|
|
Hall of Merit— A Look at Baseball's All-Time Best
Monday, January 10, 2005
Judy Johnson
Judy! Judy! Judy!
|
Support BBTF
Thanks to Randy Jones for his generous support.
Bookmarks
You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.
Hot Topics
Most Meritorious Player: 1936 Discussion (20 - 11:07pm, Mar 04)Last: DL from MNMost Meritorious Player: 1935 Results (3 - 7:30pm, Mar 03)Last: QufiniMost Meritorious Player: 1935 Ballot (11 - 4:04pm, Mar 03)Last: DL from MNMost Meritorious Player: 1935 Discussion (37 - 1:42pm, Mar 03)Last: John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy2022 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion (145 - 8:27pm, Feb 16)Last:  Dr. ChaleekoMark Teixeira, Justin Morneau and Prince Fielder (6 - 9:15pm, Feb 15)Last: puckNewt Allen (20 - 12:26pm, Feb 04)Last: Carl GoetzMost Meritorious Player: 1934 Discussion (18 - 11:51am, Feb 04)Last: DL from MNMost Meritorious Player: 1934 Results (1 - 6:14pm, Feb 03)Last: DL from MNMost Meritorious Player: 1934 Ballot (10 - 4:59pm, Feb 03)Last: DL from MNJimmy Rollins (11 - 2:32pm, Jan 29)Last: Carl GoetzDavid Ortiz (53 - 11:37pm, Jan 28)Last: SoSH U at work2021 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion (651 - 1:45pm, Jan 25)Last:  Bleed the FreakJason Giambi (5 - 11:17pm, Jan 22)Last: The Honorable ArdoHank Aaron (178 - 5:04pm, Jan 22)Last:  Bourbon Samurai stays in the fight
|
|
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 11, 2005 at 01:04 AM (#1071032)Hilldale + Colored All Stars
Batting
G-63 (teams 64)
AB-230
H-56
D-9
T-5
HR-1
R-26
W-9
HP-2
SF-2
SH-0
SB-2
AVE-.243 (eastern NeL .282)
OBA-.276 (eNeL .333)
SLG-.339 (eNL .383)
His one home run was a game-winning grand slam. Johnson seems to have had a reputation as a clutch hitter; Rollo Wilson, who liked Beckwith, liked Johnson, too, at least partly because of Johnson's performance in the 1924 World Series.
Fielding-3b
*-led east (ECL disbanded in late May; Hilldale left the league before the season started)
G-62
DI-536*
PO-69*
A-97*
E-8*
DP-5
RF-2.79 (eNeL 3b ave 2.73; Jud Wilson led with 3.04)
FPCT-.954* (eNeL 3b ave .919)
He led in most of the counting stats because he played way more games at 3b than anyone else in the east (Jud Wilson is second with 39 games).
At some point I want to do a real fielding analysis, but I'd like to have multiple consecutive seasons in the database first.
NNL associate Hilldale Club
G-25 (team 41)
AB-87
H-22
D-2
T-4
HR-2
R-11
W-5
HP-0
SH-3
SB-1
AVE-.253 (NeL .263)
OBA-.293 (NeL .324)
SLG-.437 (NeL .361)
His rookie season. He started the year with the Madison Stars, a Philadelphia club that served as a sort of informal farm team for Hilldale. The Stars played several major teams in the east, including both Hilldale and the Bacharachs, but I haven't compiled their stats.
In League Play
1921 .229 for Hilldale; ss
1922 .240 for Hilldale; ss; all-star ( a _very_ dubious selection over Lloyd or Lundy)
1923 .313 for Hilldale; 3b; 21 2b (2nd), 7 sb (2nd); all-star
1924 .324 for Hilldale; 23 2b (1st), 5 3b (2nd); 3b; all-star
1925 .332 for Hilldale; 8 3b (2nd); 3b; all-star
1926 .312 for Hilldale; 16 2b (4th), 6 3b (2nd), 6 sb (3rd); all-star
1927 .220 for Hilldale; 3b
1928 .234 for Hilldale; 3b
1929 .412 for Hilldale; ba 4th in league, 22 2b (3rd), 23 sb (3rd)
1930 .250 for Homestead; 3b
1931 .248 for Phi Stars; 3b
1932 .304 for Hilldale, .235 for Pgh Crawfords; 3 3b (4th); 3b
1933 .281 for Pgh Crawfords; 13 2b (5th); 3b
1934 .232 for Pgh Crawfords; 3b
1935 .263 for Pgh Crawfords; 3b
1936 .239 for Pgh Crawfords; 3b
1937 no data
Postseason play
1921 2-18 in World Series vs. Chi Am Giants
1924 15-44 in World Series vs. Monarchs
1925 6-24 in World Series vs. Monarchs
1929 6-14 vs. Chi Am Giants in World Series
1930 12-43 in playoff vs. New York
1935 1-10 in playoff vs. Cuban Stars
Cuban Play
1926 43-115 in Cuban Play
1927 44-133 in Cuban Play
30-88 in Cuban Play
Vs. Major-league competition
1923 6-20
1929 2-4
1931 3-11 vs. Major-League competition
1932 5-25 vs. major-league competition
1935 3-4 vs. major-league competition
Career
.275 mean average for sixteen seasons
1100-3853, .285 avg. according to Holway
28-105, .267 vs. major-league competition, according to Holway
Black Ink 2, Gray Ink 24
Brief comments. It's pretty clear from this data that Judy Johnson would have been, at best, an average hitter in the majors. He probably was a top-notch defensive third baseman, but that's not enough to make him a serious candidate for the HoM. I don't plan on working up a win-share estimate for him, though if one is greatly desired I could get to it at some point.
Well, I'll get to it when I can, but I can tell you now that he's not going to show up comparable to Jimmy Collins. Collins was an A to A+ fielder with a 113 career OPS+, which came mostly from his good power: he was only slightly above average in batting average and OBP. Dick Lundy is this sort of hitter, actually, though his slugging is not quite as impressive in a 1920s context as Collins's was in an 1890s-1900s context. Judy Johnson was not, for his career, an above-average hitter in a major-league context.
He was, as Ardo points out, a better hitter than Rabbit Maranville, but his defense was not as valuable and his career was much shorter than the Rabbit's.
I don't see how this is deduced. Maranville hit .258 career. Johnson hit .285, which translates to .248 after applying the 13% NeL discount. Maranville also played @40% of his career in the deadball era. (When did the lively-ball era begin in the NeLs?)
What am I missing?
In the first third of Johnson's career, the offensive level in the Negro Leagues was lower than in the majors, so I think that the straight 13% discount drops his average too much. It also appears that Johnson's power was somewhat better than Maranville's: I think he would have had 3 or 4 seasons with a slugging percentage right around .400. But it's possible that closer inspection would show that he is not any better than Maranville at all.
Incidentally, looking at Maranville's record made me wonder if he lost it as a hitter after 1919 or if he was simple unable to take advantage of the lively ball? If he could have sustained the level of hitting he showed in 1917 and 1919 for just a few more years, he'd have a _much_ stronger HoM case . . .
Some of it is park effects. Sometimes playing in a pitcher's park (or pitcher's era, or both for Maranville at peak) doesn't diminish a player's raw stats so much as it enhances the real value of what the player can actually do (see Biggio).
Rabbit's "power" was really based on speed - triples and leg doubles. From 1915-20, he played in early Braves Field, a huge park with 402' FOUL lines and over 500' to center. He got grey ink for triples in 1916,17,and 20 (lost 1918 to WWI). After he adapted to Forbes Field (Pit) he got some more ink in '22 and '24 (doubles too). When his speed declined (he's 33 when he left Pit), so did his "power". He probably was unable to take any real advantage of the lively ball. His average went up (like everybody else) but his power not so much.
Assume that an integrated MLB would have been about 12.5% black. This implies that at each of the 7 full-time positions (exclude catcher and pitcher), an average of two black players would make the majors (lots of variance though). IOW, the Negro League All-Star Game starters are on average above IMLB replacement level, but the runner-up All-Stars are probably not.
Assume that an integrated MLB would have been about 25% black. This bumps the average per position up to 4 (still lots of variance). IOW, the All-Star Game backups are also on average above IMLB replacement level, but those who didn't make the team are probably not (unless the position is very deep).
Assume that an integrated MLB would have been about 37.5% black. This bumps the average per position up to 6 (still lots of variance). IOW, the best players at each position not on the All-Star teams are also on average above IMLB replacement level, though unlikely to be above IMLB average (unless the position is very deep).
Assume that an integrated MLB would have been about 50% black. This bumps the average per position up to 8 (still lots of variance). IOW, there was approximate parity between the Negro Leagues and MLB at the playing level.
I tend to imagine that integration would provoke expansion: two eight-team leagues would become two ten-team leagues, with the new players, equal to 1/4 of the former total, being black and/or Latin.
This imagined model posits that the top 4 black/Latin players at each position would become ML regulars, but that replacement level for the major leagues would not change.
Applying this model to third base during the 1920s, Judy Johnson and Oliver Marcelle were second-team all-stars in the NeL: they would be typical starters in the majors, but not HoMers. John Beckwith and Jud Wilson, the first-team all-stars, would be higher than that -- how high it is our business to determine.
Of course, Landis was also opposed to an integrated MLB. So if there was no Landis then maybe both become possible, though the cost/benefit of buying territorial rights to Baltimore/Milwaukee/Kansas City/Buffalo is different in the 20's/30's as opposed to the 50's.
My understanding is that through principal ownership or interlocking directorship, some mlb clubs had control or great influence over their minor league affiliates.
Boston N over Milwaukee and NY N over Minneapolis in 1950?
I'm not sure the evidence supports saying that Johnson was clearly a better hitter than Marcelle. See the stats on the Marcelle thread. Also, what evidence I've seen (and it's still pretty limited) indicates that Marcelle spent most of his career in a fairly neutral park, while Johnson spent much of his in a hitters' park.
METHOD
1) Assessing his actual record.
I took the Shades of Glory stats for Johnson and figured his tech-3 RC (as elaborated by James in Win Shares, the book). I included an estimation of Johnson's CS in this calculation, figuring him to be competent at 70%, which seemed like a reasonable compromise. I adjusted this RC figure where possible with park factors that had been previously used by Chris Cobb, mostly for the two Crawford years. Gary A's also got a 1-year ECL pf for a Hilldale season, which I regressed 75% toward the mean. I took all other seasons as 1.00 pf without any other info to the contrary.
2) Figuring the league's record.
To translated Johnson, I needed to come up with a league-average player comparison, which meant piecing together some data here and there. The HOF committe's .pdf contains combined NgL league average and slugging for 1920-1948. In addition, I did a little research this weekend on walk rates, using the biggest sample I could create. That study indicated that the NgLs were, on the whole, walking a little more than 90% as often as MLB. So I took MLB walk rates and decreased them by 10% to get a rough NgL walk rate. I also had done similar research that suggested the NgLs SHed 35% more often than MLB, so I incorporated that too. Finally, I gave the NgLs a 5% bump upward from the MLB SB rate in a nod to the conventional wisdom of their offensive style of play. Finally, I used the tech-3 formula to figure out what a league average player would have done in Johnson's playing time.
3) Translating to a neutral MLB enivronment.
A few steps down the line, I knew it would be important to have a context-neutral translation of all Johnsons's seasons. So I compared Johnsons's RC to his league's, then applied the same to a netural 4.50 R/G league. Now comes the conversion to MLB. I converted his RC at a rate of .85. Chris has used a .90/.81 previously. I chose to try something different to see where it would take me, and this should not be read as a diss of his approach at all...after all I'm cribbing aspects of it left and right! Anyway, once I had my converted RC, I used the James technique described in the Willie Davis comment to generate a neutral, 4.5 r/g translation of Johnson's exact lines, no projecting for playing time. I made one small change to the routine; I added 10% to Johnson's walk rate to account for the difference in the respective leagues' walk rates. Given the next sentence, I chose not to make a similar adjustment for his SACs since I think he'd have been doing a lot of it. The resulting translation showed him hitting a desultory 255/288/346, and walking about 5 times for every 100 ABs for his career. His best year 304/345/463.
4) Filling out the seasons.
I have resisted regression in the past, and I guess this isn't strictly regression since I'm not using regression formulae, but in essence I think I'm doing the same thing. To fill out Johnsons's seasons I'm
a) making a subjective guesstimate about his MLB playing time
b) using his career, neutralized stat line to fill in the difference between his playing time and his estimated MLB playing time.
The questions with this approach are well known to all of us (lowering peak seasons), and I think Chris uses a regression of the player's three or four previous years. On the other hand, I've come to realize for myself that just flipping it up to 162 is good for some things and less so for others, so I'm trying something else. Here's an example of how regression can have a big dampening effect. Remember Judy's best year noted above? 304/345/463 in a neutral context. Johnson did that in 1925 in 250 ABs and 181 outs. I'm estimating him for a full season of play at 400 outs and about 530 ABs. That means there's 219 outs and 287 ABs left to fill in. As I mentioned early, Johnson has a Kikoesque career line of 255/288/346. So I plug that into his remaining outs and here's what happens:
Transed: 304/345/463 in 250 AB, 181 outs
Regress: 255/288/346 in 287 AB, 219 outs
TOTAL: 280/316/402 in 536 AB, 400 outs
Granted he doesn't come out like Al Pedrique, but it's obviously a very different season with "regression" operating. As I said, I'm not literally employing regression, but I think what I'm doing is essentially equivalent. If not, please let me know!!!!
OK, so once I do this, I have a neutral translation with playing time filled in by regression, and Johnson is, of course, still a 255/288/346 career hitter. His best season is now 1924, 280/316/405, just a smidge better than the 1925 season above.
5) Final translation into MLB setting.
Here's a place where I'm parting with Chris. I prefer the consistency of seeing a player in one league versus the ups and downs that alternating leagues sometimees yields. Again, this is a personal preference, not a critique, and so I just chose that direction instead. I chose to put Johnson in the NL of 1921-1936. To translate him to this league, I used the same process as earlier, comparing him to the league average player and then applying that to the average NL player based on the league's R/G. This step reintroduces increased variation in Johnson's batting line and improves it a bit. He's now a career 260/292/352 hitter. For his career, he created 826 translated runs. That's 4.07 per game. The league in his time was much closer to five than four.
6) WS analysis.
I've decided to try something other than short-form WS. I've decided that I'm unsure about its universal application to players in more extreme run environments. So I looked in WS the book for help, and it turns out that I think there's almost as short way to do it that may improve accuracy a bit for MLE purposes. Here's how it goes:
a) Multiplying lg R/G by scheduled games (154 in this case)
b) Multiply a by .52 to get the submarginal runs
c) Subtract b from a to get the marginal runs
d) Figure the available BWS by multiplying half the scheduled games (77) times 3 and multiply that by .48. For a 154 season, it's 111, for a 162 it's 116.
e) Figure the league's runs per outs
f) Multiply the player's outs times e and multiply by .52. That's the player's submarginal RC. Now subtract that from his total RC to get his marginal outs.
f) Divide e by c and multiply by d to get the player's BWS.
I might have goofed that, but I think that's it.
Then use the SF method's defensive allocation for FWS. For Johnson, his defensive reputation is excellent, so I upped him to 5.5/1000 innings (or 118 games). I estimated his games by figuring his PA divided by 4.1 and then applied that to the SF estimate.
OK, that's "it." I hope that makes sense to everyone. Here's the estimation of Johnson's career.
Juday Johnson
MLE, v 1.0
pa outs ab h tb bb sac sb cs rc avg obp slg bb/ab BWS FWS WS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1921 346 250 325 83 120 15 6 6 2 38 255 282 369 045 4.5 4.0 8.6
1922 107 80 100 23 30 5 2 3 1 9 229 262 299 050 0.3 1.2 1.6
1923 560 400 531 140 185 23 6 9 3 59 264 290 348 043 6.5 6.5 13.0
1924 579 400 535 150 217 33 11 13 4 77 280 316 405 061 12.8 6.7 19.5
1925 595 400 547 162 233 36 11 11 3 86 296 333 425 066 13.4 6.9 20.3
1926 569 400 524 143 190 30 15 14 4 67 273 304 363 057 9.8 6.6 16.4
1927 556 400 516 125 163 33 6 7 2 52 242 284 315 064 4.4 6.5 10.9
1928 543 400 513 123 168 23 7 8 2 50 240 268 328 044 3.8 6.3 10.1
1929 591 400 548 162 218 33 10 15 5 80 296 331 397 061 10.7 6.9 17.6
1930 561 400 526 136 182 28 7 9 3 59 259 292 346 052 4.6 6.5 11.2
1931 547 400 520 129 170 21 6 9 3 51 248 274 328 040 4.2 6.4 10.6
1932 566 400 530 140 186 29 7 9 3 62 264 299 350 055 7.4 6.6 14.0
1933 539 400 509 118 153 23 6 8 2 44 232 262 301 046 3.3 6.3 9.6
1934 487 350 459 118 160 22 6 9 3 51 257 287 348 047 5.4 5.7 11.1
1935 343 250 324 78 109 16 3 5 1 33 241 275 336 051 2.8 4.0 6.8
1936 197 150 184 37 46 11 2 3 1 12 201 244 248 061 0.0 2.3 2.3
===================================================================================
7686 5480 7192 1867 2529 381 113 140 42 826 260 292 352 053 92.8 89.63 182.4
pa ab obp slg lgobp lgslg lgtob lgtb obp+ slg+ ops+
---------------------------------------------------------------
1921 346 325 .282 .370 .348 .410 120 133 81 90 71
1922 107 100 .262 .299 .359 .419 39 42 73 71 44
1923 560 531 .290 .348 .352 .408 197 217 83 85 68
1924 579 535 .316 .405 .345 .404 200 216 91 100 92
1925 595 547 .333 .425 .358 .429 213 235 93 99 92
1926 569 524 .304 .363 .347 .398 197 209 88 91 79
1927 556 516 .284 .315 .349 .400 194 207 81 79 60
1928 543 513 .268 .328 .355 .413 193 212 76 79 55
1929 591 548 .331 .397 .368 .443 217 243 90 90 79
1930 561 526 .292 .346 .370 .464 208 244 79 75 53
1931 547 520 .274 .328 .344 .403 188 210 80 81 61
1932 566 530 .299 .350 .337 .412 191 218 89 85 74
1933 539 509 .262 .301 .327 .375 176 191 80 80 61
1934 487 459 .287 .348 .342 .408 166 187 84 85 69
1935 343 324 .275 .336 .341 .407 117 132 81 83 63
1936 197 184 .244 .248 .355 .400 68 74 71 62 33
==============================================================
7686 7192 .292 .352 .349 .413 2685 2968 84 85 69
In a word, youch. Makes Ray Dandridge look like an All-Star.
Despite the fact that my own MLE suggests Johnson's an awful HOF pick, I'm going to tentatively disagree with you on this John. I don't think the HOF NgL comission of the 1970s had particularly good numbers to work with...if any. I don't know this for a fact, but there's lots of reasons to believe that was true. (I hope someone will corroborate my speculation or countermand it.) Even with player stats, they surely had little sense of the league's batting norms, or of anything except the oral history and their own recollections. Johnson was a very strong candidate via the oral tradition since he exceled at the hustle skills/stats: fielding, running, bunting, contact, and gamesmanship/clutchiness/leadership. And he played on numerous strong or championship caliber clubs. With nothing more than oral tradition to guide them, I can't really blame that committee for selecting him. To use a modern example, Garrett Anderson or Alfonso Soriano would look great if all you knew was their AVG, HR, RBI, SB, and nothing more about their leagues or their other stats. Especially if you didn't have a deep sense of every single candidate's numbers too due to the spottiness of the record.
Anyway, yes, Johnson is retrospectively less defensible a selection, but in the moment that committee operated in, he I can't imagine he could have been an obvious error.
I agree with both of these statements. First, I think that we actually are underestimating Ray Dandridge. He was a very good player for a very long time. I'm not arguing that he should be in anybody's top 15 (he's not in mine) but he should probably be in a few more top 100's than he is.
But, even as big a proponent of the Negro Leagues as I am, I just can't make the case for Judy Johnson. He was a flashy glove man who used his speed to turn some singles into doubles and doubles into triples. But he was a flashy glove man at third rather than short, and he had pretty much no patience of power. I was going to compare him to Orlando Hudson but even that's giving Johnson too much credit.
I am not sure, though, that Eric's approach to regression isn't underrating his peak somewhat. I never did a full workup of Judy Johnson, so I don't have data to offer in comparison, but my system regresses players to their average play over a five-year period. If a player was significantly above his career averages for a period of several years, the effect of regression will probably be less than would result from filling in partial seasons with career averages. It would be interesting to see how the results of Eric's system compare with mine.
[]bDespite the fact that my own MLE suggests Johnson's an awful HOF pick, I'm going to tentatively disagree with you on this John. I don't think the HOF NgL comission of the 1970s had particularly good numbers to work with...if any.
How's that differ for Tommy McCarthy? Heck, the Old Timers committee in the 1940s was further removed from McCarthy's era than the Negro Leagues committee was from Johnson's day.
Johnson was a very strong candidate via the oral tradition since he exceled at the hustle skills/stats: fielding, running, bunting, contact, and gamesmanship/clutchiness/leadership. And he played on numerous strong or championship caliber clubs.
Yep. Sounds exactly like Tommy McCarthy. Should we cease to mention McCarthy among the worst HoF picks?
Judy Johnson MLE
ver 1.1
outs pa ab h tb bb sac sb cs rc avg obp slg bws fws ws
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1921 250 350 328 87 126 15 7 6 2 41 .265 .292 .383 5.6 4.1 9.7
1922 80 108 101 24 31 5 2 3 1 10 .237 .270 .311 .5 1.3 1.8
1923 400 568 537 147 194 24 7 10 3 64 .274 .301 .361 8.1 6.6 14.7
1924 400 593 546 162 234 35 12 14 4 87 .297 .333 .430 16.1 6.9 23.0
1925 400 609 558 174 251 39 12 12 4 96 .312 .350 .449 16.4 7.1 23.5
1926 400 583 535 155 206 33 16 15 4 76 .290 .322 .386 12.9 6.8 19.7
1927 400 564 523 132 172 35 7 8 2 57 .253 .295 .329 6.2 6.6 12.8
1928 400 550 519 129 177 24 8 8 2 54 .249 .278 .340 5.3 6.4 11.7
1929 400 607 560 176 237 36 11 17 5 91 .314 .349 .422 13.8 7.1 2.9
1930 400 570 533 144 193 29 8 10 3 65 .270 .304 .362 6.6 6.6 13.3
1931 400 552 524 133 176 22 7 10 3 54 .254 .281 .336 5.3 6.4 11.7
1932 400 576 538 148 197 31 7 10 3 68 .275 .311 .366 9.5 6.7 16.2
1933 400 544 513 122 159 24 6 9 3 47 .238 .269 .310 4.5 6.3 1.9
1934 350 494 465 124 168 23 7 9 3 55 .267 .297 .362 6.9 5.8 12.6
1935 250 346 326 81 113 17 3 5 1 35 .248 .283 .346 3.5 4.0 7.5
1936 150 197 184 37 46 11 2 3 1 12 .201 .244 .248 -1.1 2.3 1.2
=================================================================================
5480 7813 7289 1975 2679 403 121 149 45 912 .271 .304 .368 120.1 91.0 211.2
pa ab obp slg lgobp lgslg lgtob lgtb obp+ slg+ ops+
-----------------------------------------------------------------
1921 350 328 .292 .383 .348 .410 122 135 84 93 77
1922 108 101 .270 .311 .359 .419 39 42 75 74 49
1923 568 537 .301 .361 .352 .408 200 219 85 89 74
1924 593 546 .333 .430 .345 .404 205 220 96 106 103
1925 609 558 .350 .449 .358 .429 218 239 98 105 102
1926 583 535 .322 .386 .347 .398 202 213 93 97 90
1927 564 523 .295 .329 .349 .400 197 209 85 82 67
1928 550 519 .278 .340 .355 .413 195 214 78 82 61
1929 607 560 .349 .422 .368 .443 223 248 95 95 90
1930 570 533 .304 .362 .370 .464 211 247 82 78 60
1931 552 524 .281 .336 .344 .403 190 211 82 83 65
1932 576 538 .311 .366 .337 .412 194 221 92 89 81
1933 544 513 .269 .310 .327 .375 178 192 82 83 65
1934 494 465 .297 .362 .342 .408 169 190 87 89 75
1935 346 326 .283 .346 .341 .407 118 133 83 85 68
1936 197 184 .244 .248 .345 .400 68 74 71 62 33
================================================================
7813 7289 .304 .368 .349 .413 2729 3009 87 89 76
I think that's a little more like it, particularly since he now has three seasons in his prime where he's a good All-Star candidate. This MLE makes him much closer to Dandridge than the last one did, giving them roughly similar career MLE WS totals.
He's still not very good outside of those three seasons, however, and even they aren't great years.
YEAR WS
----------
1921 9.7
1922 1.8
1923 14.7
1924 23.0
1925 23.5
1926 19.7
1927 12.8
1928 11.7
1929 20.9
1930 13.3
1931 11.7
1932 16.2
1933 10.9
1934 12.6
1935 7.5
1936 1.2
==========
211.2
So per my previous comment, four A-S or near A-S type seasons here, but no MVP caliber years by any stretch of the imagination.
Judy Johnson MLE
Version umpteen
year pa ab h tb bb sac sb cs rc avg obp slg
-----------------------------------------------------------
1921 376 354 97 140 17 5 7 2 47 .274 .304 .395
1922 121 114 28 37 6 1 3 1 12 .246 .281 .324
1923 457 435 123 162 19 3 8 2 54 .283 .310 .372
1924 501 462 143 210 32 7 13 4 79 .309 .348 .453
1925 566 519 171 248 39 8 12 4 98 .329 .371 .477
1926 601 554 170 227 36 11 16 5 86 .307 .342 .409
1927 602 557 155 203 40 5 10 3 73 .278 .323 .364
1928 605 570 151 207 28 6 10 3 67 .265 .296 .362
1929 624 579 184 247 38 7 17 5 95 .318 .356 .428
1930 604 566 155 208 32 6 10 3 71 .274 .309 .367
1931 550 523 137 181 22 4 10 3 57 .262 .290 .347
1932 552 517 146 194 30 5 10 3 68 .282 .319 .375
1933 516 488 117 152 23 4 8 2 45 .240 .272 .311
1934 528 500 130 176 24 4 10 3 56 .260 .291 .352
1935 379 358 89 124 19 2 6 2 38 .249 .284 .346
1936 225 211 43 54 12 2 4 1 14 .204 .246 .255
===========================================================
7806 7309 2039 2768 416 81 154 46 959 .279 .315 .379
year bws fws ws
----------------------
1921 7.0 4.4 11.4
1922 0.9 1.4 2.3
1923 7.4 5.3 12.8
1924 15.8 5.8 21.6
1925 18.0 6.6 24.6
1926 16.2 7.0 23.2
1927 11.1 7.0 18.1
1928 8.5 7.0 15.6
1929 14.8 7.3 22.1
1930 7.6 7.0 14.7
1931 6.5 6.4 12.9
1932 10.2 6.4 16.6
1933 4.5 6.0 10.5
1934 6.3 6.2 12.5
1935 3.9 4.4 8.3
1936 -1.2 2.6 1.5
======================
137.5 91.0 228.5
pa ab obp slg lgobp lgslg obp+ slg+ ops+
--------------------------------------------------------
1921 376 354 .304 .395 .348 .410 87 96 84
1922 121 114 .281 .324 .359 .419 78 77 56
1923 457 435 .310 .372 .352 .408 88 91 79
1924 501 462 .348 .453 .345 .404 101 112 113
1925 566 519 .371 .477 .358 .429 104 111 115
1926 601 554 .342 .409 .347 .398 99 103 101
1927 602 557 .323 .364 .349 .400 93 91 84
1928 605 570 .296 .362 .355 .413 84 88 71
1929 624 579 .356 .428 .368 .443 97 97 93
1930 604 566 .309 .367 .370 .464 84 79 63
1931 550 523 .290 .347 .344 .403 84 86 70
1932 552 517 .319 .375 .337 .412 95 91 86
1933 516 488 .272 .311 .327 .375 83 83 66
1934 528 500 .291 .352 .342 .408 85 86 71
1935 379 358 .284 .346 .341 .407 83 85 68
1936 225 211 .246 .255 .345 .400 71 64 35
========================================================
7806 7309 .315 .379 .349 .413 90 92 82
We are missing some info on Johnson, so MLEs will be updated as new info comes along.
Currently showing 29.4 WAR.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main