(Very) Rough Measure of All-Time Offensive Greatness
Jpm III 13 April 2005 22:05:54
This is NOT a measure of offensive greatness year-by-year, but rather a way of measuring how good a player was in the long run. The reason: obviously, a player wouldn't be allowed to stick around long enough to amass these numbers if they weren't good enough to stick around on a MLB roster. So, it provides a pretty rough estimate of who some of the greatest MLB players of all time are/were. And it's very simple:
Total Bases + Walks + Stolen Bases
Obviously, longevity is a huge factor here, but I think that deserves consideration when measuring all-time greatness. But obviously it shouldn't be taken too seriously, because I don't think anyone will seriously argue that Pete Rose was better than Lou Gehrig and Ted Williams.
The top ten overall are:
1. Hank Aaron (8498) 2. Barry Bonds (8364) 3. Rickey Henderson (8184) 4. Ty Cobb (8000) 5. Babe Ruth (7978) 6. Willie Mays (7868) 7. Stan Musial (7811) 8. Carl Yastremski (7552) 9. Pete Rose (7516) 10. Frank Robinson (6997)
When I normalize career data to an equal number of games played (I used 3000), many current players make the list, and a couple of old greats have better showings. Naturally, some of the current players are going to drop further down that list as the elder years of their careers drop their "pace" some. (I limited the list of eligible players to those with 1500 or more hits so young players like Albert Pujols wouldn't blow the list away.) The all-time top ten when normalized for games played are:
1. Babe Ruth 2. Lou Gehrig 3. Barry Bonds 4. Billy Hamilton 5. Ted Williams 6. Hank Greenberg 7. Alex Rodriguez 8. Jimmie Foxx 9. Frank Thomas 10. Manny Ramirez
So take the all-time leader in secondary bases, You Know Who,
That's very interesting. I would have thought that You Know Who would prefer Quiddich.
-- 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
Roger Moore venit, vidit, et dixit:> "Chris Cathcart" <cathcacr@gmail.com> writes:
So take the all-time leader in secondary bases, You Know Who,
That's very interesting. I would have thought that You Know Who would> prefer Quiddich.
He preferred it until the recent BROOMCO scandals. Some players have been illegally polyjuicing, Victor Krum was called to testify before the Wizengamot... I tell ya, Quiddith ain't what it used to be.
Catch you later. --Robert Machemer
-- Robert Paul Aubrey Machemer | "For each time he falls, he shall Amherst College, Math & Classics | rise again, and woe to the wicked!" IF1, IF3, IF9: best films, cast | --Don Quixote (Man of La Mancha) (What are YOU doing this weekend? See IF12 on May 23rd, 2004)
He preferred it until the recent BROOMCO scandals. Some players>have been illegally polyjuicing, Victor Krum was called to testify>before the Wizengamot... I tell ya, Quiddith ain't what it used to be.
Shouldn't that be left to the Department of Magical Games and Sports? I'd think that the Wizengamot would have more important things to worry about. They're just trying to distract us from their inability to recapture any escaped Death Eaters and dementors running amok in Little Whinging.
-- 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
Paul G. Wenthold 14 April 2005 16:51:57 [ permanent link ]
Bob-Nob wrote:
Roger Moore venit, vidit, et dixit:>
"Chris Cathcart" <cathcacr@gmail.com> writes:>
So take the all-time leader in secondary bases, You Know Who,>
That's very interesting. I would have thought that You Know Who would>>prefer Quiddich. >
He preferred it until the recent BROOMCO scandals. Some players> have been illegally polyjuicing, Victor Krum was called to testify> before the Wizengamot... I tell ya, Quiddith ain't what it used to be.>
Bah, they are riding corked brooms. And the golden snitch is juiced. Everyone knows it.
This is NOT a measure of offensive greatness year-by-year, but rather a way >of measuring how good a player was in the long run. The reason: obviously, a >player wouldn't be allowed to stick around long enough to amass these >numbers if they weren't good enough to stick around on a MLB roster. So, it >provides a pretty rough estimate of who some of the greatest MLB players of >all time are/were. And it's very simple:>
Total Bases + Walks + Stolen Bases>
Obviously, longevity is a huge factor here, but I think that deserves >consideration when measuring all-time greatness. But obviously it shouldn't >be taken too seriously, because I don't think anyone will seriously argue >that Pete Rose was better than Lou Gehrig and Ted Williams.>
The top ten overall are:>
1. Hank Aaron (8498)>2. Barry Bonds (8364)>3. Rickey Henderson (8184)>4. Ty Cobb (8000)>5. Babe Ruth (7978)>6. Willie Mays (7868)>7. Stan Musial (7811)>8. Carl Yastremski (7552)>9. Pete Rose (7516)>10. Frank Robinson (6997)
How would Ted fare if he got his 5 seasons back, say, normalized to the performance in the seasons before and after the ones he missed? He'd crack that lineup then, right?
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 19:19:32 GMT, Tom MacIntyre <tom__macintyre@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 14:05:54 -0400, "JPM III" <jpmccord@hotmail.com>>wrote:>
Total Bases + Walks + Stolen Bases>>
The top ten overall are:>>
1. Hank Aaron (8498)>>2. Barry Bonds (8364)>>3. Rickey Henderson (8184)>>4. Ty Cobb (8000)>>5. Babe Ruth (7978)>>6. Willie Mays (7868)>>7. Stan Musial (7811)>>8. Carl Yastremski (7552)>>9. Pete Rose (7516)>>10. Frank Robinson (6997)>
How would Ted fare if he got his 5 seasons back, say, normalized to>the performance in the seasons before and after the ones he missed?>He'd crack that lineup then, right?>
Tom
Duh on me...I get 9145. Even a substantial decrease in his level of play would've put him at or near the top. He had a 113 OPS+ in his next-to-last season, and wasn't below 164 otherwise, so, based on that, he may not have had any substantial decrease. On the other hand, was his military activity harder on him than playing a season of MLB?
I had forgotten about those great partial seasons he had, one over 100 PA, for the Korean War years. I hate what ifs...
This is NOT a measure of offensive greatness year-by-year, but> > rather a way of measuring how good a player was in the long run.> > The reason: obviously, a player wouldn't be allowed to stick around> > long enough to amass these numbers if they weren't good enough to> > stick around on a MLB roster. So, it provides a pretty rough> > estimate of who some of the greatest MLB players of all time> > are/were. And it's very simple:> >
Total Bases + Walks + Stolen Bases> >
Obviously, longevity is a huge factor here, but I think that> > deserves consideration when measuring all-time greatness. But> > obviously it shouldn't be taken too seriously, because I don't> > think anyone will seriously argue that Pete Rose was better than> > Lou Gehrig and Ted Williams.> >
The top ten overall are:> >
1. Hank Aaron (8498)> > 2. Barry Bonds (8364)> > 3. Rickey Henderson (8184)> > 4. Ty Cobb (8000)> > 5. Babe Ruth (7978)> > 6. Willie Mays (7868)> > 7. Stan Musial (7811)> > 8. Carl Yastremski (7552)> > 9. Pete Rose (7516)> > 10. Frank Robinson (6997)>
How would Ted fare if he got his 5 seasons back, say, normalized to> the performance in the seasons before and after the ones he missed?> He'd crack that lineup then, right?
It would have taken Ted four bad years (bad for Ted, anyway) to get to 8500, so with those five seasons back he would easily be way out in front. Just adding the five seasons back in using his average career numbers, he's over 9000.
Then again, if Babe Ruth had been an outfielder from the start, he probably would have been well over 10,000.
Richard Gadsden wrote in news:memo.20050416130010.7304B@tg001a0001.blueyonder.co.uk:>
In article <X8%7e.3036$gV.1386@lakeread02> on Fri, 15 Apr 2005> 22:55:49 -0400, jpmccord@hotmail.com (JPM III) wrote:>
Then again, if Babe Ruth had been an outfielder from the start, he> > probably would have been well over 10,000.>
Even in the Dead Ball Era?
Well, maybe 9000. Upon looking at his "22 seasons" of play, I am reminded that the first and last were too brief. And since he played about 16 full seasons' worth, then I can only give him credit for another four seasons' worth at most when extrapolating like this. And taking the deadball era into account, I definitely can't push him up to 500 TB+BB+SB per season.
But looking at his 1919 numbers (284 TB, 101 BB), it's not out of the question that he could have hit fewer homers and more doubles and still gotten to 500 with a high OPS and some stolen bases. But not for four straight years in the Dead Ball Era.
