Half the Guys Are Gone

For today's post, I''m just going to share some data I've compiled and you can make of it what you will.

At what point are half the players on a team deceased? If the total number of players (let's call it variable n) is odd, it'd be when the number of deceased players is equal to (n + 1 / 2). If you have an even number of players, it's when the number of deceased players is (n / 2). I looked at the years that were multiples of ten between 1910 and 1960 to see which players marked the halfway point of the players being deceased for each of them, and also how long it took to occur. For a couple from 1960, they didn't even reach that level till earlier this year. I also looked at how it compared to the average age of the team to see how strong the correlation was.

1910	Name	Death Date	Years	Avg Age
Pittsburg	Howie Camnitz	3/2/1960	50	28.3
Philadelphia (AL)	Jack Coombs	4/15/1957	47	27.6
Cincinnati	Frank Roth	3/27/1955	45	26.2
Cleveland	Heinie Berger	2/10/1954	44	28.2
Boston (AL)	Bunny Madden	1/20/1954	44	25.5
Chicago (AL)	Fred Payne	1/16/1954	44	27.1
Brooklyn	Rube Dessau	5/6/1952	42	25.9
New York (NL)	Doc Crandall	8/17/1951	41	25.7
Washington	Doc Ralston	8/29/1950	40	27.9
Boston (NL)	Jim Riley	3/25/1949	39	26.5
Detroit	Marv Peasley	12/27/1948	38	27.8
New York (AL)	Walter Blair	8/20/1948	38	27.4
St. Louis (NL)	Rebel Oakes	3/1/1948	38	26.4
Chicago (NL)	Mordecai Brown	2/14/1948	38	29.0
St. Louis (AL)	Hub Northen	10/1/1947	37	28.2
Philadelphia (NL)	Kitty Bransfield	5/1/1947	37	29.0
MLB AVG			41.4	27.3

r = -0.18

1920	Name	Death Date	Years	Avg Age
Pittsburgh	Billy Southworth	11/15/1969	49	27.6
Philadelphia (AL)	Chick Galloway	11/7/1969	49	24.7
New York (AL)	Rip Collins	5/27/1968	48	27.8
Cleveland	Ray Caldwell	8/17/1967	47	29.3
Brooklyn	Doug Baird	6/13/1967	47	30.1
Chicago (NL)	Hippo Vaughn	5/29/1966	46	29.3
Philadelphia (NL)	Gene Paulette	2/8/1966	46	28.9
Washington	Bill Hollahan	11/27/1965	45	27.2
Cincinnati	Jimmy Ring	7/6/1965	45	29.1
Boston (AL)	Wally Schang	3/6/1965	45	28.1
Detroit	Oscar Stanage	11/11/1964	44	28.9
St. Louis (AL)	Roy Sanders	7/8/1963	43	28.5
Chicago (AL)	Dickey Kerr	5/4/1963	43	29.4
Boston (NL)	Ray Powell	10/16/1962	42	27.9
St. Louis (NL)	Burt Shotton	7/29/1962	42	26.4
New York (NL)	Frank Snyder	1/5/1962	42	26.9
MLB AVG			45.2	28.1

r = -0.06

1930	Name	Death Date	Years	Avg Age
New York (NL)	Hughie Critz	1/10/1980	50	27.2
Cleveland	Milt Shoffner	1/19/1978	48	27.3
Boston (NL)	Lance Richbourg	9/10/1975	45	29.6
Cincinnati	Marty Callaghan	6/23/1975	45	29.6
New York (AL)	Ownie Carroll	6/8/1975	45	27.0
Detroit	Jimmy Shevlin	10/30/1974	44	26.7
Pittsburgh	Steve Swetonic	4/22/1974	44	26.7
Chicago (AL)	Bennie Tate	10/27/1973	43	27.4
St. Louis (NL)	Frankie Frisch	3/12/1973	43	29.6
Chicago (NL)	Danny Taylor	10/11/1972	42	29.4
Boston (AL)	Charlie Berry	9/6/1972	42	28.6
St. Louis (AL)	General Crowder	4/3/1972	42	28.7
Brooklyn	Ray Phelps	7/7/1971	41	28.9
Philadelphia (NL)	Tripp Sigman	3/8/1971	41	27.1
Washington	Bobby Burke	2/8/1971	41	29.1
Philadelphia (AL)	Pinky Higgins	3/21/1969	39	28.7
MLB AVG			43.4	28.2

r = -0.35

1940	Name	Death Date	Years	Avg Age
Boston (NL)	Hank Majeski	8/9/1991	51	26.3
Philadelphia (AL)	Wally Moses	10/10/1990	50	26.9
New York (NL)	Mickey Witek	8/24/1990	50	28.7
Philadelphia (NL)	Neb Stewart	6/8/1990	50	27.4
St. Louis (NL)	Creepy Crespi	3/1/1990	50	27.1
New York (AL)	Lefty Gomez	2/17/1989	49	28.1
Chicago (NL)	Zeke Bonura	3/9/1987	47	28.9
Cincinnati	Vince DiMaggio	10/3/1986	46	28.8
Detroit	Hank Greenberg	9/4/1986	46	29.4
St. Louis (AL)	George Susce	2/25/1986	46	28.2
Washington	Sam West	11/23/1985	45	26.8
Boston (AL)	Joe Glenn	5/6/1985	45	28.1
Cleveland	Hank Helf	10/27/1984	44	26.7
Brooklyn	Gus Mancuso	10/26/1984	44	28.4
Chicago (AL)	Joe Kuhel	2/26/1984	44	29.4
Pittsburgh	Ed Leip	11/24/1983	43	27.6
MLB AVG			46.9	27.9

r = -0.31

1950	Name	Death Date	Years	Avg Age
Washington	Sandy Consuegra	11/16/2005	55	28.6
St. Louis (AL)	Ribs Raney	7/7/2003	53	25.5
New York (AL)	Joe Ostrowski	1/3/2003	53	29.2
Chicago (NL)	Harry Chiti	1/31/2002	52	27.5
Boston (AL)	Bob Gillespie	11/4/2001	51	29.8
New York (NL)	Bill Rigney	2/20/2001	51	27.0
St. Louis (NL)	Tom Poholsky	1/6/2001	51	29.1
Boston (NL)	Willard Marshall	11/5/2000	50	29.2
Chicago (AL)	John Perkovich	9/16/2000	50	28.4
Philadelphia (NL)	Ken Heintzelman	8/14/2000	50	26.5
Brooklyn	Pee Wee Reese	8/14/1999	49	27.5
Cleveland	Early Wynn	4/4/1999	49	29.2
Philadelphia (AL)	Ben Guintini	12/2/1998	48	31.2
Detroit	Hal Newhouser	11/10/1998	48	28.2
Pittsburgh	Stan Rojek	7/9/1997	47	28.6
Cincinnati	Bobby Adams	2/13/1997	47	27.5
MLB AVG			50.3	28.3

r = -0.19

1960	Name	Death Date	Years	Avg Age
Cleveland	Tito Francona	2/13/2018	58	28.2
Los Angeles	Wally Moon	2/9/2018	58	27.7
Detroit	Chico Fernandez	6/11/2016	56	28.6
San Francisco	Jim Davenport	2/18/2016	56	26.8
Kansas City	Ken Johnson	11/21/2015	55	28.3
St. Louis	Ray Sadecki	11/17/2014	54	28.6
Philadelphia	Al Dark	11/13/2014	54	26.1
Chicago (AL)	Gene Freese	6/19/2013	53	30.8
Milwaukee	Stan Lopata	6/15/2013	53	30.0
Boston	Tom Borland	3/2/2013	53	29.0
Chicago (NL)	Ed Bouchee	1/23/2013	53	28.1
Washington	Don Mincher	3/4/2012	52	27.4
New York	Andy Carey	12/15/2011	51	28.1
Pittsburgh	Gino Cimoli	2/12/2011	51	28.6
Baltimore	Al Pilarcik	9/20/2010	50	27.8
Cincinnati	Whitey Lockman	3/17/2009	49	27.3
MLB AVG			53.5	28.2

r = -0.05


The r variable, for anyone unaware, shows the strength of correlation. A negative number, as we see in each of these cases, shows that the higher the number of years until a team reaches the halfway point, the younger the average age of the team is. That's consistent with what we'd expect, but as we can see, the correlation isn't particularly strong in any of these cases. There's no higher than a 35% correlation in any instance, and in some cases it's close to zero.

I'm also not sure why from 1920 to 1930 the average number of years till a team reached the halfway point actually dropped. You'd think we'd see a steady rise, considering the increases in life expectancy over time.

I suppose I'll have to compile the data for more years than just these, to see if we can spot any trends, because six different years isn't exactly the largest sample size. We'll see what comes of that. To be continued? Maybe?

Redistributing the Wealth, Part 2

My last post had the honor of being linked by one Tom Tango. If you still remember it all these weeks later, it was the one where I continued what Joe Posnanski started by swapping 500 walks for 400 singles from various players' career batting lines and figuring out who they best compare to. Tango mentioned that the same thing could be done with other types of hits, and the one that piqued my interest was the possible swap of 500 walks for 180 homers.

While mainstream baseball thinking is moving away from using counting stats as a measuring stick for a player's value, there's no question that home run totals still make our eyes pop out once they reach certain levels. Let's see how differently we'd perceive certain players if we increased their power output and decreased their patience at the plate. Would they look more like Hall of Famers to the untrained eye?

Before we begin, there's one thing I'd like to note: This exercise works best when the comparable player plays the same position, or at least a similar one. Though I ran the numbers with many players, I excluded them from this post if a good positional comp didn't turn up. Something about comparing Ken Singleton to Andres Galarraga just didn't seem right.

Let's start with everyone's favorite extreme walker, Eddie Yost:

Real line: .254/.394/.371, 139 homers
New line: .260/.359/.440, 319 homers
Comparable: Robin Ventura (.267/.362/.444, 294 homers) or Ron Cey (.261/.354/.445, 316 homers)

About as perfect as you can get. Yost's offensive numbers compare quite well to two solid Hall-of-Very-Good third basemen, giving us a much clearer picture of how valuable his bat was (his glove is another story, as that career -12.2 dWAR is glaring).

Max Bishop

Real line: .271/.423/.366, 41 homers
New line: .280/.367/.474, 221 homers
Comparable: Joe Gordon (.268/.357/.466, 253 homers)

It's hard to find a close second base comparable for Bishop's new numbers, but it's interesting to note that he's ahead of Gordon in each category except total homers. Granted, Gordon didn't make the Hall until the VC put him in two years ago, but with numbers like these, Bishop probably would've gotten more talk.

Eddie Joost

Real line: .239/.361/.366, 134 homers
New line: .249/.314/.453, 314 homers
Comparable: Jose Valentin (.243/.321/.448, 249 homers)

Looking at career averages doesn't always give you the best statistical profile of a player. Joost essentially had two careers: one as a light-hitter who bounced around the infield (.225/.311/.301, 13 homers, 74 OPS+ from 1936-45) and the other as a power-hitting full-time shortstop (.248/.389/.404, 121 homers, 113 OPS+ from 1947-55). In this case though, there's some degree of similarity between Joost and his comp.

Valentin's change wasn't quite as drastic, though it is noticeable. From 1992-99 (his entire Brewers career) he put up a line of .240/.323/.421, 90 homers, 89 OPS+ while playing mostly shortstop. From 2000-07 his line was .246/.320/.468, 159 homers, 101 OPS+ while he bounced around the infield. The batting and on-base averages are pretty consistent, but that slugging sure jumped. Another interesting note: both players' shifts happened around age 30. Discoveries like these are one reason I love baseball.

Keith Hernandez

Real line: .296/.384/.436, 162 homers
New line: .300/.347/.500, 342 homers
Comparable: Orlando Cepeda (.297/.350/.499, 379 homers)

It's rare to see a hypothetical line end up being this close to a real one from a Hall of Famer at the same position. I fully acknowledge that Cepeda's a borderline inductee, but when one considers how much value Hernandez added with his glove (as opposed to the stick-first Cepeda), it only furthers my belief that Keith Hernandez belongs in the Hall of Fame.

Roy White

Real line: .271/.360/.404, 160 homers
New line: .277/.318/.476, 340 homers
Comparable: George Bell (.278/.316/.469, 265 homers)

Roy White is an often-overlooked player, but he wasn't that far off from a short-peaked slugger who once won the MVP.

John Olerud

Real line: .295/.398/.465, 255 homers
New line: .299/.363/.525, 435 homers
Comparable: Hal Trosky (.302/.371/.522, 228 homers)

Would Hal Trosky have been a Hall of Famer if his career had been longer? We can't be certain. Would Olerud be considered a stronger Hall candidate if he'd combined home run totals like these with a near-.300 average? We probably can be certain.

Jack Clark

Real line: .267/.379/.476, 340 homers
New line: .273/.340/.541, 520 homers
Comparable: Sammy Sosa (.273/.344/.534, 609 homers)

Now here are two players I never would've thought to compare. Sosa had the better glove, but he also played in much higher-scoring era, which makes his offensive output less impressive than Clark's. Indeed, they're pretty close in WAR (56.5 for Clark, 59.7 for Sosa).

Some players are easier to find comparables for if we only go halfway on the tradeoff How about we only swap 250 walks for 90 homers?

Dwight Evans

Real line: .272/.370/.470, 385 homers
New line: .274/.355/.496, 475 homers
Comparable: Frank Howard (.273/.352/.499, 382 homers)

If Howard had had Evans' defensive abilities and longevity he'd have a legitimate argument for the Hall of Fame. Evans is a borderline case himself, but I wouldn't consider it a black mark against the Hall if he were to be inducted someday.

Rusty Staub

Real line: .279/.362/.431, 292 homers
New line: .281/.348/.456, 382 homers
Comparable: Harold Baines (.289/.356/.465, 384 homers)

While Harold has his supporters, the majority opinion seems to be that he's not a Hall of Famer (and I'm with them on that). Staub stayed on the ballot for seven years, while Baines dropped off this year after just five. Considering the rate at which baseball thinking has advanced and the makeup of the writers has changed since Staub's candidacy, that sounds about right.

Lou Whitaker

Real line: .276/.363/.426, 244 homers
New line: .279/.347/.455, 334 homers
Comparable: Ryne Sandberg (.285/.344/.452, 282 homers)

Are 201 stolen bases and 38 homers really the only difference between a third-ballot Hall of Famer and a first-ballot dropoff?

Of course, there's the flipside to this exercise. What about those guys who hit a ton of homers but barely walked? How would they look with less force and more finesse?

Dave Kingman

Real line: .236/.302/.478, 442 homers
New line: .226/.345/.400, 262 homers
Comparable: Wayne Gross (.233/.337/.395, 121 homers)

I'm only including this one because I know Kingman was the first name that popped into many of your heads. Gross isn't an ideal comp due to his much-shorter career, but hey, Kingman did play a bit of third base when he first came up. Our suspicions are confirmed though, that Kong was nothing resembling a star player.

Andre Dawson

Real line: .279/.323/.482, 438 homers
New line: .275/.353/.431, 258 homers
Comparable: Dusty Baker (.278/.347/.432, 242 homers)

The biggest advantage Dawson has over Baker is that he stayed in center field longer. Well, that and the "Hawk" nickname. "Dusty" has a much more easygoing feel to it.

Juan Gonzalez

Real line: .295/.343/.561, 434 homers
New line: .290/.388/.488, 254 homers
Comparable: Tim Salmon (.282/.385/.498, 299 homers) or Larry Doby (.283/.386/.490, 253 homers)

Doby isn't the best comparison, as he was a center fielder, but the stats were so close I had to share them here. Salmon is a much better illustration of how un-Hall-worthy Juan Gone is, as he was a contemporary and a fellow corner outfielder.

Willie Horton

Real line: .273/.332/.457, 325 homers
New line: .267/.372/.384, 145 homers
Comparable: Tony Phillips (.266/.374/.389, 160 homers)

Fascinating! Horton's comp is another Tiger left fielder!

Tony Perez

Real line: .279/.341/.463, 379 homers
New line: .275/.370/.411, 199 homers
Comparable: Ron Fairly (.266/.360/.408, 215 homers)

No sir, nothing says "Hall of Famer" like being just a few notches above Ron Fairly.

Joe Adcock

Real line: .277/.337/.485, 336 homers
New line: .271/.381/.407, 156 homers
Comparable: Earl Torgeson (.265/.385/.417, 149 homers)

You know, I'd never realized how good Torgeson's on-base skills were. I'd always thought of him as an Overbay-esque first baseman who resembled a schoolteacher. A closer look at the stats suggests he was more of a Randy Milligan.

I once heard it said that Adcock could've had a Hall of Fame career had he not been injured and platooned. Perhaps that's true. Of course, a "Hall of Fame career" doesn't necessarily mean he would've been a worthy selection, only that he would've managed to get inducted.

Matt Williams

Real line: .268/.317/.489, 378 homers
New line: .261/.359/.415, 198 homers
Comparable: Sal Bando (.254/.352/.408, 242 homers)

Matt Williams was an interesting figure. Back when I was a teenager he felt like a great player, or at least something just below that level. Giant fans seemed to revere him, and by all accounts he was the type of guy any team would want on their roster. Now that I'm older and the passage of time has allowed for some perspective, I can see that he had one glaring flaw: he simply did not walk. He had great power, he had a good glove at third, but that .317 OBP is unacceptable, particularly for the high-offense era he played in.

If Williams lost some of that power and replaced it with on-base skills he'd be a touch ahead of a third baseman who has a much better Hall argument than many people realize. Of course, Bando's still borderline, and when we account for era he comes out ahead of Williams.

Vada Pinson

Real line: .286/.327/.442, 256 homers
New line: .282/.358/.388, 76 homers
Comparable: Max Carey (.285/.361/.386, 70 homers)

Now here's a discussion we could have: did Vada Pinson's balance of skills prevent him from a Hall of Fame career? Pinson is similar to Carey in many ways: both were fleet-footed center fielders who shifted to corner outfield positions in their later years. Pinson's career WAR was 49.3, Carey's was 50.6. Both spent a significant portion of their career in a low-scoring era. The difference is that Carey's game was built on walks and speed, while Pinson's was built on power and speed. If Pinson had been a walks-and-speed guy, could he have been a dominant leadoff man instead of a very good #2/#3 hitter?

While Carey's WAR isn't going to astound anyone (admittedly, without play-by-play data for Carey's career the stat is less reliable), those ten seasons of leading the league in steals are bound to turn some heads. Pinson's prime years weren't exactly a golden age for stolen bases, so on the surface his steal totals appear good-but-not-great. You might be surprised to learn that while Pinson never led the league in that category, he finished in the top five seven times, including four times in the top three. If his speed had been used at the top of the order, who knows? He might've been able to put some black ink in the steals column. It certainly helped Carey, Lou Brock (39.1 WAR) and Luis Aparicio (49.9 WAR).

Ernie Banks

Real line: .274/.330/.500, 512 homers
New line: .269/.361/.447, 332 homers
Comparable: Chili Davis (.274/.360/.451, 350 homers)

Banks is lucky he came up as a shortstop, because the first half of his career is the only thing that separates him from a very good outfielder/DH.

Finally, here's one that works best if we only go halfway:

Dave Parker

Real line: .290/.339/.471, 339 homers
New line: .288/.355/.444, 249 homers
Comparable: Andy Pafko (.285/.350/.449, 213 homers)

I'm not sure what "Pruschka" means, but I'm guessing it doesn't translate into "Cobra."

Redistributing the Wealth

Joe Posnanski's recent column about exchanging walks for hits fascinated me. Numbers have long been an integral part of baseball (perhaps now moreso than ever before), and the very idea of re-imagining a player's career with a different statistical profile is sure to start a history geek's pulse racing. If you haven't read the piece yet, click on that link above and enjoy it for yourself before continuing any further.

Joe openly admits that he isn't the most technically-proficient stat-manipulator, and indeed, it does seem a little awkward that in his exercise 175 plate appearances simply vaporize from each player's career. Sabermetric legend Tom Tango left a comment though, stating that one could keep the plate appearances constant by exchanging 500 walks for 400 singles and 100 outs, leaving the player's overall value unchanged. Hey, I'm all for precision when possible, so it occurred to me that I could improve on Joe's work by making more precise calculations; that turned out not to be necessary, as Joe's calculations were pretty close to the ones I got. As long as you don't mind a few percentage points being off, you're fine if you stick with the original piece for the players he mentioned (it's much better-written anyway).

Even so, I knew there was further potential in this concept. If you shuffled the hits and walks from some other players' career lines, who would they be comparable to, if anyone?

One fascinating, statistically-quirky player is Eddie Yost, who demonstrated only one skill consistently in eighteen Major league seasons: the ability to draw walks (hence his nickname, "The Walking Man"). He finished his career with a truly unique line of .254/.394/.371. Even stranger, this production was coming from a third baseman! Could you imagine getting that type of production from the hot corner today? So how does Yost look if we exchange 500 walks for 400 singles and 100 outs?

New line: .288/.383/.399
Comparable: Kevin Seitzer (.295/.375/.404)

Chuck Knoblauch (.288/.378/.406) is actually a bit closer in batting line, but Seitzer works better as a comp because he played the same position. Let's take it a bit further though, and do another 500-for-400 swap.

New line: .319/.372/.423
Comparable: Cecil Travis (.314/.370/.416)

Travis was primarily a shortstop, but he also played a significant amount of third base.

There's an interesting development here though: Yost is suddenly better in each category than Hall of Famer George Kell (.306/.367/.414)! Now, I realize the general consensus these days is that Kell was a poor selection, but if Yost had put up this line, might he have been inducted instead? My first instinct says no, as Kell had a prominent broadcasting career and was selected to ten All-Star teams (Yost only made the All-Star team once). However, considering they were both lifetime American Leaguers from the same era at the same position, it's possible Yost would've taken some of those selections away from Kell. The mind wonders.

Just for fun, let's put another 400 singles on Yost's resume.

New line: .346/.361/.444
Comparable: None

At this point Yost has only 114 career walks and 3,063 career hits, making him the anti-Walking Man and the emptiest .340 hitter of all time. If he had managed to put up this line he either would've been elected to the Hall of Fame on the first ballot or he would've initiated the discussion about the true value of 3,000 hits sooner.

Personally, I associate Yost with the other walking Eddies of his era. We might as well take a look at each of them too.

Eddie Joost

Real line: .239/.361/.366
New line: .285/.346/.401
Comparable: Tony Fernandez (.288/.347/.399)

Not bad company.

Eddie Stanky

Real line: .268/.410/.348
New line: .324/.391/.395
Comparable: Luke Appling (.310/.399/.398)

As you can see, doing this exercise with short-career guys like Stanky affects their numbers more drastically. At least that .324 batting average would've left him unable only to run and throw, and it would've won him a comparison to a Hall of Fame infielder.

Eddie Lake

Real line: .231/.366/.323
New line: .323/.334/.400
Comparable: None

OK, now we're getting to a really obscure guy, but he was one of the four eagle-eyed Eddies. With an even shorter career than Stanky, he simply becomes his own inverse with a 500-for-400 swap. What if we only go halfway, deducting 250 walks and adding 200 singles?

New line: .281/.350/.365
Comparable: Dave Bancroft (.279/.355/.358)

Not bad. Now he compares to a lower-tier Hall of Famer, except his career was less than half as long.

As long as we're on the subject of patient infielders, how about Max Bishop, who probably would've been named Eddie had he been born about 20 years later?

Real line: .271/.423/.366
New line: .324/.405/.409
Comparable: Luke Appling (.310/.399/.398)

Pretty good. Very similar to Stanky and the same Hall of Fame comparable (albeit at a tougher position). With that .324 average Bishop might've been a Hall of Famer himself. Of course, when you think of Max Bishop you probably think of his awesome nickname "Camera Eye," so would the tradeoff really be worth it?

At this point, some of you are probably getting bored looking at these scrubs. You probably want to see the guys who are in the Hall of Fame debate. Fair enough. Let's look at some of them.

Not that anyone questions the eye-popping nature of Barry Bonds' numbers, but let's see how they'd look with a higher batting average attached to them:

Real line: .298/.444/.607
New line: .322/.436/.616
Comparable: Jimmie Foxx (.325/.428/.609)

Still a no-doubt inner-circle Hall of Famer. How about another swap?

New line: .344/.428/.625
Comparable: Albert Pujols (.331/.426/.624)

Yes, Pujols is still active, but let's be honest, Pujols could retire today and make the Hall on the first ballot. Say what you will about Bonds, you can't deny that he put up some incredible numbers (and I suppose his critics could use the word "incredible" multiple ways).

Ron Santo

Real line: .277/.362/.464
New line: .307/.352/.484
Comparable: Tony Oliva (.304/.353/.476)

Well, it's not the best comparison, but considering Oliva has a Hall of Fame argument with those numbers as a right fielder, how much better is Santo's case with slightly better numbers as a third baseman? I'm sure Santo would take this new line, and that .300 average would've gotten him inducted long ago.

How about another Cub third baseman, Stan Hack?

Real line: .301/.394/.397
New line: .333/.382/.423
Comparable: Rod Carew (.328/.393/.429)

Since Carew played both second and first, we can split the difference, as third falls between them on the defensive spectrum. Hack probably would've made the Hall with that line, and guys like George Kell probably would've been overlooked later on because they didn't measure up to Hack's standard.

As long as we're discussing third basemen, how about some others who manned the tweener station?

Graig Nettles

Real line: .248/.329/.421
New line: .277/.319/.441
Comparable: Shea Hillenbrand (.284/.321/.440)

Has anyone ever noticed what an odd career Shea Hillenbrand had? Seven seasons, two-time All-Star (starting in 2002), six different franchises, out of the bigs at age 32. He may be the least-distinguished comp so far, but there was definitely some talent there. If he hadn't been such a difficult personality, who knows what might have been?

As for Nettles (the guy we really should be talking about), his value was tied almost entirely to his defense and slugging, but he was good enough at both that his Hall case is stronger than many people realize. I'm not sure if this new line would've drastically improved his chances, but it might've bought him a few extra years on the ballot (Nettles dropped off after his fourth year).

Darrell Evans

Real line: .248/.361/.431
New line: .277/.352/.450
Comparable: Ken Caminiti (.272/.347/.447)

As you can see, Evans is basically Nettles with better on-base skills. His glove was only average, though, so like Nettles, this new line might not have done anything but buy him a few extra years on the ballot. What if we made another tradeoff?

New line: .303/.342/.468
Comparable: Cecil Cooper (.298/.337/.466)

I'm not a proponent of Evans for the Hall, but with 414 homers and a .300 average he likely would've made it. Of course, with that .342 OBP, he'd probably be considered overrated today rather than underrated.

Who's that comp? Cecil Cooper? No, it's not entirely fair, as Evans betters him in each category, had a longer career and played third base too, but even if Cooper had been a third baseman he probably would've gone down in history as good-but-not-great. As long as we're here, let's do something a little different. Let's add some walks to Cooper's line, take away a few singles and see who it compares to.

New line: .262/.349/.442
Comparable: Ron Cey (.261/.354/.445)

Perfect. A third baseman. Ron Cey was a very good player, but I don't think anyone would argue he's a few average points short of being an all-time great. Speaking of D. Evans though, what about that other one, Dwight Evans?

Real line: .272/.370/.470
New line: .300/.360/.488
Comparable: George Brett (.305/.369/.487)

Wow! Who knew that Dwight Evans' offensive numbers were potentially just a notch below George Brett's? He'd probably have a plaque in Cooperstown right now with this line.

Dick Allen

Real line: .292/.378/.534
New line: .329/.364/.553
Comparable: None

.329? During the Second Deadall Era? What personality issues?

Bobby Grich

Real line: .266/.371/.424
New line: .302/.358/.449
Comparable: Roberto Alomar (.300/.371/.443)

Boy oh boy, do you think Grich wouldn't love to cash in those walks right about now? True, Alomar was a better baserunner, but Grich was better defensively, so let's call it even.

Even though he's nothing close to a Hall of Fame candidate, how about the patron saint of the Three True Outcomes, Rob Deer?

Real line: .220/.324/.442
New line: .255/.313/.464
Comparable: Joe Carter (.259/.306/.464)

Well, at least he resembles a well-known, popular player. What if we did it again?

New line: .286/.302/.483
Comparable: None

He looks more respectable with that .286 batting average, but that .302 ain't gonna cut it. It would seem that the only thing that makes Rob Deer interesting is the extreme nature of his stats; he and Gorman Thomas are the only players with over 200 career homers and a batting average lower than .230 (it should come as no surprise that Thomas has an almost identical batting line to Deer's: .225/.324/.448). Just out of curiosity though, what if Deer were an even more extreme Three True Outcomes type? What would happen if we took away 400 singles, 100 outs and added 500 walks?

New line: .134/.346/.390

Now, that's just ridiculous. He has fewer career singles than doubles at this point! Besides that, if he were this bad at getting hits he probably wouldn't draw as many walks, since pitchers wouldn't be afraid to pound the zone against him. What if we went halfway and added only 250 walks and took away only 200 singles?

New line: .180/.335/.418

Still ridiculous, but at least closer to realistic. If Deer had put up this line for his career he'd be legendary.

As long as we're going the other way now, let's see how some well-known hitters who could stand to walk more would look if we took away some singles and added a few base on balls?

I've tried to avoid active players in this post, but I know Ichiro Suzuki's name was the first one that popped into many heads, so we'll make an exception for him.

Real line: .331/.376/.430
New line: .294/.389/.400
Comparable: Mike Griffin (.296/.388/.407)

So if Ichiro Suzuki drew more walks and hit fewer singles he'd be a 19th-Century outfielder. It doesn't account for his defense and baserunning, of course, but it gives you a good idea of how old-school a player the guy is.

Al Oliver

Real line: .303/.344/.451
New line: .274/.354/.431
Comparable: Rusty Staub (.279/.362/.431)

Question: Would Al Oliver's career have lasted as long as it did if he weren't such a good singles hitter? Oliver stuck around for 18 seasons trying to make a run at 3,000 hits, a mark he missed by 257. If he'd put up this type of line he might've retired earlier knowing he didn't have a shot.

Juan Gonzalez

Real line: .295/.343/.561
New line: .254/.357/.541
Comparable: Adam Dunn (.250/.381/.521)

Juan Gone suddenly places in the top ten all-time in Isolated Power. Not bad, but it doesn't make him any more Hall-worthy. I know the Dunn comp is a slight stretch based on numbers alone (and I'm violating my attempted no-active players policy), but Gonzalez with the new line is the perfect example of a Dunn type.

Dave Kingman

Real line: .236/.302/.478
New line: .190/.315/.452
Comparable: None

Is it really worth going below the Mendoza line just to be able to say you're patient at the plate? That OBP is still nothing special. Like we did with Deer, let's try another swap of singles-for-walks.

New line: .137/.329/.421

When you have to bring your BA down to .137 just to get your OBP up to league average, you probably aren't that great of a hitter.

How about we turn to some Hall of Famers? Let's see how the careers of some immortalized players would appear if we monkeyed with their stats.

Mickey Mantle

Real line: .298/.421/.557
New line: .327/.410/.571
Comparable: Stan Musial (.331/.417/.559)

Mantle was disappointed that he didn't finish his career with a .300 batting average (spending your final years during the Second Deadball Era will do that for you), so I'm sure he would've made this tradeoff if he could've.

Brooks Robinson

Real line: .267/.322/.401
New line: .291/.313/.419
Comparable: Garry Maddox (.285/.320/.413)

Robinson was such an outstanding defensive player that his Hall of Fame credentials aren't in doubt. However, he could hit a little too, a fact that often gets overlooked. With his new .291 batting average would he be remembered for greatness on both sides of the ball rather than just one? Given that his (admittedly imperfect) comp was remembered mainly for his defense too, it's possible his offense would remain underappreciated.

Luis Aparicio

Real line: .262/.311/.343
New line: .234/.320/.319
Comparable: Monte Cross (.234/.316/.313)

While this new line is equally valuable on a pure linear weights basis, might it have been more valuable in actuality, because Aparicio batted leadoff for much of his career? Granted, his OBP is still below league average, but if you had to bat him leadoff, wouldn't you rather have the second option?

Andre Dawson

Real line: .279/.323/.482
New line: .252/.333/.465
Comparable: Jesse Barfield (.256/.335/.466)

Amazingly, Barfield and Dawson were very similar players. Both were outfielders who played right and center, and both had great arms. If Barfield hadn't had his career cut short by a wrist injury, he might've found his way into some Hall of Fame arguments.

Jim Rice

Real line: .298/.352/.502
New line: .266/.363/.483
Comparable: Rocky Colavito (.266/.359/.489)

The walking-er Jim Ed is very respectable, but not exactly all-time great material.

George Sisler

Real line: .340/.379/.468
New line: .311/.391/.447
Comparable: Mark Grace (.303/.383/.442)

OK, so he's actually a bit ahead of Grace. It's just funny to put these two together. We all know Sisler's incredible peak is the real reason he's in the Hall, while Grace put up these numbers more consistently throughout his career.

Ernie Banks

Real line: .274/.330/.500
New line: .245/.340/.483
Comparable: Cecil Fielder (.255/.345/.482)

Banks is an interesting case. Most of his career value comes from the first half, when he played shortstop and put up numbers above and beyond the expectations for the position. The second half he spent as an average-to-below-average first baseman who padded his resume by compiling power numbers (I once saw someone call it "Alex Rodriguez turning into Eric Karros halfway through his career," a description that really nailed it). Those 500 homers may have helped Banks get into Cooperstown, but it's his early peak that makes him truly worthy.

Tony Gwynn

Real line: .338/.388/.459
New line: .312/.398/.439
Comparable: Elmer "Mike" Smith (.310/.398/.434)

Like Suzuki, an obscure 19th-Century outfielder is Gwynn's best comp.

Wee Willie Keeler

Real line: .341/.388/.415
New line: .313/.399/.391
Comparable: Richie Ashburn (.308/.396/.382)

Keeler's a bit ahead of Ashburn offensively, but it's the least we could expect for putting him in right field rather than center.

Harmon Killebrew

Real line: .256/.376/.509
New line: .287/.365/.525
Comparable: Willie Stargell (.282/.360/.529)

Two poor-fielding Hall of Fame brethren.

Rabbit Maranville

Real line: .258/.318/.340
New line: .284/.309/.361
Comparable: Garry Templeton (.271/.304/.369)

Maranville's defense must've been a lot better than we have the ability to measure, since his offense doesn't compare to anyone particularly great. Where was UZR when we needed it?

Roberto Clemente

Real line: .317/.359/.475
New line: .290/.369/.457
Comparable: Bruce Campbell (.290/.367/.455)

Like Brooks Robinson, Clemente is hardly a questionable selection, though a big portion of his value comes from his stellar defense. This new line is almost a dead ringer for a journeyman right fielder from the 1930's, but of course, the comparison isn't exactly fair, as the 1930's were a notably higher-scoring era than Clemente's 1960's. Clemente is considered overrated to a degree because his OBP was very BA-dependent, but he might actually be underrated today if he put up this line for his career.

Al Kaline

Real line: .297/.376/.480
New line: .321/.367/.495
Comparable: Joe Medwick (.324/.362/.505)

I don't have much to say here. I just thought it was cool that his best comp was a Hall of Famer (albeit a less-glorious one, due to the same issues as I mentioned above).

Willie McCovey

Real line: .270/.374/.515
New line: .300/.364/.531
Comparable: Hal Trosky (.302/.371/.522)

Once again we see a player whose peak came during the Second Deadball Era compare to a lesser player from the 1930's. Maybe we could try it the other way around?

Heinie Manush

Real line: .330/.377/.479
New line: .297/.389/.456
Comparable: Minnie Minoso (.298/.389/.459)

Well OK, Minoso's peak was during the 1950's, not the '60s, but it's still a good example of how out-of-control offense was during the Roaring 20's and subsequent Depression. I think most people would agree that Minoso, while not a sure-fire Hall of Famer, is more deserving of the spot Manush currently occupies.

As I've acknowledged throughout this piece, I'm aware that there are flaws to this exercise, and that I'm not much better than Joe Posnanski at playing with numbers, if at all. Still, hypotheticals are fun, and if baseball can't be fun, what's the point?

New York's Finest

It seems almost unthinkable in today's sports landscape; at one time, just a little over 50 years ago, New York City was home to not just two, but three Major League Baseball teams. As most fans know (well, the ones with a sense of history, anyway), between 1903 and 1957 the Yankees, Giants and Dodgers were all based in the Big Apple. There was no shortage of fans eager to support the American Pastime in the state where much of baseball as we know it today originated.

Back in the 1950's New Yorkers used to debate who was the best center fielder in town: Willie Mays, Mickey Mantle or Duke Snider? When I was compiling the data for my Best by Position 1954-2008 series I discovered that they were more than a trio of fine ballplayers, they were the three best center fielders in baseball during that era. Each one is in the Hall of Fame today, and rightfully so. It got me thinking: What are the odds that the three best players at one position all played in the same city? Was there ever a time when New York was stacked at another position? Which seasons featured the strongest groupings at any position?

I figured the best way to get some answers was to turn to Sean Smith's incredible WAR Database. I used Baseball Reference to find out who each team's starters were each year, then added up the WAR totals to determine when New York was strongest and weakest at each position.

I'll admit right away that this method isn't perfect. For instance, certain players' values may be distorted by time spent at other positions. In other cases there may have been no established starter at a position, costing a team some value in that season slot because their games played leader didn't see as much action as a full-time player would (Jack Lelivelt's 36 games in center field were the most on the 1912 Highlanders (Yankees), for instance). That's to say nothing of the incomplete fielding and baserunning information for pre-Retrosheet years, which makes WAR less comprehensive for seasons before 1954. Still, WAR is better than any other stat of its kind, and great players shine through even with missing data. For our purposes it'll do just fine.

Anyway, enough talk! You want to see how each position fared! Let's go!

Catcher

Best Season: 1951 (15.5 WAR)

1951 was a magical summer in New York; the Yankees won the AL pennant while the Dodgers and Giants went to a three-game playoff over the NL flag. What made these teams so great? Great catching, obviously! Roy Campanella (7 WAR) won the MVP with the Dodgers, Yogi Berra (5.1) won the same award for the Yankees and Wes Westrum (3.4), while not as big a star as the other two, certainly made the Giants strong behind the plate. In fact, the years 1950 through 1953 make up the top four seasons on the catcher list.

Worst Season: 1904 (-2 WAR)

Bill Bergen, a fascinatingly bad hitter, contributed -1.8 WAR for the Superbas (Dodgers) while Deacon McGuire and John Warner each contributed -0.1 for the Highlanders (Yankees) and Giants, respectively. In fact, the 1904 catchers are the only group in this study where every single player has a negative value. Surprising then, that the Giants won the pennant, the Highlanders narrowly missed theirs and only the Superbas were a loser.


First Base

Best Season: 1934 (20.9 WAR)

The Pride of the Yankees, the Iron Horse himself, Lou Gehrig led the way here with 10.7 WAR. Fellow Hall of Famer Bill Terry was second with 6.2 and the Dodgers' Sam Leslie turned in a very good 4. Of course, this was the year Terry sarcastically asked if Brooklyn was still in the league during the preseason. The Dodgers got the last laugh by defeating the Giants in the final two games to cost them the pennant. Terry's bat and glove may have been worth 6.2 on the field, but his mouth was worth -2 off it.

Worst Season: 1950 (3.3 WAR)

As they usually did in that era, the Yankees won the pennant. Joe Collins' 0.2 WAR wasn't a big reason why. This isn't entirely fair though, as backups Johnny Mize and Tommy Henrich provided plenty of value at first base. Tookie Gilbert's -0.5 for the Giants took a chunk out of Gil Hodges' 3.6 for the Dodgers.


Second Base

Best Season: 1950 (18.5 WAR)

1950 may not have been great for New York first basemen, but the keystoners found it much to their liking. The best of the three? Eddie Stanky with 8 for the Giants. Second-best? Jackie Robinson, with 7.5. Who would've thought that the guy who supposedly couldn't hit, run or throw was actually more valuable than the great Jackie Robinson for one season? The Yankees' Jerry Coleman was worth 3, which wasn't too shabby either.

Worst Season: 1917 (1.6 WAR)

The Giants' Buck Herzog was worth 1.9, Brooklyn's George Cutshaw was worth 0.4 and the Yankees' Fritz Maisel was worth -0.7. Nothing much to see here.


Third Base

Best Season: 1938 (15.2 WAR)

The only reason this season made it is because the Giants played Mel Ott (8.7) at the hot corner for most of the year. Red Rolfe (4.3) was an established star for the Yankees, and Cookie Lavagetto (2.2) was solid for Brooklyn.

Worst Season: 1925, 1937 (0.6 WAR)

Strangely enough, the year just before the best one tied for the worst one. Rolfe (3) was his usual good self, but the Giants' Lou Chiozza and the Dodgers' Joe Stripp both put up WAR values of -1.2, signaling a need for both teams to upgrade at the position. 1925 saw three third basemen who were all hovering around replacement level, with Joe Dugan (0.5 for the Yankees), Freddie Lindstrom (0.4 for the Giants) and Jimmy Johnston (-0.3 for the Robins).


Shortstop

Best Season: 1950 (15.7 WAR)

There's that year again, 1950! Yankee Phil Rizzuto had the best year of his career and won the MVP with a 7.1 WAR. The Giants' Alvin Dark (4.7) and the Dodgers' Pee Wee Reese (3.9) turned in strong seasons of their own. Like catcher, the top four seasons on this list are 1950 through 1953, with the same three players representing each team each year.

Worst Season: 1925 (-1.8 WAR)

Travis Jackson contributed 0.9 WAR for the Giants. It wasn't great, but hey, the Giants finished in second place. Meanwhile, elsewhere in the city, Johnny Mitchell was WARing -0.6 for Brooklyn and Pee-Wee Wanninger was dragging down the Yankees with a feeble -2.1. Both teams finished with losing records.


Left Field

Best Season: 1921 (20.2 WAR)

OK, so most of it is Babe Ruth's 14. This was the year the Bambino set a record with 59 home runs, more than twice as many as the next-best guy. George Burns' 3.6 for the Giants and Zack Wheat's 2.6 for the Robins were both respectable.

Worst Season: 1908 (1 WAR)

More not-much-to-see-here: Jake Stahl did 0.9 for the Highlanders, John Hummel did 0.3 for the Superbas and Spike Shannon did -0.2 for the Giants. The Giants got rid of Shannon and picked up the much better Moose McCormick that July, after which point they surged ahead in the pennant race. Perhaps if they'd jettisoned Shannon earlier in the season "Merkle's Boner" wouldn't have become an issue.


Center Field

Best Season: 1955 (27.7 WAR)

Was there ever any doubt it'd be these three? Willie (9.3), Mickey (9.5) and the Duke (8.9) all turned in outstanding seasons in 1955, earning not only the highest total position score for any year, but the most balanced of any top season. 1954 to 1957 were the top four seasons on the center field table, with these three representing their teams each of those years. Ya know, I think it's safe to say that the 1950's was something of a golden era for New York baseball. Has anyone ever noticed that?

Worst Season: 1910, 1915 (0.9 WAR)

The Highlanders/Yankees were propping up the sorry Giants and Superbas/Robins both seasons. Birdie Cree's 3 in 1910 and Hugh High's 2.1 in 1915 were the best marks. Cy Seymour (-0.2 in 1910) and Fred Snodgrass (-0.4 in 1915) inspired few cheers at the Polo Grounds, while the fans at Washington and Ebbets suffered through Bill Davidson (-1.9 in 1910) and Hy Myers (-0.8 in 1915).


Right Field

Best Season: 1930 (24.1 WAR)

Once again it's Babe Ruth on top of the pack, with 10.7 WAR. This time though, his counterparts in the National League contributed more to the cause. Babe Herman's 6.8 for the Robins and Mel Ott's 6.6 for the Giants make the 1930 right fielders much more balanced than the 1921 left fielders.

Worst Season: 1913 (1.4 WAR)

Red Murray's 0.9 for the Giants led the way, followed closely by Bert Daniels' 0.7 for the Yankees. Herbie Moran's -0.2 for Brooklyn wasn't appreciably worse, though that whole "being negative" thing is certainly a strike against it.


This study pretty much confirms what we already knew: the 1950's was the greatest era across the board for all three New York teams. Perhaps it was a fitting last hurrah, as the Dodgers and Giants famously abandoned their fans for the West Coast in 1958. The 1930's would have to be second-best, though the Dodgers didn't do anything distinguished during those Depression days (nice alliteration, huh?).

The first two decades of the century were the weakest, though part of that may be due to the dead ball allowing less divergence from replacement level. 1925 was notably weak for the left side of the infield, and the two best decades each produced a year of turkeys at one position.

If you want to see all the data from this study in spreadsheet form you can click on this link here. You can view it sorted either by year or by total value.