What does this All Time team have in common?

"Mark Reichert" <Mark_Reichert DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:99e65015.0309171209.3f63b401@posting.google.com...
> Except for Mantle, who is number three, they are all the number ones
> at their position in the New Historical Baseball Abstract, if you
> count left hand and right hand starters as different positions, like
> here.

In the original historical abstract, which James published well before '92,
he discusses the question of whether Mantle or Mays was better, and
basically argues for Mantle. I noticed the article didn't make it into the
new edition and under the Win Shares system, James had dropped Mantle down
to 3rd.

Looks like the guy was heavily influence by James.

Marty
 >> Stay informed about: What does this All Time team have in common? 

"marty mcmahone" <mmcmahome1.TakeThisOut@hot.rr.com> wrote in message
news:dQ7ab.50290$jV1.6724@twister.austin.rr.com...
>
> "Mark Reichert" <Mark_Reichert.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:99e65015.0309171209.3f63b401@posting.google.com...
> > Except for Mantle, who is number three, they are all the number ones
> > at their position in the New Historical Baseball Abstract, if you
> > count left hand and right hand starters as different positions, like
> > here.
>
> In the original historical abstract, which James published well before
'92,
> he discusses the question of whether Mantle or Mays was better, and
> basically argues for Mantle. I noticed the article didn't make it into
the
> new edition and under the Win Shares system, James had dropped Mantle down
> to 3rd.
>
> Looks like the guy was heavily influence by James.

I haven't read the new HBA, but my understanding is that James dispenses
with the "peak"/"career" distinction he made in the original and opts for
career. Cobb was the leading career CF in the original HBA, Mantle
was the peak CF (and third overall peak behind Ruth and Wagner).

- Gary Rosen
 >> Stay informed about: What does this All Time team have in common? 

>From: "Gary Rosen"

>I haven't read the new HBA, but my understanding is that James dispenses
>with the "peak"/"career" distinction he made in the original and opts for
>career.

No, he takes both (peak and career) into consideration for one overall ranking,
which actually consders peak more important, witness the # 10 ranking for
Koufax among pitchers.



Bruce Grossberg
 >> Stay informed about: What does this All Time team have in common? 

"Gary Rosen" <garymrosen.TakeThisOut@comcast.net> writes:

>I haven't read the new HBA, but my understanding is that James dispenses
>with the "peak"/"career" distinction he made in the original and opts for
>career. Cobb was the leading career CF in the original HBA, Mantle
>was the peak CF (and third overall peak behind Ruth and Wagner).

That's not quite correct. James moves to a single formula that combines
several measures intended to look at both peak and career performance.
The formula includes a factor for career WS (IIRC the harmonic mean of
career WS/10 and 25), WS/162 games, plus WS in three and five year peaks
(one is consecutive, one not, I don't remember which is which), plus a
term that tries to correct for improving quality of play over time. He
also allows a subjective correction for things like seasons missed to
military service/discrimination, things improperly measured by the stats,
etc. IIRC, he pushes Cobb ahead of Mantle at least in part because he
thinks that his peak measures just happen to be perfectly matched to
Mantles career, while Cobb would move ahead if he picked almost any other
lengths than 3 and 5 seasons.

--
Roger Moore | Master of Meaningless Trivia | (raj@alumni.caltech.edu)
I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the
people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by
violent and sudden usurpations. -- James Madison
 >> Stay informed about: What does this All Time team have in common? 

"marty mcmahone" <mmcmahome1.RemoveThis@hot.rr.com> wrote in message news:<dQ7ab.50290$jV1.6724@twister.austin.rr.com>...
> Looks like the guy was heavily influence by James.

Perhaps. Time to dig out the old book. After I posted, I found a
couple of other posts with lists nearly the same, but I don't think I
saw any that matched James list exactly.

I just found it encouraging to see people listing players from the
real select group that any thinking person would pick from rather than
the quirky or ill-informed choices that others were making.

I found one thread where some were agreeing that if they don't see
Ruth or Wagner (and some others) on a list, they just stop reading and
move on to the next post.

Personally, I think any list that doesn't select from the following
players has either personal bias or clinging to outmoded ideas:

C Berra, Bench, Piazza
1B Gehrig, Foxx
2B Morgan, Collins
3B Schmidt
SS Wagner
LF Williams, Bonds
CF Mays, Cobb, Mantle
RF Ruth

RHS Johnson, Seaver, Clemens
LHS Grove, Spahn, Carlton

Even though I'm a Cardinals fan, I left off Musial because it is clear
that Williams and Bonds hitting have been even better, and Hornsby
because adjusting for era and park leaves the margin of superiority of
his hitting too small to cover up his deficiencies in comparison to
Morgan and Collins. Even so, I was going to include him as a usual
suspect, but I really don't like how some people still look at the
gaudiness of his stats and simply assume he has no competition.

I include Seaver, Clemens, Spahn, and Carlton strictly for adjustment
for era considerations. The average hitter has become better since
the days of Johnson and Grove and the other four gentlemen have been
the best from their side of the mound since. Martinez? Let's talk
again in ten years. Maddux? He didn't didn't pitch as big a share of
his teams innings as Clemens did and he had better defenses behind him
(is Cox this era's Bill McKechnie?) so he falls just short of beating
Clemens out. He is younger and he may add enough good years to pass
Clemens by, but the last two years aren't a good sign (yes the era was
good in 2002 but SO/BB and other indicators were at his worst in over
a decade).
 >> Stay informed about: What does this All Time team have in common? 

Mark_Reichert.RemoveThis@hotmail.com (Mark Reichert) wrote in message news:<99e65015.0309182101.737095fb.RemoveThis@posting.google.com>...

> Personally, I think any list that doesn't select from the following
> players has either personal bias or clinging to outmoded ideas:
>
> C Berra, Bench, Piazza
> 1B Gehrig, Foxx
> 2B Morgan, Collins
> 3B Schmidt
> SS Wagner
> LF Williams, Bonds
> CF Mays, Cobb, Mantle
> RF Ruth
>
> RHS Johnson, Seaver, Clemens
> LHS Grove, Spahn, Carlton
>
> Even though I'm a Cardinals fan, I left off Musial because it is clear
> that Williams and Bonds hitting have been even better, and Hornsby
> because adjusting for era and park leaves the margin of superiority of
> his hitting too small to cover up his deficiencies in comparison to
> Morgan and Collins. Even so, I was going to include him as a usual
> suspect, but I really don't like how some people still look at the
> gaudiness of his stats and simply assume he has no competition.

OK... now I've read James and it seems that Bill is the one that has
the personal bias against Hornsby. He thinks Rogers is a jerk and
practically openly admits to downgrading him for this reason. Fair
enough, but a 175 OPS+ with all those Triple Crowns deserves to get
him on the short list above in my opinion. Collins over Lajoie is a
close enough call (seems the recent refutation of Nap's high Fielding
Runs totals has bumped in down a bit too much I feel), but baserunning
pulling Collins ahead seems reasonable.
 >> Stay informed about: What does this All Time team have in common? 

>From: Mark_Reichert.RemoveThis@hotmail.com (Mark Reichert)

>Personally, I think any list that doesn't select from the following
>players has either personal bias or clinging to outmoded ideas:

>C Berra, Bench, Piazza

Where's Josh Gibson?


>2B Morgan, Collins

I still say that Hornsby has to be considered, as well as Lajoie.

>and Hornsby
>because adjusting for era and park leaves the margin of superiority of
>his hitting too small to cover up his deficiencies in comparison to
>Morgan and Collins.

OPS+
Hornsby - 176
Collins - 142
Morgan - 133

You call this margin "too small?"

>Even so, I was going to include him as a usual
>suspect, but I really don't like how some people still look at the
>gaudiness of his stats and simply assume he has no competition.

So you'll leave a guy off because of your immature response to others (in your
opinion) overrating him? What kind of analyst are you, allowing your emotions
to get invloved like that?

>CF Mays, Cobb, Mantle

Where the hell is Speaker? I'd take him over Cobb. What about Charleston?


>RF Ruth

No Aaron?


>RHS Johnson, Seaver, Clemens

Alexander has to be here, as well as Young and Nichols, and perhaps Mathewson.

>LHS Grove, Spahn, Carlton

Carlton doesn't belong, with his measley 115 career ERA+





Bruce Grossberg
 >> Stay informed about: What does this All Time team have in common? 

Mark Reichert wrote:

> Personally, I think any list that doesn't select from the following
> players has either personal bias or clinging to outmoded ideas:

I agree with Bruce on all his points. A couple others I would include -

> C Berra, Bench, Piazza

Cochrane

> 1B Gehrig, Foxx

Brouthers

> 3B Schmidt

Mosey raised the option of Eddie Mathews but I think Schmidt has a pretty distinct edge at the bat and certainly
in the field.

Does ARod stand a chance at entering the discussion at short in the future?

--
I have the mind of a steel trap. Of course, very few things in the world - and I include the Home Shopping Network
in this statement - are as stupid as a steel trap. - Dave Barry
 >> Stay informed about: What does this All Time team have in common? 

Mark_Reichert.RemoveThis@hotmail.com (Mark Reichert) writes:

>Personally, I think any list that doesn't select from the following
>players has either personal bias or clinging to outmoded ideas:

> C Berra, Bench, Piazza

I don't think that you can justify that point. I can see a strong
argument for Josh Gibson, and a pretty good one for Campanella.

>1B Gehrig, Foxx

Depending on your view of historical trends, you could argue for a more
recent 1B, like McGwire or possibly McCovey.

>2B Morgan, Collins

You really have to consider Hornsby as a possibility. James had Collins,
Morgan, and Hornsby in a virtual dead heat using his system in Win
Shares, so a tweak or two to the system could easily put Hornsby on top
instead of one of the others. He certainly belongs in the discussion!

>3B Schmidt
>SS Wagner
>LF Williams, Bonds
>CF Mays, Cobb, Mantle
>RF Ruth

>RHS Johnson, Seaver, Clemens

You really have to consider Cy Young. Depending on where you put
replacement level either he or Johnson will come out on top in career
value. And if Clemens is deserving of consideration you may have to
consider Maddux. They're close enough that their relative ranking will
depend heavily on the remainder of Maddux's career, so you at least have
to consider Maddux.

--
Roger Moore | Master of Meaningless Trivia | (raj@alumni.caltech.edu)
I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the
people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by
violent and sudden usurpations. -- James Madison
 >> Stay informed about: What does this All Time team have in common? 

savoybg.TakeThisOut@aol.com (SavoyBG) wrote in message news:<20030919102804.07565.00001193.TakeThisOut@mb-m27.aol.com>...
> >C Berra, Bench, Piazza
>
> Where's Josh Gibson?

Well, I'd include him, but while everybody picks from the major
leagues, a great many don't chose to select from the Negro Leagues for
their All Time picks, hence my not including them.

>
> >2B Morgan, Collins
>
> I still say that Hornsby has to be considered, as well as Lajoie.

Yeah, well when he stops being a reflexive pick by some perhaps I'll
stop being so defensive.

> OPS+
> Hornsby - 176
> Collins - 142
> Morgan - 133
>
> You call this margin "too small?"

Is OPS+ the last word on the subject?

> So you'll leave a guy off because of your immature response to others (in your
> opinion) overrating him? What kind of analyst are you, allowing your emotions
> to get invloved like that?

Who said I was an analyst? And if I'm immature, what are you for
instantly going into attack mode?

> >CF Mays, Cobb, Mantle
>
> Where the hell is Speaker? I'd take him over Cobb. What about Charleston?

Speaker had at least one year better than Cobb ever produced, but I'm
not convinced he wins out over his contemporary for the whole career.

> >RF Ruth
>
> No Aaron?

Is Aaron one of the two best players to play the game? Whether I put
Ruth in left or right, he has to go into the outfield.

>
> >RHS Johnson, Seaver, Clemens
>
> Alexander has to be here, as well as Young and Nichols, and perhaps Mathewson.

I wasn't going for a whole starting rotation, just the top guy. The
only reason not to believe Johnson is that guy with his massive
innings and high efficiency per inning is if the game has gotten
substantially harder, in which case Seaver or Clemens is the better
pitcher.

> >LHS Grove, Spahn, Carlton
>
> Carlton doesn't belong, with his measley 115 career ERA+

Okay, drop Carlton.
 >> Stay informed about: What does this All Time team have in common? 

Double Dog Mosey <john DeleteThis @mosey.commuicate> wrote in message news:<bkf4b201g6s DeleteThis @drn.newsguy.com>...
> I'd also remember Hornsby, Henderson and Matthews if this is a "you are stupid
> if you include anyone but these guys" list.

Well, I gave my reason for not listing Hornsby. I can't very well
include Henderson in left field if I'm leaving Musial off. Mathews
just doesn't beat out Schmidt, because he falls just short at bat and
he falls even shorter with the glove.

> I tried but even witha 160s OPS+ Frank Thomas can't play on this team.

Except perhaps at DH.<g> Nah, if we had a DH, then it would be Bonds
in left and Williams at DH.

> If it was a "team" and I wanted a utility guy or two I'd nominate Molitor and
> Yount (though that is an admitted personal bias)

Wasn't meant to be a team, just a list of guys one might argue for as
the top guy, hence Schmidt and Wagner being alone since I don't think
there's any real argument for anyone else. The tiny few who could hit
like them couldn't field like them, and the larger number who could
field like them couldn't hit like them.
 >> Stay informed about: What does this All Time team have in common? 

FossDavidR DeleteThis @aol.com (David Foss) wrote in message news:<1976b918.0309190859.7be1223f DeleteThis @posting.google.com>...
> OK... now I've read James and it seems that Bill is the one that has
> the personal bias against Hornsby. He thinks Rogers is a jerk and
> practically openly admits to downgrading him for this reason. Fair
> enough, but a 175 OPS+ with all those Triple Crowns deserves to get
> him on the short list above in my opinion.

Perhaps I should have still included him, but at least I was honest
about my reasons for not wanting to.
 >> Stay informed about: What does this All Time team have in common? 

masseyd.RemoveThis@valhalla.btv.ibm.com (Douglas T. (Doug) Massey ) wrote in message news:<bkf4lc$pmu$2@news.btv.ibm.com>...
> This is an extremely odd conclusion,

As odd as leaving Morgan and Collins out?

> considering that Hornsby's OPS+ -- adjusted for era and park -- is 175

How sure are we that OPS+ is last word? Just how good is that
adjustment?

> But if that's the case, then you should do the same for hitters.

True, but I didn't say I knew it to be the case. Perhaps I should
just have left it at Johnson and Grove.
 >> Stay informed about: What does this All Time team have in common?