I loved Rickey as a ballplayer but he was said to be difficult and indifferent at times. Goose Gossage claimed in his book, when he played for the A's that in his opionion Henderson was a very selfish player and a bad teammate.



That makes me more inclined to view Henderson in a favorable light.

Heh...

I think too many players - particularly those of the Gossage mindset - tend to think 'good teammate' comes down to the guy waving a towel on the dugout steps. For a reliever, even one of Goose's era that threw 100+ innings - I can see where he comes to this thinking... he's participating in so little of the game, I guess there's an expectation that a "good teammate" should be doing such things because there's little else he can do until one or two of those few innings come up over the course of a season.

Rickey, obviously, wasn't that... From most accounts, Rickey also wasn't really the guy to be 'involved' with the team -- I recall an instance late in his career when the Mets had canned the hitting coach, Rickey got asked about it, and wasn't even aware who the guy was.... Of course, that seems balanced by the fact that there were a number of guys who played "with Rickey" that seemed to become relatively useful leadoff types for a brief period (I'm thinking of Roger Cedeno for one, but there are probably others).

I think the miscalculation that Gossage makes - and players like him make - is that Rickey's "selfishness" and the fact that Rickey most certainly DID care about his numbers (or should I say, Rickey most certainly cared about Rickey's numbers) ended up being significant positives for the "team", and it's hard to find where his pursuit of them ever hurt the team.

I.e., sure - he wanted the season and career SB record -- but led the league in SBs 12 times, but only 5 times in CS. Brock, OTOH, who probably has a reputation as a better "teammate" led the league in SBs 8 times, but in CS 7 times. Brock's career SB% was just a hair over 75%. Rickey's was almost 81%.

Call it preternatural, innate baseball acumen -- but the simple fact is that the numbers Rickey counted/cared about in fact MADE him a great teammate if you cared about winning games.

Maybe he was just poor at expressing that understanding or maybe it was just instinctual - but Rickey just sort of understood what sorts of things were most valuable in a baseball game and excelled at them.

I guess there's an expectation that a "good teammate" should be doing such things because there's little else he can do until one or two of those few innings come up over the course of a season.

Well, you can drink beer and eat fried chicken during the game while ####### around with video games and the internet.

Rants (#38) - Thank you! And you're right about Walt Davis. He posts up here a LOT, and you can always tell he's done his research. He must put in VERY large amounts of time analyzing baseball. The only other guy I know who puts that much work into sabermetrics when it's not his day job or anything is Don Malcolm. Walt and Don might disagree on a topic, but if so, when they finally got their opinions sorted out, that topic would KNOW it had been researched. Don sometimes posts here, but mostly on his blog, BigBadBaseball@blogspot.com. Walt could, IMO, easily maintain a blog of that caliber. He puts in the work on BTF comments, instead of a blog, but he certainly could do a blog if he wanted to. I'd bookmark it. Most people won't work that hard, unless they're getting paid. That includes me. I tell stories and sometimes do research to see if they are plausible or documented. Not the same amount of pure work. I salute both gentlemen. - Brock

I'm a Waltist on this issue, and I second the love for Walt expressed in many posts here. I mean, I love all you guys, but find Walt convincing on player/position philosophy and much else.

There really is no such thing as a "LF"

Exactly. Since 1961 (breakdown by OF position is spottier early on) here is the complete list of >3000-PA careers with 90% of career games in LF:



Basta. Now, it's fair to note that all five of these guys were/are excellent players, and carved out niches for themselves at the LF position, whether by really honing their skills there, or by default. Ted Williams would be the archetype of such a player. But they're rare.

Here are the number of >3000-PA, >90% players at each position, 1961-2012:

C 62
1B 37
2B 49
3B 38
SS 57
RF 9
CF 18
LF 5

To a greater extent than I would have guessed, the OF positions are just not highly specialized, even in recent decades. You'd predict that CF would be the most specialized position (the very best fielders staying there stubbornly, with no reason to move them off), but even CF is far less specialized than any infield position.

To a greater extent than I would have guessed, the OF positions are just not highly specialized, even in recent decades. You'd predict that CF would be the most specialized position (the very best fielders staying there stubbornly, with no reason to move them off), but even CF is far less specialized than any infield position.

Yup.

If you were confident you had your positional adjustments and defensive ratings pretty accurate (i.e. CF are getting enough credit for the difficulty filling the position), I would advocate ranking all OF together.

If you were confident you had your positional adjustments and defensive ratings pretty accurate (i.e. CF are getting enough credit for the difficulty filling the position), I would advocate ranking all OF together.

I'm fine with ranking right and left together, but I think that centerfield requires a level of speed that isn't had by everyplayer. Enough to warrant it's inclusion as a separate position. Of course if you are ranking players and you find that your centerfielder is the better player than your corner fielders, then you are perfectly right in placing him in the corner, you can't do the opposite of that though(with notable exceptions of course, but it doesn't matter how much you love Ted Williams, if you have decided that Ruth and Bonds take the corners, he still isn't going to be in center....note: I know you would probably put Bonds in center in that situation, the point still stands)

I love Rickey Henderson but he was a notorious pain in the ass. He was always considered selfish and enigmatic. Its part of the reason he bounced around so much. I think it was overblown but he definitely had that rep. In the movie Little Big League the GM passes on a chance to grab Rickey off waivers in his prime because he was concerned about clubhouse chemistry.

And in the non-movie Actual Big Leagues, the Oakland A's re-acquired Henderson three separate times. Just imagine how many times they'd have done it if Henderson weren't such a clubhouse wretch.

At age 42, selfish Rickey had already been living contract to contract for 6 years. He'd been re-acquired by the 2001 Padres, who were also inexplicably unaware of the dreadful reputation he'd built with many teams, including the San Diego Padres. On the last day of the season, Henderson had 2,999 career hits. But he asked not to play that game, because it was Tony Gwynn's last, and he didn't want to take any of the attention away from Gwynn. And besides, fading 43-year-old pariahs are such hot commodities on the free agent market, especially ones who think only of themselves.

So when people list Musial as a left fielder, they're really listing him as a "guy who is generally thought of as a left fielder, even though we fully acknowledge that he played other positions also and that his versatility was an asset to his team," or a "guy who provided more value in left field than at any other position." This is generally shortened to "left fielder" because the other options take longer to write out.

Is that true? I would be surprised if it were. Moreover his value as a LF was, say, 33% of his career value (40 WAR). THat's not close to WIlliams' (say) 100 WAR. Just like HRs as a catcher or whatnot.

I'm fine with ranking right and left together, but I think that centerfield requires a level of speed that isn't had by everyplayer. Enough to warrant it's inclusion as a separate position. Of course if you are ranking players and you find that your centerfielder is the better player than your corner fielders, then you are perfectly right in placing him in the corner, you can't do the opposite of that though(with notable exceptions of course, but it doesn't matter how much you love Ted Williams, if you have decided that Ruth and Bonds take the corners, he still isn't going to be in center....note: I know you would probably put Bonds in center in that situation, the point still stands)

My point is exactly that (bolded).

When ranking OF, if you go by top-3,4,5 at each position, you shortchange CF.

The top 12 OF of all time are probably (not in particular order) Ruth, Aaron, Mays, Mantle, Cobb, Musial, Bonds, Speaker, Robinson, DiMaggio, Williams and Henderson. 5 of those guys are CF.

Is that true? I would be surprised if it were. Moreover his value as a LF was, say, 33% of his career value (40 WAR). THat's not close to WIlliams' (say) 100 WAR. Just like HRs as a catcher or whatnot.

I think you misread that, they are saying he is thought of as a left fielder, because his largest value for his career was as a left fielder, but when comparing him to other players, they look at the entire career, not just his left field numbers.

As has been pointed out, there really is no major difference between left and right, and to an extent even center and first. If you are of the non-Walt feelings on the issue, and you feel you need to slot Musial at a position, you could argue that he is a left fielder, and then compare him to other people you would slot as left fielders(based upon total career, including other positions)

The top 12 OF of all time are probably (not in particular order) Ruth, Aaron, Mays, Mantle, Cobb, Musial, Bonds, Speaker, Robinson, DiMaggio, Williams and Henderson. 5 of those guys are CF.

I do find it a stretch that Dimaggio makes that cut to be honest. Always thought he was the perfect example of a New York bias. Great player of course, but what separates him from Ott or even Yaz or Clemente? Yes I know Ott is a Giant, but I just don't think he gets the press that Yankee players from the 40's, 50's and 60's got.

Of course if you ranked in order, you are going to have a listing of
1/2)Bonds or Ruth(corner fielders)
3/4/5) Williams, Mays and Cobb (2 cf, and 1 corner)
6/7/8/9) Musial, Speaker, Aaron and Mantle (2 corner, 2 center...all capable of playing any of position)
10/11/12/13)Henderson/Ott(sorry, I just can't see listing Dimaggio as clearly ahead of him)/Dimaggio/Robinson (a cf, and 3 corners)

That seems about right percentage within margin of error.

At age 42, selfish Rickey had already been living contract to contract for 6 years. He'd been re-acquired by the 2001 Padres, who were also inexplicably unaware of the dreadful reputation he'd built with many teams, including the San Diego Padres. On the last day of the season, Henderson had 2,999 career hits. But he asked not to play that game, because it was Tony Gwynn's last, and he didn't want to take any of the attention away from Gwynn. And besides, fading 43-year-old pariahs are such hot commodities on the free agent market, especially ones who think only of themselves.

Rickey was just Rickey... he didn't just have his own drummer to march to, he was playing personality jazz, where the standard set of rules just don't apply. He was also brilliant at playing baseball and most especially, doing the sort of things that people for a long time didn't understand were as valuable as they are to winning baseball games (i.e., it's not that he stole a lot of bases, it's that he stole them at a very, very proficient success rate).

I guess I'm saying that I agree with TGF -- contrary what seems CW -- those players that get these reputations in the media as 'good clubhouse guys' and then, as a result, slam people like Rickey are probably themselves clubhouse red asses who aren't well-liked.

I'd put someone like Mark Grace in that category, too... I think it's fair to say during his playing days that he had a reputation as a 'good chemistry guy'... but that was probably due almost entirely to the way he'd buddy up with the media.

Meanwhile, he's backstabbing other teammates who may or may not have been good teammates -- but who were mainly guilty of just not being a part of Mark's clique... he's doing everything possible to make life miserable for any kid in the organization who dares play a position he plays... etc.

Is that true? I would be surprised if it were.

If you read the rest of my post, I already acknowledged that Musial may not have provided the plurality of his value in left. Honestly, I'm not sure why people always seem to rank Musial in particular as a left fielder; he fits equally well in right or at first.

Which was not the point at all.

I do find it a stretch that Dimaggio makes that cut to be honest. Always thought he was the perfect example of a New York bias. Great player of course, but what separates him from Ott or even Yaz or Clemente?

3 years of war-credit, in his prime, get him to 90 WAR (which is the same as Yaz or Clemente), plus WAR defense doesn't nearly match his reputation, and he was specifically hurt by his home park.

10/11/12/13)Henderson/Ott(sorry, I just can't see listing Dimaggio as clearly ahead of him)/Dimaggio/Robinson (a cf, and 3 corners)

Ott was helped by his park as much as DiMaggio was hurt.

I think ranking players solely on value-created as determined by WAR is pretty silly. The fact the Yaz tacked on 15 WAR as an average or worse player doesn't impress me at all. DiMaggio as still well above average when he retired, as was Mantle.

Is there really any doubt DiMaggio was a better ballplayer than Ott or Yaz?

Ott was helped by his park as much as DiMaggio was hurt.

Ott's home-field advantage is hugely overstated. Yes, he hit more homers at home - but he hit for a higher average and had far more doubles and triples on the road. Overall, he's +62 points of OPS at home, which isn't nothing, but it's not exactly a historic advantage. (For the sake of comparison, the overall MLB home-road split in 1937, which is roughly Ott's median year, is +37.)

3 years of war-credit, in his prime, get him to 90 WAR (which is the same as Yaz or Clemente), plus WAR defense doesn't nearly match his reputation, and he was specifically hurt by his home park.

Agreed it gets him to Yaz and Clemente range.

Ott was helped by his park as much as DiMaggio was hurt.

I don't see how that matters in the slightest, value is value regardless of how you get there.

I think ranking players solely on value-created as determined by WAR is pretty silly. The fact the Yaz tacked on 15 WAR as an average or worse player doesn't impress me at all. DiMaggio as still well above average when he retired, as was Mantle.

I agree with this also, but I've always thought Dimaggio was the most overrated player in history, and War hasn't changed my perception of this.

Is there really any doubt DiMaggio was a better ballplayer than Ott or Yaz?

Absolutely, especially in regards to Ott. Yaz and Clemente a different story of course, but I don't see any way that Dimaggio is better than Ott.

I don't see how that matters in the slightest, value is value regardless of how you get there.

So in ranking ball players we're giving them credit for what park they played in? That seems awfully silly.

We're talking "best ballplayer" no "best value accumulator".

I mean if you give DiMaggio war-credit, he's at 90 WAR through age 36 (more if you give him defensive credit equal to his rep), and still well above average (2.7 WAR in 117 games). Through 36, Yaz had 80 WAR. I don't see how his extra 7 years of mostly mediocrity elevate him to DiMaggio's level.

I agree with this also, but I've always thought Dimaggio was the most overrated player in history, and War hasn't changed my perception of this.

Well, around here he seems to have become so overrated he's underrated. I mean, this is a guy who put up a 1015 road OPS (I know all the issues with splits) and was considered an excellent defensive CF in his day.

Absolutely, especially in regards to Ott. Yaz and Clemente a different story of course, but I don't see any way that Dimaggio is better than Ott.

DiMaggio had a 155 career OPS+ and was considered an excellent defensive CF in a park that specifically hurt him (148 HR at home, vs. 213 on the road, .938 home OPS vs. 1.015 on the road). Ott has a 155 career OPS+, in RF (I've never heard much about defense, I assume he was fine), and benefited, or at least wasn't hurt by his home park.

So in ranking ball players we're giving them credit for what park they played in? That seems awfully silly.

We are giving them credit for their performance in their park relative to other players performance. You park adjust for value, but you don't then add a second penalty because the player was particularly well suited for the park.

In the years that Ott played against Dimaggio, Ott posted better ops, obp, played more games, the defensive adjustment makes up some of that ground, but on a per season basis, Ott gave you 147 games at .301 .423 .530 .953 vs Dimaggio giving you 140 games at .339 .403 .607 1.010 159... The obp difference is a very large gap to overcome.

Ott's home-field advantage is hugely overstated. Yes, he hit more homers at home - but he hit for a higher average and had far more doubles and triples on the road. Overall, he's +62 points of OPS at home, which isn't nothing, but it's not exactly a historic advantage. (For the sake of comparison, the overall MLB home-road split in 1937, which is roughly Ott's median year, is +37.)

And DiMaggio's split was -77. Give him a +37, and he has a career OPS of about 1035 instead of 977, and an OPS+ well over 160.

And DiMaggio's split was -77. Give him a +37, and he has a career OPS of about 1035 instead of 977, and an OPS+ well over 160.

Are you turning doubles into homeruns, or outs into homeruns in that little exercise?

Mind you, it doesn't matter in the slightest, again all that matters is what they did, theoretical concepts of what they could have done in another ball park is beyond any reasonable analysis.

We are giving them credit for their performance in their park relative to other players performance. You park adjust for value, but you don't then add a second penalty because the player was particularly well suited for the park.

Why not? We're trying to determine talent level, aren't we? Nobody tends to add Ruth's ~20 pitching WAR to his batting total, but that's real value. It's just not really relevant to who was the best RF, or position player.

I mean if a park specifically hurts or helps certain types of players, we should use that info. In and ideal world, we'd park adjust with specific single, double, triple, HR, BB and K park factors for every park, with LHB and RHB separate.

Are you turning doubles into homeruns, or outs into homeruns in that little exercise?

Just adding the +37 to his actual road OPS.

Why not? We're trying to determine talent level, aren't we?

Not in the slightest. We are trying to determine who was best. Talent level, you might have to argue Eric Davis as best of all time.

I mean if a park specifically hurts or helps certain types of players, we should use that info. In and ideal world, we'd park adjust with specific single, double, triple, HR, BB and K park factors for every park, with LHB and RHB separate.

If we are making a trade for a player, sure. If you are trying to argue for one player better than the other, I don't see how you can. You can make up all the theoretical constructs you want, but until it's put in a real world environment, it doesn't tell you anything about how they actually did perform.


Players value is what they did in the environment that they were forced to play in, relative to their peers.

Mind you, it doesn't matter in the slightest, again all that matters is what they did, theoretical concepts of what they could have done in another ball park is beyond any reasonable analysis.

That ridiculous. That's the analysis every GM (and all us arm-chair GMs) do every day. If I trade for Dustin Pedroia, I don't get his performance in Fenway, I get his talent level.

If DiMaggio had been a Red Sox and Williams a Yankee, it would have changed their stats a lot, but their talent not one bit.

That ridiculous. That's the analysis every GM (and all us arm-chair GMs) do every day. If I trade for Dustin Pedroia, I don't get his performance in Fenway, I get his talent level.

If DiMaggio had been a Red Sox and Williams a Yankee, it would have changed their stats a lot, but their talent not one bit.

Without a spray chart of all of Dimaggio's hits, and the weather patterns for each game, we don't know what he would have actually done in another stadium and it's ridiculous to pretend we could have. We can only go by what happened. I am not going to vote for a cy young award based upon fip era, and would ridicule any idiot that does, same thing goes here, you can only judge him by what happened.

Besides, if he has those extra homeruns that you are talking about, that would imply that yankee stadium was easier to hit in, and it probably doesn't affect his ops+ in the slightest.

If we are making a trade for a player, sure. If you are trying to argue for one player better than the other, I don't see how you can. You can make up all the theoretical constructs you want, but until it's put in a real world environment, it doesn't tell you anything about how they actually did perform.

I disagree. We use the best info we have.

Just like we don't have real world evidence of what Ted Williams would have done if he hadn't missed all that war time, it's a disservice to him to not try to adjust as best we can.

That's why, to me, Williams is, hands down, the better LF than Bonds. Eyeballing the surrounding seasons, Williams lost about 45 WAR from the two wars. That puts him ahead of Bonds already, at 165 to 158. I then dock Bonds another 20-25 WAR by giving him only a Mays/Aaron type 35+ career, instead of the roid/armor silliness that the record books have.

Quite frankly to say Bonds is better than Williams, b/c Williams lost 5 years serving his country is a little bit offensive.

Besides, if he has those extra homeruns that you are talking about, that would imply that yankee stadium was easier to hit in, and it probably doesn't affect his ops+ in the slightest.

That's silly. OPS+ is done by overall park factor. You know Yankee Stadium was an easy HR park for LHB and death on RHB.

That's silly. OPS+ is done by overall park factor. You know Yankee Stadium was an easy HR park for LHB and death on RHB.

I don't see how that is silly. If right handed batters had problems at Yankee stadium, and you are giving advantages to one right handed batter, you would have to apply the same advantage to all the right handed batters at that stadium during the year to determine proper park factors.

If you want to do that exercise properly, then you would need to look at all the right handed at bats in Yankee stadium, apply the same sort of bonus that you are giving Dimaggio to all players to determine it's new park factors and work from there.

I think you misread that, they are saying he is thought of as a left fielder, because his largest value for his career was as a left fielder, but when comparing him to other players, they look at the entire career, not just his left field numbers.

I did not misread it. Is it true that his largest value for his career was as a left fielder? Can you provide me with a list of his value by position?

As has been pointed out, there really is no major difference between left and right, and to an extent even center and first.

I disagree with that assertion. Is any evidence for this presented? From a hitting perspective, there may not be, but from a defensive perspective there is.

If you are of the non-Walt feelings on the issue, and you feel you need to slot Musial at a position, you could argue that he is a left fielder, and then compare him to other people you would slot as left fielders(based upon total career, including other positions)

I put him at first - that's where he played the most. And yes, I can provide you a list (people already did above). "Musial had 989 starts at 1B, 868 in LF, 680 in RF and 305 in CF."

Going to his splits page, we have the splits for 629 of his 820 LF starts, and his tOPS is just 92. We have just 364 of his 680 RF starts (tOPS 115).

His 1B, we have 836 of 989, and he has a 98 tOPS. So I am a little skeptical that we *know* most of his value came in LF. I'd guess it was either RF or 1B.

I then dock Bonds another 20-25 WAR by giving him only a Mays/Aaron type 35+ career, instead of the roid/armor silliness that the record books have.

How much are you docking Williams for amphetamine usage?

How much are you docking Williams for amphetamine usage?

In the air or on the baseball field?

In the air or on the baseball field?

Exactly.

I disagree with that assertion. Is any evidence for this presented? From a hitting perspective, there may not be, but from a defensive perspective there is.

The evidence is how frequently teams slot players in either left or right field. Yes there is a slight difference in that right field usually prefers a stronger arm, but in practice, the teams don't stress that too much when it comes to subbing players in and out. Ultimately teams don't really see much of a difference in which players they will put at left or right. Only rule seems to be that the most established player gets his position first and others follow, but if you get a team which acquire two career left fielders, teams don't hesitate putting one in right.

I put him at first - that's where he played the most. And yes, I can provide you a list (people already did above). "Musial had 989 starts at 1B, 868 in LF, 680 in RF and 305 in CF."

And you would be in a massive minority slotting Musial as a first baseman. Almost nobody thinks of Musial as a first baseman.

Quite frankly to say Bonds is better than Williams, b/c Williams lost 5 years serving his country is a little bit offensive.

The thing about Williams is that he was purely a bat as a player. He was an inner circle Manny Ramirez. Yes he was great, but every thing outside of hitting, hurts his career. Many people just find it hard to list him as the second best of all time, when it's very apparent, he wasn't a complete ballplayer.

I personally don't care one whit about roid usage, again, it's what happened on the field, no matter how much you want to penalize a player or a generation, it happened, you can't do anything about it, and baseball, unlike pretend sports(college football, cycling etc) doesn't erase the stats because of a controversy, what happened, happened.

We're trying to determine talent level, aren't we?

What does "talent level" even mean when you're evaluating players from completely different eras? Are you giving Gavvy Cravath credit because the shape of his talent would translate better to the 1990s than it did to his own era, and docking Ty Cobb because the opposite is true for him?

And in the non-movie Actual Big Leagues

This reminds me of a guy I know who's doing a PhD on a 2011 novel by a particular author. Except that author died in 2007 so the novel doesn't exist.

As for where to put people defensively, like everything else it all depends on what you're hoping to accomplish in your rankings.

If you're assembling a dream team, then I see no reason not to go with Cobb, Mays, Mantle in the OF (and Ruth DHing as the fellow says).

If you're looking to see how accomplished the most while playing at a certain position, then ignore everything Torre did when he wasn't catching.

If you just want to divide players up into 8 largely symmetrical groups then I think you go with the "everyone has to fit into one of the buckets" approach.

I don't think there's a rule book anywhere that says any ranking of players has to be done with X purpose in mind.

Just adding the +37 to his actual road OPS.

Two things wrong with that. First, the 37 points was home minus road, not overall minus road; you'd want to cut the difference in half.

Second, you're removing Yankee Stadium from Dimaggio's line entirely, thereby giving him a more favorable set of parks to play in than his AL peers.

Going to his splits page, we have the splits for 629 of his 820 LF starts, and his tOPS is just 92. We have just 364 of his 680 RF starts (tOPS 115).

His 1B, we have 836 of 989, and he has a 98 tOPS.

The splits we have are for the latter part of Musial's career; they don't include most of his best seasons.

Still, I don't mind debating the correct position to list Musial. I mind the absolutist insistence that picking one position simply for the sake of subdividing players is absolutely the wrong way to go about ranking players by position, which is frankly far too trivial an exercise for absolutism.

DiMaggio or Ott?

He's barely been mentioned, but I'd probably take Frank Robinson over either of them.

And wouldn't Kaline belong in the Yaz/Clemente group as well?

I then dock Bonds another 20-25 WAR by giving him only a Mays/Aaron type 35+ career, instead of the roid/armor silliness that the record books have.

This doesn't make any sense. The roid/armor silliness happened and actual measurable wins resulted because of it. By the same logic you could severely reduce the value of Williams or Mays or whoever by pretending they broke their leg at 30 and had to play the last half of their career with a cast. There's a reason most people choose to use actual numbers rather than made up ones of what would've/could've/should've happened in an alternate universe.

The evidence is how frequently teams slot players in either left or right field. Yes there is a slight difference in that right field usually prefers a stronger arm, but in practice, the teams don't stress that too much when it comes to subbing players in and out. Ultimately teams don't really see much of a difference in which players they will put at left or right. Only rule seems to be that the most established player gets his position first and others follow, but if you get a team which acquire two career left fielders, teams don't hesitate putting one in right.

You just re-stated the premise. How many players have lots of innings in both?

And you would be in a massive minority slotting Musial as a first baseman. Almost nobody thinks of Musial as a first baseman.

Once upon a time, I was in the minority on how valuable defense was amongst statheads. I don't mind. Coincidentally, he played the most games there, and there's a good chance he created his most value there. DOn't why that makes me odd.

You just re-stated the premise. How many players have lots of innings in both?

I doubt that there are many, the veteran/star player gets his position and has a tendency to stick there. My point was that if you look at a team for a season, you will see a lot more players getting playing time at left/right, than you will see getting playing time at other multiple positions. A centerfielder = outfielder(meaning he can play all three positions) I don't think anyone doubts that. Which is why I think centerfield is perfectly acceptable being listed as it's own position. I don't think I've ever heard a manager really fret about finding a spot for a corner outfielder, if he can play right, he can play left, and only the most horrible left fielders can't play right(even with a poor arm, arm plays happen so infrequently that they aren't detrimental in getting a player into a game there)


As to how many...depends on your criteria for how many. Since 1901 there are 88 players who have played at least 300 games at right and left field. Just 20 at 500

Ott was good enough as a fielder to play 3b for an entire season, one in which he had .5 dWAR. He played a total of 256 games at 3b, another 140 in CF and 6 at 2b. Going by contemporary judgment, he was considered one of the two best RF of his era (Paul Waner being the other).

I see no reason to believe that DiMag had a better career than Ott, whose career also ended (for practical purposes) at age 36 and who had 105 war through that age. Ott was a legitimately great player. Even if you give DiMag generous credit for WWII, I'd call it a dead heat between them.

Since 1901 there are 88 players who have played at least 300 games at right and left field. Just 20 at 500

Right - Just 20 players have played three seasons at both. Its rare. Managers don't seem to think it is interchangeable - or they don't behave that way. How many guys have 1000 games at either?

I think people rationalize that they are interchangeable, but MLB hasn't acted like they are.

What are Yaz's top 3 seasons by WAR, and what are Dimaggio's? IIRC, the answer is fairly suprising...

I looked it up...its Yaz at ~31, Joe at ~25, using rWAR. Using fWAR, its Yaz ~32, Joe D. ~30.

Here are the number of >3000-PA, >90% players at each position, 1961-2012:

C 62
1B 37
2B 49
3B 38
SS 57
RF 9
CF 18
LF 5
...You'd predict that CF would be the most specialized position (the very best fielders staying there stubbornly, with no reason to move them off), but even CF is far less specialized than any infield position.

The thing is, CF is a tough position defensively, and guys get days off or eventually move somewhere else.

Ken Griffey Jr. is a CF, right? However, he didn't even play in the field in 90% of his games (89.2%, to be exact); even of his games played where he didn't DH, he played CF exactly 90% (90.05%) of the time.

Jim Edmonds? He spent 65% of his career in the NL (by games played), but DHed enough that he only played CF in 88% of his total starts.

Catcher is tough, but those guys get regular days off and usually don't hit enough to DH; SS don't get as much rest, but again aren't going to DH.

Without a spray chart of all of Dimaggio's hits, and the weather patterns for each game, we don't know what he would have actually done in another stadium and it's ridiculous to pretend we could have. We can only go by what happened.

Well, if you want to go by "what happened" with Dimaggio in Fenway Park against a pitching staff whose ERA was in the top half of the league in 8 out of Dimaggio's 13 years, his 162 game average production** was a .334 BA, 40 home runs, 152 RBI and a 1.015 OPS. His corresponding numbers for Yankee Stadium, based on 875 games against all opponents, were a .315 BA, 27 home runs, 133 RBI and a .938. I'd say those numbers pretty much speak for themselves.

**Based on the 119 games he actually played in Fenway over the course of his career.