Considering that he could qualify under 5 of the 8 reasons listed (missed time, postseason performance, fan favorite, non-playing contributions, 1 or 2 standout seasons), I'm amazed Phil Rizzuto doesn't show up.

I'm amazed Phil Rizzuto doesn't show up.

I think he's the classic "so-overrated-that-he's-underrated" guy. BB-Ref LOVES his defense (he has seasons of +21, +20, +19), and even likes his bat pretty well (-10 for his career, which is more than offset by +32 baserunning, so he's actually an above-average offensive player). But everybody "knows" that Phil Rizzuto is only in the Hall of Fame because he was a Yankee, so his ELO rating is pulled down - sort of the inverse of the "extra credit to make up for unfair blame" criterion.

Alfredo Griffin! Even the people who think he sucked overrate him.

While I'm on board with most of those, the idea that giving war credit is a way in which individuals are "overrated" irritates me, probably more than it should.

Well, at least they say that Williams is more overrated than Dimaggio, so I'll let them live.

Alfredo Griffin! Even the people who think he sucked overrate him.

How much is his head overrated by?

How much is his head overrated by?

Well, I'm not sure. Bring it to me and let's find out.

I enjoy the way the main trio at HHS just dive in and mess around with data, and most importantly, don't attach any particular importance to what they're doing.

This idea probably needs an extra step, though. They should simply compile a bWAR ranking and compare it to the eWAR ranking that their estimation method generates. The difference in the ranking positions is a better way to make the comparison. Otherwise you get wacky results where Ted Williams is at the top of an overrated list.

Two things:

a) I think using difference in bWAR is a little misleading... obviously, only good players can be overrated because they have more room at the top. Would have been potentially more interesting to look at the difference in the logsR (or, equivalently, ratios).

b) "While I'm on board with most of those, the idea that giving war credit is a way in which individuals are "overrated" irritates me, probably more than it should." I think you just have to think of it as "overrated with respect to bWAR" rather than "overrated".

Always agreed though that Shoeless Joe has to be one of the most overrated players in history. The way some people seem to give him "credit" for the years he would've produced post Black Sox scandal is just ridiculous. If a player does something stupid and gets suspended/banned/etc, giving them any credit whatsoever for that missed time makes no sense at all to me. Jackson should be judged solely on the short career that he actually had.

It's like pro-rating Ryan Braun's 2012 season (assuming he loses his appeal) to what his value would've been if he hadn't missed those 50 games.

Ted Williams is first in lifetime OBP and second in lifetime SLG. I find it hard to believe that anyone could call him overrated as a batter.

Always agreed though that Shoeless Joe has to be one of the most overrated players in history. The way some people seem to give him "credit" for the years he would've produced post Black Sox scandal is just ridiculous. If a player does something stupid and gets suspended/banned/etc, giving them any credit whatsoever for that missed time makes no sense at all to me. Jackson should be judged solely on the short career that he actually had.

Jackson has to be close to an inner circle guy based on peak value. The BB-ref Elo rater asks people to rate who the greatest players were. It doesn't say anything about making moral judgements, such as giving a player credit for missing years due to serving his country but not giving credit for those who earned their expulsion from baseball.

"In each matchup, the user should choose the player who they believe was the better player. It is up to the user to determine how much weight to give to offense versus defense, peak value versus career value, regular season versus playoffs, etc."

Joe Jackson only played a decade as a regular. In that decade, he had an OPS+ of 170. If you ask me whose career was more valuable, Joe or Carl Yastrzemski, I'd pick Yaz. But who was greater? I've got to say Shoeless Joe.

It's like pro-rating Ryan Braun's 2012 season (assuming he loses his appeal) to what his value would've been if he hadn't missed those 50 games.

It just depends if you're talking about value or ability. Say Braun misses a third of the season. It's quite possible that Corey Hart plays 155 games and is more valuable to the 2012 Brewers. But nobody will think that means he's a better player than Braun.

Ted Williams is first in lifetime OBP and second in lifetime SLG. I find it hard to believe that anyone could call him overrated as a batter.

I don't think anyone is; he is one of the 3 best hitters ever, by most everyone's assessment. This is calling him overrated as a PLAYER, since if you account for position and defense, there are 5-10 guys who have legit arguments over Ted as the 2nd best player ever.

The BB-ref Elo rater asks people to rate who the greatest players were. It doesn't say anything about making moral judgements,

True, but many people clearly did it anyway considering how low all the steroid guys are ranked. Bonds is unreasonably low even if you only consider his pre-roid ability.

It just depends if you're talking about value or ability. Say Braun misses a third of the season. It's quite possible that Corey Hart plays 155 games and is more valuable to the 2012 Brewers. But nobody will think that means he's a better player than Braun.

Agreed. And methinks Braun never wins another MVP award, even if his numbers warrant it.

This is calling him overrated as a PLAYER, since if you account for position and defense, there are 5-10 guys who have legit arguments over Ted as the 2nd best player ever.

Only if you ignore the fact that he lost prime years to two wars. Adjust for that and there is simply no way you rank him anywhere below third.

I don't think anyone is; he is one of the 3 best hitters ever, by most everyone's assessment. This is calling him overrated as a PLAYER, since if you account for position and defense, there are 5-10 guys who have legit arguments over Ted as the 2nd best player ever.

No, this is calling him overrated as a player in part because he's getting credit for stuff he didn't do when he was off fightin' Natzees and Commies.

The problem is that it's equating one's historical rating with one's historical value, but a rating is generally some vaguely defined combination of value and ability.

Adjust for that and there is simply no way you rank him anywhere below third.

I don't know that I'd put him below all of these guys, but I think one could give Ted a reasonable amount of war (as opposed to WAR) credit and still rank him below Ruth, Bonds, Mays, and Cobb, depending on your view of things like defense, baserunning, positional adjustments, et al.

If the stat of choice would have been waa(above average) instead of war, then it might be a better reflection of how much a player was over- underrated.

I don't know that I'd put him below all of these guys, but I think one could give Ted a reasonable amount of war (as opposed to WAR) credit and still rank him below Ruth, Bonds, Mays, and Cobb, depending on your view of things like defense, baserunning, positional adjustments, et al.

Agreed. Williams constantly shifts on my personal list anywhere between 3rd and 5th depending on the day (he never surpasses Ruth and Bonds for #'s 1-2).

What ever happened to the all time ranking of Wagner? I remember maybe just 5 years back Bill James had him firmly as #2 all time behind Ruth and the overall consensus here seemed to agree with that. I had him 7th on my list back then and still do.

I don't know that I'd put him below all of these guys, but I think one could give Ted a reasonable amount of war (as opposed to WAR) credit and still rank him below Ruth, Bonds, Mays, and Cobb, depending on your view of things like defense, baserunning, positional adjustments, et al.

Agree. I would add Honus Wagner as well.

How can anyone consider Lou Gehrig over-rated?
How can someone acclaimed as the best ever at his position be over-rated?

How can someone acclaimed as the best ever at his position be over-rated?

If he wasn't.

How can someone acclaimed as the best ever at his position be over-rated?

I can see it. Mike Schmidt and Johnny Bench are widely considered the best ever at their positions (in MLB at least), but if someone was ranking either of them in the top 5 or so players of all time, I'd say they were overrating them a bit.

I like the idea, but I think the fundamental terrible-ness of the Elo ratings makes this an ultimately fruitless enterprise. I get that the whole point is to measure what kinds of players are most likely to be off. But I find so many of the ratings to be just horrible that there is no sense trying to impose a rhyme or reason on them.

How can someone acclaimed as the best ever at his position be over-rated?

Unless the title of best ever at position is unanimous, you have more than one contender for the title. There can only be one true best-ever-at-position, so the others are overrated, by definition.

Unless the title of best ever at position is unanimous, you have more than one contender for the title. There can only be one true best-ever-at-position, so the others are overrated, by definition.

So how many positions have a near unanimous consensus choice as best ever?

I'd say just 1B (and that might change depending on how Pujols finishes his career), SS (but only cuz A-Rod moved), 3B, and RF. Maybe relief pitcher if you consider that a position, rather than just lumping it into "pitcher."

C would almost universally be Bench if we were talking about MLB, but Josh Gibson may get it if you included the Negro Leagues. Bill James picked Berra over Bench too.

2B has Hornsby, Morgan, and maybe even Collins battling it out.

LF has Bonds and Williams to split the vote.

CF has Mays vs Cobb.

P probably should be Walter Johnson, but I've seen people make arguments for Young, Grove, and Clemens depending on how you want to adjust for era.

I'm not really sure if DH counts as a position, but if so you could see arguments between Edgar and Molitor supporters, and if you consider Thomas a DH he'd probably beat either of them.

Jackson has to be close to an inner circle guy based on peak value....Joe Jackson only played a decade as a regular. In that decade, he had an OPS+ of 170

Among players with 5000 PA from their 4th-13th seasons, Jackson's OPS+ is 11th, but there's another 8 guys within 10 points of OPS+, and only 2 of them had fewer PA than Jackson.

I dunno, "inner circle" might be a stretch, and that's using only peak. Yea, top 10 is something but the peak is all he has, and even during his peak he wasn't the most durable guy.

P probably should be Walter Johnson, but I've seen people make arguments for Young, Grove, and Clemens depending on how you want to adjust for era.

If you start adjusting for era, then you're going to get a very different list. No one before Ruth will be on your list (and even his hold on RF is arguable). And if you adjust for era, then the "most overrated list" will, almost by definition, be dominated by early greats like Wagner and Johnson.

SS (but only cuz A-Rod moved), 3B, and RF

So that would be Jeter, Schmidt, and Aaron.

If you start adjusting for era, then you're going to get a very different list. No one before Ruth will be on your list (and even his hold on RF is arguable). And if you adjust for era, then the "most overrated list" will, almost by definition, be dominated by early greats like Wagner and Johnson.

I think since A-Rod is going to spend more of his career at third than short, even with a huge era adjustment someone would have a hard time coming up with anyone other than Wagner at SS. Ripken? Banks? Jeter? Not even close.

Still, era adjustments might need to be considered anyways unless you're okay with a disproportionate amount of the inner circle greats (say top 10 or top 20) coming from the same time period. Take the years 1915-1920, for example. 4 of most peoples consensus top 10 played at this time (Ruth, Cobb, Wagner, Johnson), and another 3-4 that could easily be ranked in the top 20 (Speaker, Hornsby, Alexander, possibly Collins). I realize that time frame is cherry picking a little bit since it's the very end of Wagner's career and the beginning of Ruth and Hornsby's, but still, doesn't that seem like a bit many of the upper level greats to all be active at the same time? Was it just random coincidence, or was the overall quality of play so much lower that the great players looked even greater by comparison? It's at least worth considering, isn't it?

Take the years 1915-1920, for example. 4 of most peoples consensus top 10 played at this time (Ruth, Cobb, Wagner, Johnson), and another 3-4 that could easily be ranked in the top 20 (Speaker, Hornsby, Alexander, possibly Collins). I realize that time frame is cherry picking a little bit since it's the very end of Wagner's career and the beginning of Ruth and Hornsby's, but still, doesn't that seem like a bit many of the upper level greats to all be active at the same time? Was it just random coincidence, or was the overall quality of play so much lower that the great players looked even greater by comparison? It's at least worth considering, isn't it?

2000-2005 had Bonds, Pujols, A-Rod, Clemens, and Maddux

1950-1955 had Williams, DiMaggio, Mays, Mantle, Musial, Aaron

2000-2005 had Bonds, Pujols, A-Rod, Clemens, and Maddux

1950-1955 had Williams, DiMaggio, Mays, Mantle, Musial, Aaron

Yeah, but the time frame I listed had 8, and in a much smaller league (than your 2000-2005 list anyway). Your lists had 5 and 6.

Even if you remove Wagner since he was just finishing up and change the timeframe to 1915-1925 (or 1924 if you want an even 10 seasons), you're still looking at 7 players - a full third of the top 20 players ever - going strong at the same time for an entire decade. Doesn't that seem like a few too many?

And if I removed Wagner since he barely made it into that time frame, than you'd need to remove DiMaggio, since he only played 2 of the years and was a shadow of his former self. Not sure if he'd crack the top 20 anyway.

Just glancing at the position players Elorater list, Vlad Guerrero stands out as overrated, though he's already dropped a few spots since this article was published. And I would probably vote for him for Hall of Fame, but not ahead of the likes Jackie Robinson, Chipper Jones, Arky Vaughn, and several others.

Joe Morgan is listed behind Shoeless Joe. This alone makes Jackson overrated.

Was it just random coincidence, or was the overall quality of play so much lower that the great players looked even greater by comparison?

We know it's the latter. It's much easier to tower over your peers when you are playing against competition that was, at best, equivalent to today's AAA players. You don't seriously think that (for example) Cobb was Mays' equal, do you? Or that Walter Johnson could really match Clemens? Not a chance in the world.....

You don't seriously think that (for example) Cobb was Mays' equal, do you? Or that Walter Johnson could really match Clemens? Not a chance in the world

One of my favorite themes, but ... why not? Why wouldn't a superior athlete be the equal of superior athletes a few decades later? Why would the competition matter? Athletes come out of lower leagues to excel in higher ones every year.

Of course Mays faced better competition than Cobb did. At the same time, Cobb hit .366 lifetime, and Mays hit .302. Would Cobb have hit more than 65 points lower in Mays's leagues? Mays was born when Cobb was 44 years old; it's not like they were from different epochs of the human species.

Johnson and Clemens are further apart, but only by a few generations. Would Clemens have thrown almost 6,000 innings and over 500 complete games if he'd had a 20-year career in AAA ball? Johnson threw close to 100 MPH, and had great control – you think he couldn't have been a star in the 1980s-2000s?

Of course Mays faced better competition than Cobb did. At the same time, Cobb hit .366 lifetime, and Mays hit .302. Would Cobb have hit more than 65 points lower in Mays's leagues? Mays was born when Cobb was 44 years old; it's not like they were from different epochs of the human species.

It's not simply the amount of time between the two eras, though. It's also that Willie Mays, born 44 years earlier, would have had no opportunity to be part of this conversation, because of the color of his skin.

Why is that relevant to whether Cobb would have been a good player in Mays's era? He was the athlete he was. He wouldn't have put up the same numbers in Mays's era that he did in his era, because the level of competition was higher, but he would have been a productive player. It's important to remember that black players of Cobb's era had the same disadvantages with regard to health and training in comparison with players of the '60s, be they black or white--worse, probably, because most of them would have had even worse nutrition as children, etc., than the white players of the time.

The rhetorical question was "Would Cobb have hit more than 65 points lower in Mays's leagues?," not "Would Cobb have hit .366 in Mays's leagues?" The answer to both questions is almost certainly "no." Whether Cobb would have been a star player in Mays's era is an interesting question, to which there will probably never be an answer. If he'd been born 40 years later, he would most likely have been taller, would most likely have healthier overall, and would have had the type of athletic training that was available in the later era. I think that the type of player Cobb was, playing in the '60s with the body Cobb would have had in the '60s, would have been a somewhat over .300 hitter (.320s?) with a good OBP, some power, and a lot of stolen bases. That would have been a star player. Maybe he would have been more like Lou Brock, but he would have walked more than Lou Brock. But even Brock was considered a star player at the time.

Per Repoz's intro, these are the Not So Specials...

How can someone acclaimed as the best ever at his position be over-rated?

If he wasn't.

Mike Schmidt and Johnny Bench are widely considered the best ever at their positions (in MLB at least), but if someone was ranking either of them in the top 5 or so players of all time, I'd say they were overrating them a bit.

Unless the title of best ever at position is unanimous, you have more than one contender for the title. There can only be one true best-ever-at-position, so the others are overrated, by definition.

One more possibility: the #1 player could be considered overrated if observers overstated the gap between the #1 and #2 player. For example, Mike Schmidt is the best third baseman but the gap between Schmidt and the next third baseman isn't that large. If people insisted that Schmidt is "by far" the best the third baseman or "twice as good" as anyone else, they would be overrating him.

Why wouldn't a superior athlete be the equal of superior athletes a few decades later? Why would the competition matter?

The athlete would be just as great, but they wouldn't look as great in comparison because their numbers wouldn't tower above the competition as much. It can't be a coincidence that the best players of the last, say 50 years, generally don't lead the league in as many categories as the best players of the previous 50.

Honus Wagner, for example, completely dominated the NL during his career. But who was he competing against? Next to Wagner, who were the NL's best position players who played the bulk of their careers during the first two decades of the 20th century? Unless I'm missing someone, I can't think of anyone who'd come near the top 100 players of all time. Almost all the best hitters of Wagner's era played in the AL (Cobb, Speaker, LaJoie, Jackson, Crawford, Collins).

Not that he ever did, but Wagner could've had a major off year and still been the best position player in the NL almost by default. But because of this semi "default" dominance, it would be almost impossible for any modern short stop to ever supplant Wagner as best ever at the position without a MAJOR era adjustment.

I believe stats like OPS+ overrate old timers for this reason. The lower the overall quality of play, the lower the average OPS+, and thus the higher the OPS+ for the real major league caliber players that tower above the mediocrity.

So how many positions have a near unanimous consensus choice as best ever?

I'd say just 1B (and that might change depending on how Pujols finishes his career), SS (but only cuz A-Rod moved), 3B, and RF.

I'm guessing you meant Schmidt at 3B, but if A-Rod isn't a SS, then how is he not the best 3B?

How may you quantify the hyper extreme vacuum of "WAR SERVICE"
knowing it's no vacuum at all
physically
psychologically

I'm guessing you meant Schmidt at 3B, but if A-Rod isn't a SS, then how is he not the best 3B?

A-Rod is a tough call, cuz I'm not sure where to rank him. That said, I'm not sure he beats Schmidt even if you consider his entire career. They're about equal as hitters (OPS+ 147-144 in Mike's favor), but Schmidt was a much better fielder. Not that WAR is ever the final word in a discussion, but he's also got slightly more WAR (108.3-104.6) in 600 fewer PA's.

Honus Wagner, for example, completely dominated the NL during his career. But who was he competing against? Next to Wagner, who were the NL's best position players who played the bulk of their careers during the first two decades of the 20th century?

Probably his own teammates (Leach and Clarke), plus Sherry Magee, Mike Donlin, and Frank Chance (who was a lot better than people remember; his problem was that he wasn't very durable and by 1908 he was basically through as a regular).

Magee was involved in a rather strange trade at the end of 1914, going from the Phillies to the Braves (who had just won the pennant) in exchange for Possum Whitted and Oscar Dugey, along with cash. The Phillies promptly won the 1915 pennant, with Boston finishing second, and Magee - who didn't take well to the move from Baker Bowl to Braves Field - took a lot of the heat for what happened although the Braves very nearly managed to pull off a second miracle finish, being in last place on July 15 and moving within 2 1/2 of the lead by September 8, although this time they couldn't sustain the momentum. Magee faded quickly after that but did manage to make it into a World Series with the Reds in 1919.

-- MWE

Probably his own teammates (Leach and Clarke), plus Sherry Magee, Mike Donlin, and Frank Chance


Exactly. Good players, but not a one of them anywhere near the list of all time greats. And that's why era adjustments need to be considered. It was a little harder for A-Rod to reach this level of dominance and replace Wagner as the greatest SS of all time when he was competing for league dominance against the likes of Griffey, Thomas, Manny, Thome, Palmeiro, Pudge, Giambi, Jeter, Nomar, Delgado, Vlad, Sheffield, Edgar, Cabrera, Mauer, Alomar, Belle, Juan Gone, Bernie Wiliams, etc, etc.

Ted Williams' career OBP would be tied for the 176th best career slugging percentage of all time, just a few ticks below Yogi Berra and Andre Dawson.

That is all.