View Full Version : Greatest lineup of all time?
At the old GMF we did Greatest Player and Greatest Pitcher. Rather than go position by position, which would be asinine and annoying, lets do it all in one. Name your greatest of all time lineup (in a DH league), including batting order and position.
Bonds took steroids lineup:
1. CF Willie Mays
2. SS Honus Wagner
3. LF Stan Musial
4. RF Babe Ruth
5. DH Ted Williams
6. C Josh Gibson (Gibson ahead of Gehrig thanks to an argument I read on another forum. Gehrig might be a better hitter and therefore due the extra 15-20 PAs you get from moving up a spot in the order, but mixing in a righty bat is quite nice)
7. 1B Lou Gehrig
8. 2B Rogers Hornsby (some people like Eddie Collins, but I'll take Hornsby's vastly better power over Collins admittedly large SB total but at only an 81% success rate so only marginally helping his team)
9. 3B Mike Schmidt if ARod dies tommorrow and ARod once things are done
Bonds didn't take steroids lineup:
1. CF Willie Mays
2. SS Honus Wagner
3. LF Barry Bonds
4. RF Babe Ruth
5. DH Ted Williams
6. C Josh Gibson
7. 1B Lou Gehrig
8. 2B Rogers Hornsby
9. 3B Mike Schmidt/ARod
TheImpossibleMan
08-14-2008, 08:20 AM
I won't pick dead-ball era players like Hornsby and Wagner because the game was so different, and I won't pick Cobb because, frankly, he's the 3rd best CF ever behind Mays and Griffey Jr.
1. Willie Mays
2. Stan Musial
3. Babe Ruth
4. Ted Williams
5. Lou Gehrig
6. Alex Rodriguez
7. Mike Schmidt
8. Roy Campanella
9. Joe Morgan
So... there's no poll?
This seemed in the spirit of Sports Polls, but the question is too multilayered (What players at what positions in what order?) to put to a straight poll.
I won't pick dead-ball era players like Hornsby and Wagner because the game was so different, and I won't pick Cobb because, frankly, he's the 3rd best CF ever behind Mays and Griffey Jr.
The deadball choice I can understand, but you think Griffey > Cobb? Interesting.
So... there's no poll?
Can't slip nothing by you, whiz kid
TheImpossibleMan
08-14-2008, 08:41 AM
This seemed in the spirit of Sports Polls, but the question is too multilayered (What players at what positions in what order?) to put to a straight poll.
The deadball choice I can understand, but you think Griffey > Cobb? Interesting.
Probably, but it's a tough comparison. I think it comes down to the fact that most of Cobb's aura revolves around his mind-blowingly high average and his base-stealing ability, which, respectively are:
1.) Overinflated due to the era he played in and
2.) Actually aren't all that relevant.
I don't know this as a fact but I'd be willing to be that in the modern era, even during the offensive-bonanza that was the 90's (which Griffey played in, of course) his average takes a massive dive, which hurts his OBP and slugging significantly.
Probably, but it's a tough comparison. I think it comes down to the fact that most of Cobb's aura revolves around his mind-blowingly high average and his base-stealing ability, which, respectively are:
1.) Overinflated due to the era he played in and
2.) Actually aren't all that relevant.
I don't know this as a fact but I'd be willing to be that in the modern era, even during the offensive-bonanza that was the 90's (which Griffey played in, of course) his average takes a massive dive, which hurts his OBP and slugging significantly.
I'm sure his AVG would swoon by a large margin, but he still drew his walks (OBP .70 points higher than AVG in a time with less Three True Outcomes) and slugged .500 in a mind-boggling low power era. I'd be willing to get his ISOP (SLG - AVG) would go way up if brought into the modern era, so even with a dropping average he'd still be some kind of slugger.
And yea, his basestealing means very little but at least he did it at a good rate (83%). However on speed in general I tend to agree with you. Eddie Collins stole at an 81% rate and really didn't add too much. A modern Ty Cobb, however, would I bet (ironically enough given his racism) look a lot like very-black Mr. Rickey Henderson but with more power. More I think about it though I probably should have Musial in left where he belongs (in my no-Bonds lineup) rather than Cobb shifted from center.
TheImpossibleMan
08-14-2008, 08:55 AM
Cobb would probably be a .330/.410/.490 guy in the 90's, which I think just get's trumped by Griffey's .295/.400/.600+ during his prime.
I guess that's true. It's just funny to think about, given Cobb's mystique.
But yeah, in the end Imma edit the first post, Musial belongs in left.
TheImpossibleMan
08-14-2008, 09:33 AM
makes you really understand how insane Pujols is, huh?
makes you really understand how insane Pujols is, huh?
How do you mean, exactly?
TheImpossibleMan
08-14-2008, 09:35 AM
Like, if they both played in the 90's, Pujols would likely have a higher BA than Ty Cobb, while probably slugging over .700 a few times.
Like, if they both played in the 90's, Pujols would likely have a higher BA than Ty Cobb, while probably slugging over .700 a few times.
Ah. This is true, though Cobb was a great (by most accounts) defensive CF where Pujols is a 1B (admittedly great defensively, but still 1B). Actually, thinking about it, maybe the Henderson comparison I made was wrong. Maybe Cobb = Ichiro (again with likely a bit more pop)?
But yeah, Pujols is awesome. Can he overtake Gehrig (both in reality and in people's minds)?
TheImpossibleMan
08-14-2008, 09:41 AM
Yes, and I think he will.
Infotainment
08-14-2008, 09:44 AM
TiM why do you have Ruth batting in front of Williams? Wouldn't you want Williams, the perfect get on base guy, to bat in front of Ruth? Just wondering...
It might be worth juggling that around (I have that order as well), but let me say this. A batting order that went Bonds-Williams-Ruth 3-4-5 would be the sexiest thing on Earth.
Lets go around the field for a minute, say top 5 at each position (don't include where you think current guys will end up, but where they are now).
Catcher:
1. Josh Gibson
2. Yogi Berra
3. Johnny Bench
4. Mike Piazza (maybe actually should be higher, not sure)
5. Carlton Fisk
First base:
1. Lou Gehrig
2. Jimmie Foxx
3. Mark McGwire
4. Eddie Murray
5. Johnny Mize
Second base:
1. Rogers Hornsby
2. Joe Morgan
3. Eddie Collins
4. Nap Lajoie
5. Jackie Robinson
Shortstop:
1. Honus Wagner
2. Cal Ripken Jr.
3. Arky Vaughan
4. Ernie Banks
5. Ozzie Smith
Third base:
1. Mike Schmidt
2. Alex Rodriguez (too much of his career is going to end up being at 3rd, this is where I have to rank him, tho if he was at short I imagine he ends up hanging with Wagner)
3. Eddie Matthews
4. George Brett
5. Wade Boggs
Left field:
0. (Barry Bonds, shift everyone down one if you count him)
1. Ted Williams
2. Stan Musial
3. Al Simmons
4. Yaz
5. Willie Stargell
Center field:
1. Willie Mays
2. Ken Griffey Jr.? I like TIM's point here
3. Mickey Mantle
4. Joe DiMaggio
5. Ty Cobb
Right field:
1. Babe Ruth
2. Hank Aaron
3. Mel Ott
4. Al Kaline
5. Clemente? Frank Robinson?
TheImpossibleMan
08-14-2008, 06:33 PM
TiM why do you have Ruth batting in front of Williams? Wouldn't you want Williams, the perfect get on base guy, to bat in front of Ruth? Just wondering...
1. Ruth is the better overall hitter, so giving him 3rd in the order means he'll get roughly 18 PAs more than he would at 4th.
2. When you have two dynamite hitters, it's actually better to put the guy with the better SLG 3rd and the guy with the better OBP 4th since 3rd in the order is least likely to lead off an inning.
Catcher:
1. Josh Gibson
2. Yogi Berra
3. Johnny Bench
4. Mike Piazza (maybe actually should be higher, not sure)
5. Carlton FiskI don't know exactly how to compare Gibson to MLB catchers, but among those with major league time, Roy Campanella should be #1 or #2.
First base:
1. Lou Gehrig
2. Jimmie Foxx
3. Mark McGwire
4. Eddie Murray
5. Johnny MizeYou can't have McGwire on there if you're not including Bonds...you racist piece of shit!!1 And at this point I think Pujols needs to be on there, his career splits are .333/.424/.619 for God's sake.
Third base:
1. Mike Schmidt
2. Alex Rodriguez (too much of his career is going to end up being at 3rd, this is where I have to rank him, tho if he was at short I imagine he ends up hanging with Wagner)
3. Eddie Matthews
4. George Brett
5. Wade BoggsIf you count A-Rod as a 3B then he's #1. And Brooks Robinson should be on there as well...not exactly sure where, but definitely in front of Boggs.
mongo
08-14-2008, 06:36 PM
easy.
C Yogi Berra (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/player.php?p=berrayo01)
1B Bill Skowron (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/player.php?p=skowrbi01)
2B Billy Martin (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/player.php?p=martibi02)
3B Andy Carey (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/player.php?p=careyan01)
SS Gil McDougald (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/player.php?p=mcdougi01)
LF Elston Howard (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/player.php?p=howarel01)
CF Mickey Mantle (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/player.php?p=mantlmi01)
RF Hank Bauer (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/player.php?p=bauerha01)
nuclearjew
08-14-2008, 07:21 PM
Bill Skowron ahead of Don Mattingly?
Utter. Fucking. FAIL.
merlin13
08-14-2008, 07:22 PM
This is my first post but here goes....
Catcher:
1. Johnny Bench
2. Gary Carter
3. Yogi Berra
4. Mike Piazza
5. Bob Boone/Darren Daulton
First Base:
1. Jimmie Foxx
2. Eddie Murray
3. Lou Gehrig
4. Keith Hernandez
5. Johnny Mize
Second Base:
1. Ryne Sandberg
2. Jackie Robinson
3. Joe Morgan
4. Rogers hornsby
5. Roberto Alomar
Shortstop
1.Ozzie Smith
2.Cal Ripken Jr
3. Peewee Reese
4. Alex Rodriguez
5. Dave Concepcion
Third Base:
1. Brooks Robinson
2. Mike Schmidt
3. Eddie Matthews
4. Craig Nettles
5. George Brett
Left Field:
1.Ted Williams
2.Stan Musial
3. Barry Bonds
4. Josh Hamilton
5. Booby Abreu
Centerfield:
1. Ty Cobb
2. Mickey Mantle
3. Kirby Puckett
4. Willie Mays
5. Fred Lynn
Rightfield:
1. Hank Aaron
2. Mel Ott
3. Al Kaline
4. Dave Parker
5. Jim Rice
I'm not sure about the position in the outfield but you can't bet much better than Tony Armas, Fred Lynn And Jim Rice In the same outfield.
nuclearjew
08-14-2008, 07:24 PM
Tony Armas was fucking awesome that one year.
merlin13
08-14-2008, 07:32 PM
Without quoting stats, all three hit for power and average. They were truly awesome to watch. That's coming from somoene who is a diehard Phillies fan!
I don't know exactly how to compare Gibson to MLB catchers, but among those with major league time, Roy Campanella should be #1 or #2.
Even discounting his barnstorming home runs (how they get that 800 or more career HR number) Gibson hit a HR about once ever 15 ABs in his Negro league career. That's a monumentally good rate for a catch, and then beyond that while I don't like legends thats a lot of what we have to go on and few have a bigger one than Gibson.
As for Campanella, he only played 10 seasons and batted a .276/.360/.500 line. Yes in a more friendly pitcher's league at a tough position, but still. As a comparison look even just at Mike Piazza's 13-14ish seasons at catcher (not giving his full career length since he hasn't played a full year the past few years, plus some 1B and DH duty when he did). .308/.377/.545 line good for 20 points more of OPS+ (and over a longer career). And Piazza barely makes my list.
You can't have McGwire on there if you're not including Bonds...you racist piece of shit!!1 And at this point I think Pujols needs to be on there, his career splits are .333/.424/.619 for God's sake.
Pujols will be there, but thusfar he has played only his age 21-28 seasons. Talk to me when he's played at least a couple non-prime years.
As for McGwire, he mostly took andro (when it was legal) and looked like an idiot on Capital Hill right? Lot less serious than Bonds chemical concoctions IMO. Even though named in the Mitchell Report, he was very specifically not named as someone suspected of using Roids/HGH.
If you count A-Rod as a 3B then he's #1. And Brooks Robinson should be on there as well...not exactly sure where, but definitely in front of Boggs.
Again, ARod's career isn't done yet. He probably is above Schmidt, especially if you give him his shortstop numbers, but w/e. Like I said in the first post, if ARod died TODAY their numbers would be quite similar (147 to 148 OPS+, leaving most of the OBP/SLG difference to the era while ARod bats for a slightly better AVG) but he won't, and after maybe even just this year (certainly after next year or one more) he'll be on that team no doubt.
Catcher:
1. Johnny Bench
2. Gary Carter
3. Yogi Berra
4. Mike Piazza
5. Bob Boone/Darren Daulton
Bob Boone?? He was a below league average offensive player, only going above average 5 times barely in his career. He had a sexy career control of the running game (39% of runners thrown out) but still...
First Base:
1. Jimmie Foxx
2. Eddie Murray
3. Lou Gehrig
4. Keith Hernandez
5. Johnny Mize
I've never seen Lou Gehrig not picked first, but Foxx/Murray are definitely top 5 so I can't argue too much. Hernandez above Mize and others is surprising to me though.
Shortstop
1.Ozzie Smith
2.Cal Ripken Jr
3. Peewee Reese
4. Alex Rodriguez
5. Dave Concepcion
Ozzie Smith was great, but his fielding could only do so much.
Left Field:
1.Ted Williams
2.Stan Musial
3. Barry Bonds
4. Josh Hamilton
5. Booby Abreu
Hamilton and Abreu? Really?
Centerfield:
1. Ty Cobb
2. Mickey Mantle
3. Kirby Puckett
4. Willie Mays
5. Fred Lynn
Mays 4th?
Rightfield:
1. Hank Aaron
2. Mel Ott
3. Al Kaline
4. Dave Parker
5. Jim Rice
So Babe Ruth is... 6th? :/
This poll is probably the most relevant poll in the History of GMF and is probably a ranked in the Top 3 since Al Gore invented the internet.
merlin13
08-15-2008, 09:39 PM
Most of these players I haven't even seen play, only in cooperstown. The ones I have seen and do remember I are listed where I think, not where everyone would like them to be. I threw hamilton in there just to see how much shit I would get. Ozzie wasz great but he waqs better in the field then he was at the plate. Abreu was Mr. Clutch for thew Phils for atleast 5 years, hitting for avg and power. Not to mention he was overlooked for a few golden gloves because of big numbersa put up by lesser outfielders. And, YEAH, ruth is 6th, for the simple reason I haven't seen him play and all I hear about is how he can hit a long ball and he pitched for the Sox.
And, YEAH, ruth is 6th, for the simple reason I haven't seen him play and all I hear about is how he can hit a long ball and he pitched for the Sox.
Don't even know what to say.
Hawk the Slayer
09-21-2008, 01:18 AM
Sorry, but I'm not buying that whole "didn't see him play" line of crap. You managed to put Wee Willie Keeler and Rogers Hornsby in there - did you see those guys play? Saying, "all I hear about Babe Ruth is that he can hit a long ball" is like saying, "all I hear about this Hendrix kid is that he knows a few chords and plays a Fender Strat"... or, "all I hear about this Jordan kid is that he can shoot pretty good".
...
You're not coming across as "edgy" or "bold"... you're coming across as "stupid" or "doesn't know a goddamn thing about baseball". Maybe both.
===
EDIT - yikes. Just looked at the post dates... sorry about the thread necro.
Mustard
09-21-2008, 01:30 AM
My greatest lineup of all time includes nice titties, fajitas, hamburgers, pizza, chocolate, chimps throwing poop, Office Space, lesbian porn, and a 72 oz. steak to round it out.
TheImpossibleMan
09-21-2008, 01:30 AM
I was dead wrong about Cobb because I didn't understand how good a power hitter he was for his era. If he played in the 90's he'd probably be a .330/.430/.580 guy while splitting Gold Gloves with Junior and regularly leading the league in steals...yeah, he's better.
Cobb/Mays is a toughie. Reading some stuff on BBTF pointed out the huge difference in league strength between Cobb's era and heavily integrated 1950s NL. I think Mays over Cobb may actually be the right choice (with Tris Speaker, Oscar Charleston, and Mickey Mantle rounding out the top 5).
TheImpossibleMan
09-21-2008, 12:02 PM
Oh, I absoLUTELY think that Mays is better than Cobb, I was just saying that I was wrong to say Griffey Jr. was better than Cobb.
TheImpossibleMan
09-22-2008, 09:15 PM
If you count all of his accomplishments towards 3B (which Bill James does), does A-Rod rank as the best third baseman of all time?
Yes, next question. Seriously, even if Schmidt is narrowly ahead in your mind, ARod is clearly going to pass him.
I still like my edited lineup with Mays in CF, but here's a question. If you don't like deadball era players (as you said earlier, TiM) who would you field at shortstop over Wagner? You listed ARod, but if we're playing him as a 3B... Ernie Banks? Cal Ripken Jr.?
TheImpossibleMan
09-23-2008, 09:46 AM
Ripken Jr....or Arky Vaughn. GOD just saying Vaughn's name makes me Bill James's bitch. Ripken was vastly better over a longer period of time while Vaughn was much more dominant over the short term.
If you're willing to go back to Arky Vaughn I don't see why you don't just go full bore and take Wagner. I understand that by Vaughn's time deadball was over, but still.
TheImpossibleMan
09-23-2008, 11:53 AM
What the shit are you talking about? Deadball is pre-1920; modern baseball, aka the "liveball era" began when 1.) Ruth was traded to the Yankees and made a full time right fielder and 2.) Ray Chapman got killed by a pitch. Vaughn played his entire career after 1930, Wagner's career was over by 1917. You shut that mouth Stax.
What the shit are you talking about? Deadball is pre-1920; modern baseball, aka the "liveball era" began when 1.) Ruth was traded to the Yankees and made a full time right fielder and 2.) Ray Chapman got killed by a pitch. Vaughn played his entire career after 1930, Wagner's career was over by 1917. You shut that mouth Stax.
That's what I said, TIM...
I understand that by Vaughn's time deadball was over, but still.
My point is that guys who saw both play still widely saw Wagner as better.
TheImpossibleMan
09-23-2008, 12:16 PM
I agree that Wagner is better. I'm just saying I don't like picking deadball players. So I pick Ripken Jr.
And I got the dates of Hornsby mixed up, he's a liveball player. Joe Morgan is better, but still. Accuracy is accuracy.
nuclearjew
09-23-2008, 09:15 PM
*Arky Vaughan
Spelling is for gays.
And totally cool awesome forum admins.
You'd think TIM would qualify for that first group. *shrug*
nuclearjew
09-23-2008, 09:22 PM
I am extra-sensitive to misspelled last names as people usually spell mine wrong. Pay respect to the Hall of Famer!
Hawk the Slayer
10-11-2008, 01:02 AM
And I got the dates of Hornsby mixed up, he's a liveball player. Joe Morgan is better, but still. Accuracy is accuracy.
Trying to wrap my mind around this whole "Joe Morgan better than Rogers Hornsby" statement, and failing... I understand the eras they played in were different, but still:
Joe Morgan: 22 seasons (1963-1984)
1650 runs (#30 alltime)
2517 hits (#80)
449 doubles (#78)
96 triples (#170)
268 home runs (#148)
1133 RBI (#162)
1865 BB (#5)
689 SB (#11)
career BA .271
2 MVP awards, 5 Gold Gloves
Rogers Hornsby: 23 seasons (1915-1937)
1579 runs (#45)
2930 hits (#31)
541 doubles (#24)
169 triples (#25)
301 home runs (#113)
1584 RBI (#30)
1038 BB (#92)
135 SB (?)
career BA .359 (#2 alltime)
2 MVP awards, 2 Triple Crowns (Gold Gloves weren't awarded until 1957)
Their careers were basically the same length. Morgan had more steals and walks, but Hornsby hit the living crap out of the ball. More power than Morgan, and a batting average higher by 88 (!) points. If you had 2 guys you could call up from your AAA team to play 2B, and you knew that player #1 would hit .270 with good speed, lots of walks, and average power... whereas player #2 would hit .360, with more power than the first guy, but with average speed... I would take player #2 every time. Don't get me wrong, Morgan's an obvious Hall-of-Famer, but I've just always wondered why Hornsby always seems to get forgotten/overlooked/underestimated whenever "greatest players" arguments come up.
...
A snippet from Wikipedia sums up my view pretty well:
"Perhaps the highlight of Hornsby's career was his 1922 season, when he became the only player in history to hit over 40 home runs and bat over .400 in the same season. Hornsby won the first of his triple crowns that year, leading the league in almost every batting category including batting average (.401), home runs (42, a National League record at the time), RBI (152), slugging average (.722, another record at the time), on base percentage (.459), doubles (46), hits (250, again the highest in National League history to that point), and runs scored (141). His 450 total bases was the highest mark for any National league player during the 20th century. Hornsby also produced in the field, leading the league in putouts, double plays, and fielding percentage.
Hornsby's average dipped to "only" .384 during 1923, which was still good enough to win the National League batting title; he also repeated as the leader in on-base percentage (.459) and slugging percentage (.627). Hornsby then raised his average to an astonishing .424 in 1924, which remains the modern National League record for batting average in a single season. He also led the league with 89 walks, producing a .507 on-base percentage that was the highest in the National League during the 20th century. His slugging percentage of .696 again led the league, as did his 121 runs scored, 227 hits, and 43 doubles.
Hornsby's second triple crown came in 1925, when he combined a .403 batting average with 39 home runs and 143 RBI. He was named the National League's Most Valuable Player (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_Valuable_Player), having barely missed the award in 1924. His .756 slugging percentage that year is the highest in the National League during the 20th century."
I suppose it comes down to what you want from a second baseman. If it's a speedy leadoff guy who's a decent hitter, draws lots of walks, and fields superbly, Morgan's your guy. If it's a #3 or #4 hitter, who pounds the ball all over the field, and regularly hits 20+ HR with 120+ RBI and a .350 BA, with average speed and defense, then it's Hornsby.
TheImpossibleMan
10-11-2008, 02:14 AM
As with so many things, Bill James convinced me.
In 1976, Joe Morgan hit .320 and led the National League in OBP (.444), slugging percentage (.576), stolen base percentage (60 of 69), sacrifice flies (12) and fewest GIDP (2). He won the Gold Glove as the league's best defensive 2B. It seems to me that that season, as a package, is the equal of anything ever done by Gehrig or Foxx or DiMaggio or Musial. It wasn't even his best season; his best season was 1975. He had three other seasons as good as 1976.
Morgan had a career average of .271 -- with a secondary average of .431. How can I rate a .271 hitter ahead of Rogers Hornsby? If you count his walks and stolen bases, Morgan accounted for 6,516 career bases, leading to 1,650 runs scored. Hornsby accounted for 5,885 bases, leading to 1,579 runs scored. Hornsby played in a league where teams scored 4.43 runs per game; Morgan, an average of 4.11. Hornsby was an average fielder and a jackass; Morgan was a good glove and a team leader. Maybe you know the stats better than I do, but my reading of the numbers puts Morgan ahead.
It's important to remember that the 20's were like the 90's, in that offense was absurdly, astronomically overpowering and inflated. My God, 46% of all players hit .300 or better. Morgan is clearly the better player.
nuclearjew
10-11-2008, 09:51 AM
Hornsby was an average fielder and a jackass; Morgan was a good glove and a team leader.
I haven't read much Bill James, but I've seen him write this kind of shit. He seems like a judgmental cocksucker. For someone who relies on the numbers, he seems to let character issues guide his ratings. I remember him writing something really harsh about Maury Wills.
TheImpossibleMan
10-11-2008, 10:37 AM
Except, well...Hornsby was a jackass. He is generally considered one of the most ill-tempered, unliked and unlikable persons in the history of the game. Not only that, James spent much of the book chronicling Hornsby jackassery; it isn't like this is just some throwaway line.
Hornsby batted .358 for his career with the league batting .282 (adjusted for park factors). So his, for lack of a better term (I don't think Relative Batting Average is adjusted for park factors) AVG+ is 127. Joe Morgan batted .271 when the league batted .260, a AVG+ of 104. Also I think the eras are roughly fair to compare, Morgan's 63 and 64 seasons were too short to count, then he had 65, 66, 67, and 68 dominated by pitching until the last rules change. Meanwhile Hornsby's 1915 basically equals those 2 short years of Morgan (so don't count them) and then he (in the NL where they added the lively ball a year after the AL) had 1916, 17, 18, 19, and 20 in the deadball era (and not surprisingly he never broke 10 HRs until then, then started cracking off 20+ years and even a 42 and a couple 39s). Hornsby, given his limited time in the deadball era, doesn't even have the rediculous triples numbers some folks did. I think they work very well as comparisons.
AVG+: Hornsby 127, Morgan 104
OBP+: Hornsby 127, Morgan 120
SLG+: Hornsby 148, Morgan 112
OPS+: Hornsby 175, Morgan 132
Runs created: Hornsby 2045, Morgan 1804
RC/G: Hornsby 9.9, Joe Morgan 6.8
Win Shares : Hornsby 502, Morgan 512 (admittedly, IIRC, undervalues fielding so probably even more of a lead for Morgan here)
WARP1: Hornsby 194.06, Morgan 171.50
Morgan had a great glove, which might make up some of the gap. Also work with standard deviations does suggest that the period Hornsby played in was slightly easier to dominate, that is there were more stand out super stars so maybe the OPS+ lead isn't as impressive. But at the end of the day almost every measure has Hornsby ahead, so even if you're saying Morgan's glove makes the difference he isn't "clearly" the better player.
generalbo
10-11-2008, 03:36 PM
Ruth should be on there
TheImpossibleMan
10-11-2008, 09:00 PM
Warp1 is a bad number to use since it's only adjusted for a given season and not for all time. Look at Warp3, which is, and...what do you know, Morgan is ahead. Hornsby is good but Morgan is better. And comparing the last years of the deadball era (when scoring was already on the rise - there actually wasn't a massive year-to-year change between MLB offenses from '19 to '21 because the change was continual and gradual) to the 60's, the most pitching-dominated era in baseball history, is ridiculous. Hornsby had more power but Morgan was a vastly better defender and baserunner and drew way more walks. It's very, very close - it's not like I think Morgan is ten times the player Hornsby is - but I would take Morgan.
nuclearjew
10-11-2008, 09:05 PM
But Morgan sportscasts like I shit, therefore Hornsby >>> Morgan.
Hornsby: 11.3% of PAs result in walks
Morgan: 16.7% of PAs result in walks
Hornsby was worse, but also at a time when walks were less common. He was top 10 in the league in walks 11 times, and led it 3 times. And no massive difference in offense? Whe did Hornsby's HR count in full seasons go 6, 8, 5, 8, 9 up to 1920 and then 21, 42, 17 (in 107 games), 25, 39, 11, 26, 21, 39? Why did his SLG only rise above .500 once before the new ball in the NL then broke off 5 years of above .600? Why did NL league offenses go like this:
1918: 3.62 R/G
1919: 3.65 R/G
1920 (AL introduces new ball): 3.97 R/G
1921 (NL introduces new ball): 4.59 R/G
1922: 5.00 R/G
1923: 4.85 R/G
?
Morgan's unfair period, the pitcher dominated 60s, is accounted for in league averages. Deadball years are far more difficult to evaluate because they compress power hitters in with everyone else.
EDIT - Also, the 1960s were the most pitching dominated era? Really?
TheImpossibleMan
10-12-2008, 11:11 AM
Each individual pitcher was less important than, say, the 1870's or 80's (when pitchers would throw 60 complete games and have records like 40-20) but team pitching was more dominant in the 60's than any other time in history...I think? I'm happy to be proven wrong but I feel confident of this fact.
Jericho
10-12-2008, 11:26 AM
I hate stax
Each individual pitcher was less important than, say, the 1870's or 80's (when pitchers would throw 60 complete games and have records like 40-20) but team pitching was more dominant in the 60's than any other time in history...I think? I'm happy to be proven wrong but I feel confident of this fact.
Well, I suppose 'pitching dominance' is going to be difficult to define. Plus the traditional metric of ERA doesn't work since a lot of what looks like dominance through ERA in the deadball era is actually just the high error rate covering up what would be earned runs anyways. But I'd gamble there were bits of the deadball period far more pitcher-dominated than the 60s. I mean, the 60s got one rules change, lowering the mound. The deadball era got the mound moved farther back twice, I think lowered (not sure on this one) a livelier ball introduced, and smaller parks built.
I hate stax
Not alone
nuclearjew
10-12-2008, 01:03 PM
Stax >>> Jericunt
Jericho
10-12-2008, 01:12 PM
I'll win you over one day, Rob
And then there's the guy who gets even more overlooked than Hornsby as the potential greatest 2B ever, Eddie Collins (http://www.baseball-reference.com/c/collied01.shtml).
Bill Doran... best 2B of all time.
TheImpossibleMan
10-13-2008, 01:50 PM
And then there's the guy who gets even more overlooked than Hornsby as the potential greatest 2B ever, Eddie Collins (http://www.baseball-reference.com/c/collied01.shtml).
James had
1.) Morgan
2.) Collins
3.) Hornsby
James had
1.) Morgan
2.) Collins
3.) Hornsby
I love Bill James, but as with any individual source it is going to have it's imperfections. Eddie Collins had a Pete Rose length career in an era of bad travel and worse medicine. Rogers Hornsby had very good power for a long time and (even adjusting for the era) hit for a good average and got on base efficiently. Whatever, any one of the three could easily be the greatest.
Hawk the Slayer
10-13-2008, 03:05 PM
Except, well...Hornsby was a jackass. He is generally considered one of the most ill-tempered, unliked and unlikable persons in the history of the game.
Then Ty Cobb can't be on the team. Barry Bonds is/was a jerk, so let's not consider him either. Pete Rose was a jackass, AND bet on baseball - so he can't be considered.
...
This is a "greatest lineup of all-time" discussion. It's not a "greatest lineup (of nice guys) of all-time" discussion. Your numerical arguments have a much better chance of convincing me that Morgan is superior, than any "Hornsby was a prick" arguments. He WAS a prick - so the hell what? He was a prick who could hit the living shit out of the ball, and did so for 20+ years.
...
As I've said, eras are different. One can argue reasonably about whether walks, steals, and +defense of one guy outweigh superior power, batting average, slugging, and overall hitting prowess of another. If I were starting a team today, and could take any player from any era (at their prime), I'd have Rogers Hornsby playing second base. Your opinion may differ, but I still haven't seen any statistical analysis that proves Morgan was clearly superior to Hornsby (or vice-versa) - which is what makes these discussions interesting... they're subjective. Arguing about whether 2+2 = 4 or 5, gets pretty boring pretty quickly.
Then Ty Cobb can't be on the team. Barry Bonds is/was a jerk, so let's not consider him either. Pete Rose was a jackass, AND bet on baseball - so he can't be considered.
...
This is a "greatest lineup of all-time" discussion. It's not a "greatest lineup (of nice guys) of all-time" discussion. Your numerical arguments have a much better chance of convincing me that Morgan is superior, than any "Hornsby was a prick" arguments. He WAS a prick - so the hell what? He was a prick who could hit the living shit out of the ball, and did so for 20+ years.
...
As I've said, eras are different. One can argue reasonably about whether walks, steals, and +defense of one guy outweigh superior power, batting average, slugging, and overall hitting prowess of another. If I were starting a team today, and could take any player from any era (at their prime), I'd have Rogers Hornsby playing second base. Your opinion may differ, but I still haven't seen any statistical analysis that proves Morgan was clearly superior to Hornsby (or vice-versa) - which is what makes these discussions interesting... they're subjective. Arguing about whether 2+2 = 4 or 5, gets pretty boring pretty quickly.
Do you know what subjective means?
Because statistical analysis (what you say you want) is the EXACT DEFINITIONAL OPPOSITE of what you say you find interesting about these discussions (that they're subjective). It is pure objective analysis.
Hawk the Slayer
10-13-2008, 04:23 PM
Yes, I'm perfectly aware of the difference between subjective and objective. Thanks for being a condescending asshole. The subjectivity comes into play when deciding which objective measures (OPS, WARP, Win Shares, Runs Created, career totals, etc.) are most important in deciding a player's overall worth (the subjective part). Say Player A has a higher OPS with more career RBI and HR; player B has more Win Shares due to superior defense, baserunning, and walk totals. Who is the better player?
...
Deciding which objective measures are more important is a subjective decision. Who is the better guitarist - Jimi Hendrix, or Eddie Van Halen? Is your measure "notes played per second"? Is it "career albums sold"? Is it "ability to smash a flaming guitar"? Who was the greatest US President? Is your measure "net economic gain during term"? Is it "number of good laws passed"? Is it "increased social justice and equality by greatest amount"? Deciding which objective criteria are most important in judging overall value is a purely subjective decision.
Yes, I'm perfectly aware of the difference between subjective and objective. Thanks for being a condescending asshole. The subjectivity comes into play when deciding which objective measures (OPS, WARP, Win Shares, Runs Created, career totals, etc.) are most important in deciding a player's overall worth (the subjective part). Say Player A has a higher OPS with more career RBI and HR; player B has more Win Shares due to superior defense, baserunning, and walk totals. Who is the better player?
...
Deciding which objective measures are more important is a subjective decision. Who is the better guitarist - Jimi Hendrix, or Eddie Van Halen? Is your measure "notes played per second"? Is it "career albums sold"? Is it "ability to smash a flaming guitar"? Who was the greatest US President? Is your measure "net economic gain during term"? Is it "number of good laws passed"? Is it "increased social justice and equality by greatest amount"? Deciding which objective criteria are most important in judging overall value is a purely subjective decision.
No, it isn't the same. Neither guitar playing or skill as a president has a single unifying force like baseball does. Even football is far too team and position oriented (as are other sports) to allow for the analysis baseball does.
EVERY SINGLE ACTION in baseball centers on runs. Generating them, losing them, preventing them. There are different measures by which to measure or analyze these forces, but the selection is anything but subjective. The player who, in combination, provides the greatest run advantage for their team (for pitchers/fielders preventing runs, for hitters/runners generating them) is the best.
Every person makes their own objective decision, but they are most certainly objective ones when made on the basis of stats. Being different doesn't make them subjective.
FWIW, superior defense likely WOULDN'T show up in win shares as they are notoriously bad at measuring defense on a proper scale. James' WS system famously said a larger % of Ozzie Smith's value (barely over 50%, but still) came from his offense than his defense. Now Ozzie was a league average batter for his career, I have a hard time with the idea that league average offense provided more value than the greatest fielder at a position of all time. I've read similar critiques on places like BBTF.
Hawk the Slayer
10-13-2008, 04:35 PM
The player who, in combination, provides the greatest run advantage for their team (for pitchers/fielders preventing runs, for hitters/runners generating them) is the best.
So, which measure do all baseball analysts universally agree is the most accurate way to quantify this "greatest run advantage produced"? Or, is there some dispute as to which metric is the most accurate?
So, which measure do all baseball analysts universally agree is the most accurate way to quantify this "greatest run advantage produced"? Or, is there some dispute as to which metric is the most accurate?
Yes, of course there is. But those aren't subjective decisions saying "Oh I like this one better" like which guitarist you like better is. Win Shares are a useful shade to add to an argument, but are limited because of the defensive weaknesses I mentioned. OPS+ is nice, but fails to account at times for large standard deviations for leagues. ERA+ is nice but falls victim to both the problems of raw ERA (high error rates covering up what should be earned runs, though barring a truly uniquely bad defensive team that would likely show up in the league average) and a theoretical floor effect for ERA (it's easier to dominate a 4-ERA-league than a 3-ERA league because at some point you have to give up SOME runs, but the margin for error is smaller in a better-overall league.
But these are all OBJECTIVE ARGUMENTS, and each individual voter makes their own evaluation of what they deem to be the proper approach. Because everything has it's flaws few people take a truly united stat (or, if they do like "DanR's WARP" on BBTF it's a combination of a whole bunch of other stats) and instead develop a portfolio (like the Hornsby/Morgan comparison I made with AVG+, OBP+, SLG+, OPS+, Runs created, RC/G, Win Shares, and WARP1).
Hawk the Slayer
10-13-2008, 04:48 PM
...each individual voter makes their own evaluation of what they deem to be the proper approach...
Subjective.
That is only subjective (only should be subjective) when two players are hyper-close in quality to the point of near meaninglessness. In all other cases a clear objective picture can be drawn, and making a decision in a different way is just stubbornness.
Hawk the Slayer
10-13-2008, 05:29 PM
That is only subjective (only should be subjective) when two players are hyper-close in quality to the point of near meaninglessness.
Such as, whether Joe Morgan is a better second baseman than Rogers Hornsby?
...
I'm not saying all player evaluations are subjective. That would be stupid. Nobody can rationally argue whether Fernando Vina was a better second baseman than Joe Morgan, or whether Mark Grace was a better first baseman than Lou Gehrig. By ANY rational analysis, the answer is clear. Similarly, nobody can rationally argue whether Keith Richards was a better guitarist than Jimi Hendrix, or whether Rutherford B. Hayes was a better President than Thomas Jefferson.
...
However - in cases where the relative quality of two different ballplayers is very close, you will often see that different objective analyses of their worth give different answers. Analyst A could write a 15-page treatise, concluding that Morgan was the greatest 2B of all time. Analyst B answers back with his own treatise, concluding that Hornsby was the greatest 2B of all time. Is one of them right, and one wrong? Is one's analysis completely correct, and the other's fatally flawed? Or, is it possible that each analyst, using his/her own preferences and subjective opinions as to what statistical measures are most relevant, have come to different conclusions, each with their own merits and drawbacks?
Such as, whether Joe Morgan is a better second baseman than Rogers Hornsby?
...
I'm not saying all player evaluations are subjective. That would be stupid. Nobody can rationally argue whether Fernando Vina was a better second baseman than Joe Morgan, or whether Mark Grace was a better first baseman than Lou Gehrig. By ANY rational analysis, the answer is clear. Similarly, nobody can rationally argue whether Keith Richards was a better guitarist than Jimi Hendrix, or whether Rutherford B. Hayes was a better President than Thomas Jefferson.
No. Wrong. AGAIN. YOU can argue those bolded bits because there is no 'right' answer in them. Nobody generates Guitar Points or Presidential Points that uniformly define success in the field.
However - in cases where the relative quality of two different ballplayers is very close, you will often see that different objective analyses of their worth give different answers. Analyst A could write a 15-page treatise, concluding that Morgan was the greatest 2B of all time. Analyst B answers back with his own treatise, concluding that Hornsby was the greatest 2B of all time. Is one of them right, and one wrong? Is one's analysis completely correct, and the other's fatally flawed? Or, is it possible that each analyst, using his/her own preferences and subjective opinions as to what statistical measures are most relevant, have come to different conclusions, each with their own merits and drawbacks?
Reaching different conclusions does not automatically mean subjective. Two scientific studies can be conducted of the same phenomenon and reach different conclusions, everything is not black and white.
Hawk the Slayer
10-13-2008, 07:18 PM
Now you're showing that you don't know what the hell you're talking about. If two scientific studies come to different conclusions - then either one is wrong, or both are. I'm a scientist. (PhD in Biochemistry, University of Illinois). I've been involved in scientific/laboratory work for upwards of 20 years now. If two scientists study the same phenomenon and come to two incompatible conclusions, then at least one of them HAS to be wrong. Example: one biochemist (Dr. Smith) says that the lac repressor protein binds to a stretch of DNA upstream of the promoter, preventing RNA polymerase from binding, when lactose levels are high. Another biochemist (Dr. Jones) says that the lac repressor protein actually binds to mRNA when lactose levels are high, and prevents ribosome binding at the Shine-Dalgarno site. Smith argues transcriptional repression; Jones argues translational repression. There are now only three possibilities:
(1) Smith is wrong, Jones is right
(2) Jones is wrong, Smith is right
(3) Smith and Jones are both wrong
...
A third biochemist (Dr. Brown) comes along and demonstrates using gel mobility shift studies, that lac repressor protein binds radiolabeled DNA, but not RNA. This binding becomes much stronger when lactose levels are increased. Positive and negative control experiments are performed, verifying that the experiment was conducted properly. Dr. Brown has proved Dr. Smith is correct, and proved that Dr. Jones was incorrect. Moreover, he has done so objectively. Anyone with the requisite education to understand the experiments, MUST come to the same conclusion. Smith is correct; Jones is wrong. Objective data has proved this.
...
Explain to me how two baseball statisticians could produce contradictory treatises (Smith says Morgan > Hornsby; Jones says Hornsby > Morgan), and objective measures could be used to CONCLUSIVELY, ABSOLUTELY, DEFINITIVELY prove that one of them is correct, and one is incorrect? Forget Hornsby and Morgan - what if the argument is over whether Ted Williams was superior to Barry Bonds in LF? How do you weight the steroids factor? How do you factor in the years Williams lost while serving combat duty in WWII and Korea? How do you factor the less integrated league that Williams played in?
...
To say that subjective opinion does not enter, AT ALL, into analysis of baseball statistics, is just asinine stubbornness on your part. There are hundreds of different statistical measures out there. Which are the most accurate? Which are most important? Which best account for different eras? Which do the best in accounting for park effects? Which best account for quality of opposition? Which do the best in factoring in playoff performance? How are defense, hitting, and baserunning weighted? And so on... and so on.
Because none of this is absolute in the way that science is. In science you can prove who was 'right' in that you can show crap about mRNA or whatever. All of these comparisons are, at best, theoretical so all you can do is collect various measurements and then debate the measurements.
twisterf5
10-14-2008, 12:59 PM
what about the best real line up ever