at least part of the apparent gap between the next best hitters in the Negro League is because the conditions suited Gibson unusually well

#94 But look at the raw difference between Matsui and Ichiro in Japan. We're talking ~200 points of raw OPS.

I can be sure that we can't be sure.

So what good does that do? Should we just throw our hands up in the air and give up because we can't be certain?

You're the one who stated MLE's are "impossible" which is the only statement in the thread that is provably false. You can do an MLE. It might not be accurate and might rely on extrapolation from small amounts of data but it can be done.

Yes, there's a huge error bar. That's no reason not to give your best guess. I still have yet to see your best guess. It's really easy to poke holes in other people's guesses. What do you think Gibson would have hit in the majors based on his Negro League data?

So did Ichiro. Ichiro hit 17 homers per 550 Japanese at bats. Only 7 over here. Matsui dropped from 40 per 550 to 22. As a general rule of thumb, players coming over from Japan lose about half their homeruns. Matsui's adjustment was exactly what should have been expected given the results of everyone else making the adjustment.

It does change their relative value though, even though Ichiro lost more of his power as a percentage, Matsui lost 18 bombs and Ichiro only lost 10.

best-hitting catcher the major leagues ever produced, in 150 years of trying

It strains belief.

So does Babe Ruth

AROM Posted: March 06, 2012 at 09:40 PM (#4075574)
Gibson by the Shades of Glory stats: 359/436/648

Years 1942-1946: 361/456/653 - either a very slight boost from WW3 diluted game, or else the league decline is hiding age related decline.

Ages 23-34 (to match Piazza): 373/463/682, MLE (based on Irvin) of 305/404/608 (163 OPS+).

Another FYI:
Career Leaders in OPS+

Rank Player (yrs, age) Adjusted OPS+ Bats
1. Babe Ruth+ (22) 206 L
2. Ted Williams+ (19) 190 L
3. Barry Bonds (22) 181 L
4. Lou Gehrig+ (17) 178 L
5. Rogers Hornsby+ (23) 175 R
6. Mickey Mantle+ (18) 172 B
7. Dan Brouthers+ (19) 170 L
Albert Pujols (11, 31) 170 R
9. Shoeless Joe Jackson (13) 169 L
10. Ty Cobb+ (24) 168 L

AROM Posted: March 06, 2012 at 09:40 PM (#4075574)
Gibson by the Shades of Glory stats: 359/436/648

Years 1942-1946: 361/456/653 - either a very slight boost from WW3 diluted game, or else the league decline is hiding age related decline.

Ages 23-34 (to match Piazza): 373/463/682, MLE (based on Irvin) of 305/404/608 (163 OPS+).

I find it very odd that some people think it virtually inconceivable that Gibson was "only" as good as Foxx or Aaron or Mays.

Strawman alert.

Looking back on this thread, I see opinions that it is inconceivable that Gibson was around 135 (lower than Piazza). Some that suggest it is likely he was better than Mays/Aaron/Foxx. I don't see anything resembling what you are suggesting.

80. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 06, 2012 at 12:39 PM (#4074984)

If Gibson is only 150 OPS+ then Oscar Charleston is only 145 OPS+ (not as good as Frank Robinson), Buck Leonard is only 120 OPS+ (more Harold Baines than Eddie Murray) and Monte Irvin wasn't as good in the Negro Leagues as he was in the majors.

...and that's the problem in a nutshell, DL. We know what these guys did in the Negro Leagues and how they compared to each other offensively. If Gibson is "only" a 150 OPS+ hitter, then we're talking about only a couple of African-American players that were great hitters in almost 70 years of NeL play. Now, some of you here might be willing to accept that, but my brain can't.

inconceivable that Gibson is 150 OPS+

Yeah, 160 OPS+ is significantly higher than Piazza's 142 OPS+.

#130 Gibson was a remarkable player though, and general rules apply imperfectly to exceptional players.

I find it unlikely that 150 OPS+ is Josh Gibson's median projection. That would give him a range of 130-170. 140-180 is much more plausible.

Somebody said there was only a 5% chance that Piazza was a better hitter than Gibson.

Given that Piazza was a 153 OPS+ through age 34, 142 career, that implies that the mean estimate for Gibson's MLB ability has to be way higher than 150.

but would Gibson have been in the majors that early?

I do. Looking back on this thread, what we find is that people think it inconceivable that Gibson was "only" a 150 OPS+ hitter. Which is not that far below Aaron (155), Mays (155), or Robinson (154). (It is far below Foxx, 163.)

Quoting now this exchange between DL and John Murphy:

80. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 06, 2012 at 12:39 PM (#4074984)

If Gibson is only 150 OPS+ then Oscar Charleston is only 145 OPS+ (not as good as Frank Robinson), Buck Leonard is only 120 OPS+ (more Harold Baines than Eddie Murray) and Monte Irvin wasn't as good in the Negro Leagues as he was in the majors.

...and that's the problem in a nutshell, DL. We know what these guys did in the Negro Leagues and how they compared to each other offensively. If Gibson is "only" a 150 OPS+ hitter, then we're talking about only a couple of African-American players that were great hitters in almost 70 years of NeL play. Now, some of you here might be willing to accept that, but my brain can't.



Are we to believe that DL and John find it inconceivable that Gibson is 150 OPS+, but perfectly conceivable that he is 154 OPS+?

Sigh.

Let me try this again. My point was if Gibson was "only" a 150 OPS+, then you have to move every other NeL hitter down that much lower. Again, does anybody really believe Gibson and Charleston were the only great hitters in almost 70 years of NeL play? To me, that's a ridiculous assumption.

Gibson would not hit as well while catching 140 games for 15+ years.

Ages 23-34 (to match Piazza): 373/463/682, MLE (based on Irvin) of 305/404/608 (163 OPS+).

He was likely catching 100+ games a year, especially when he played winter ball. There were only 30-50 league games a year but he was playing more baseball games than that. He was one of the biggest barnstorming draws and people were going to be upset if they didn't see Josh Gibson play.

calculating MLEs from barnstorming is really suspect.

Should we give Ruth an adjustment then too?

And calculating MLEs from barnstorming is really suspect.

All I'm saying is that Gibson's workload was likely lighter than if he had been catching 140 MLB games p.a., like Yogi.

How come Bonds v Ted Williams or Clemens v Walter Johnson didn't get this kind of discussion in their respective threads?

No you don't.

There's zero reason these things should translate linearly.

people who want so badly to correct for the despicable misjustices of that era

a lot less signal in Gibson's superiority over his peers than you guys have assumed

That's quite a leap to disparage people's intent. This is a league strength disagreement, not a moral crusade.

#147 Snapper's dealt with your point adequately, but why on earth would the top end of the OPS+ scale at one point (Gibson) tell you anything about where the top end of the OPS+ scale was at a different point in time? The top end of the OPS+ scale has moved a lot over the years in the majors. Why should it be any different in the Negro Leagues.

I don't think that's a disparagement, in any way, shape, or form.

I also think Gibson strikes a cord with people who want so badly to correct for the despicable misjustices of that era that they are prone to overcompensating for it, going beyond what we can reasonably glean from the available data to overstate the case.

Ron, if Gibson was, i.e., 70% better than the average NeL hitter, he's still going to be 70% better no matter what. If you reduce his numbers, then every other NeL player's numbers would be reduced accordingly. Which means there would only be two hitters that would be considered great by ML standards if Gibson was only a 140-something OPS+ hitter (if you want to bring up catching fatigue, use Charleston instead - same results).

I don't appreciate being called a liar.

I find it unlikely that 150 OPS+ is Josh Gibson's median projection. That would give him a range of 130-170. 140-180 is much more plausible.

I find 130-170 more plausible. I do agree that 140-180 is conceivable (though I have a hard time getting to that top end).

Split the difference and Gibson's range is 135-175.

And I don't appreciate being dishonestly accused of calling someone a liar.

No.

Someone elses skills may have translated differently. Or he may have had favorable park/opposition mix.

You said I'm manipulating data (lying) due to some kind of white guilt.

John, you've restated this three times, but you haven't responded to the point that's being made.

Snapper made it earlier, in a different form: Who was the best hitter of the 70s and 80s? Mike Schmidt. And his OPS+ was only 147. Not 170-180. There's no reason to think that the best hitter in any given era will be 170 OPS+.

John, you called Ray out for tone earlier in the thread. I think you've been pretty far across the line too. Either condescending or outright hostile and neither advances anything a whit.

But isn't the real history of the Negro "Major Leagues" only from about 1920 to 1950? Not much more than a generation.

But let's drop this part of the discussion. If it helps, I will confirm that I take you and John absolutely at your word that you are looking at this objectively.

Right, but given that the stats from even the most organized period are fragmentary, you're not really talking about black ballplayers from 1890 or 1910. It's basically 1920-50 that we're talking about as the time-frame for all the "Negro League" greats.