   5.7
1957  0.88   5.9  
-0.1   0.0  -0.4   6.3
1958  0.85   3.6  
-0.1   0.6  -0.3   4.4
1959  0.62   0.7  
-0.2   0.0  -0.2   0.7
1960  0.58   1.4   0.0   0.0  
-0.3   1.8
1961  0.66   1.4   0.0   0.7  
-0.4   2.6
1962  0.74   2.8   0.0   0.3  
-0.5   3.6
1963  0.57   0.8   0.1  
-0.4  -0.4   0.9
TOTL 20.47 111.8  
-0.3  10.0 -16.1 137.7
AVRG  1.00   5.5   0.0   0.5  
-0.8   6.7 


3-year peak: 29.5
7-year prime: 64.2
Career: 137.7
Salary: $453,095,752 (8th among post-1893 MLB position players, behind Speaker and just a hair ahead of Hornsby.)

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Brian
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.4825 seconds
49 querie(s) executed