you're reading...
All-Time HoME Leaders, Sidebars

All-Time HoME Leaders, Center Field – 1-20

Do you have a good sense of what’s going to happen with Carlos Beltran when he hits the Hall ballot in a few years? I don’t. The guy never led the league in anything meaningful, he wasn’t very healthy during the second half of his career, and he had one of the more memorable called third strikes in the game’s history. On the other hand, he did make nine All-Star teams, he’s eighth in JAWS at his position (at least until Mike Trout passes him), and his post-season career overall was excellent, as evidenced by a 1.021 OPS. I’m going to err on the side of progress on this one. The voting body as a whole is getting better and better. Yes, that’s in part due to purging of old-school writers and new-school thinkers getting votes. It’s also due to some older BBWAA members making progress, learning how to think differently. So that’s it, the introduction to the first 20 guys in center.

Oh yeah, we both rank Willie Mays behind Ty Cobb [ducks].

Maybe you’ll like the rankings at other positions more. Here they are.

[MAPES+], [CHEWS+], [1B, 1-20], [1B, 21-40], [2B, 1-20], [2B, 21-40], [3B, 1-20], [3B, 21-40], [SS, 1-20], [SS, 21-40], [C, 1-20], [C, 21-40], [LF, 1-20], [LF, 21-40]

Center Field – 1-20

CF, 1-20

Where do we project the active player(s) to finish in our rankings?

Mike Trout

Finally, a really fun one! Mike Trout is the best player in baseball. If you’re too young to have seen Willie Mays, it’s possible he’s the best player you’ve ever seen. Sure, he’s behind a bunch of guys now, but for how long? A season of just 6.0 adjusted WAR gets him past Kenny Lofton, Carlos Beltran, Jim Edmonds, Andruw Jones, and Paul Hines. Since Trout is just 27 this year, let’s hold him at that conservative 8.4 for two years before decreasing it by one win per year until he reaches 10. If that were to happen, he’d also pass Richie Ashburn, Billy Hamilton, Ken Griffey, and Joe DiMaggio. Mantle is next on the list, but I think he’s too far away for Trout. Here’s what he’d need: 9.0, 9.0, 8.0, 8.0, 7.0, 7.0, 6.0, 5.0, 4.0, 3.0, 2.0, and 1.0. At that point, he’d be 38. And absolute greats can be pretty awesome at that age, worth far more than just 1 WAR. Ted Williams and Barry Bonds topped 9.0, and Honus Wagner was worth 8.0. Babe Ruth (and Bob Johnson) topped 6.0. And Eddie Collins, Joe Morgan, Bill Dahlen, Nap Lajoie, Tris Speaker, and Ty Cobb played like All-Stars. I’m not ready to say that Trout is those guys. All I’m saying is that those guys are great even when they’re old. Maybe Trout is that great. Maybe Mantle falls. Maybe.—Miller

We all get it. Mike Trout’s amazing. Yada yada yada. Our new normal: Someone posts some amazing tidbit about Mike Trout, and we just acknowledge it briefly then move along. This guy is doing things unseen in several generations, and he is absolutely crushing the league. How badly? In the seven seasons from 2012–2018 (through May 11th), Trout earned 56.8 BBREF WAR. The next highest total was a tie between Josh Donaldson and Robinson Cano at 38.0, which means that Trout has exceeded the second best total by 49%. Forty-flippin’-nine percent!!! That’s like a person running a two-hour marathon, and the second place finisher clocks in at three hours.

But is this level of complete and total dominance rare? With the help of BBREF’s Play Index, which you subscribe to immediately, I looked up every seven-year stretch in big league history, and, yes, Trout’s 49% lead is the highest. In fact, he leads the next best by 8 percentage points (Barry Bonds leading Cal Ripken by 41% from 1989–1995). In fact only two other players led their second-place finishers by more than 30%: Ross Barnes over George Wright from 1871–1877 (32%) and Bonds leading Rickey Henderson from 1988–1994 by 31%. Once again, Mike Trout is doing things we’ve never seen in our lifetimes, or even across all time.

Digging a little deeper, only 35 different men have led MLB in WAR over a seven-year span. Just 35 in the nearly 150 years we’ve been at this professional baseball thing. Of the 55 who have finished second, 33 appear on the leader list, so en toto, a mere 57 players have managed to appear on these lists, combined. Trout has now turned the trick three times (assuming that Cano and Donaldson don’t managed to gain nearly 20 WAR in 2018’s remaining months), making him only the 21st player to do so. The other 20?

  • Barry Bonds: 13 times
  • Babe Ruth: 11
  • Honus Wagner: 10
  • Willie Mays and Stan Musial: 9
  • Ty Cobb, Albert Pujols, and Mike Schmidt: 7 times
  • Cap Anson: 6 times
  • Ed Delahanty and Lou Gehrig: 5 times
  • Dan Brouthers, Roger Connor, Mickey Mantle, and Joe Morgan: 4 times
  • Wade Boggs, Roberto Clemente, Billy Hamilton, Rickey Henderson, and Alex Rodriguez: 3 times.

Any time you’re a player under 27, and you’re in a group with Boggs, Clemente, Hamilton, Henderson, and A-Rod, you can probably feel good about your Hall of Fame chances. Given the gap between Trout and the next-best, it’s pretty likely he’s going to reach at least four to six instances of this particular way of looking at things, and the names only get better as the we go up the list. Amazing.—Eric

Where do our rankings diverge the most from the conventional wisdom?

Where do I begin? Our first seven are pretty conventional, actually. But then there’s Put Put Ashburn who took for bloody ever to reach the Coop, and whose combo of high OBPs, steals, and ace centerfielding we find highly compelling. Paul Hines hasn’t gotten much of any attention from the Veterans Committees, and think he’s pretty great. Jim Edmonds and Kenny Lofton got knocked off crowded Hall ballots due to the 5 percent rule, and The Toy Cannon didn’t even get one stinking vote in 1983 before falling off the slate. I’m not sure whether Willie Davis ever appeared on a Hall ballot. Andruw Jones just barely avoided getting thrown in his Hall of Fame rodeo. We’ve got all these guys in our top twenty. We have the Duke juuuuuuust inside the top fifteen as opposed to chumming with Willie and Mickey, we’ve got little-known 1800s guys popping onto the bottom of the top twenty, and we don’t have any of Kirby Puckett, Larry Doby, Earl Averill, Edd Roush, or Earle Combs in it. Yeah, we’re flying our centerfield freak flags high. Or maybe geek flag is a better term.—Eric

It has to be Ty Cobb and Willie Mays. I think a year or three ago some ESPN piece called Mays the best player in baseball history. That’s strange. It’s Ruth, it’s Ruth, it’s so clearly Ruth. Unless you timeline. And then it’s Bonds. Unless you think PEDs changed everything. And then it’s, um, maybe Mays? Or a bunch of other potential guys. Anyway, if ESPN says the best player ever is Mays and we don’t even think he’s the best at his position, we diverge most from conventional wisdom on Cobb and Say Hey. Look at our numbers though. The two are separated by three percentage points for me and four for Eric. At their level, that’s a virtual tie. You say Mays was better than Cobb? Okay, I’m not going to argue.—Miller

Where do we disagree with one another the most?

Our order for the first eight is identical. Then our next seven are the same, though in a different order. And then there’s a bit of separation in some, but most players are close enough.—Miller

Primarily, Jim O’Rourke. Now, most folks think of Orator Jim as a left fielder, but a) he played pretty much everywhere, and b) he’s a centerfielder. Here’s the appearances that BBREF current estimates for O’Rourke by position:

  • C: 231
  • 1B: 214
  • 2B: 2
  • 3B: 148
  • SS: 40
  • LF: 770
  • CF: 463
  • RF: 217
  • P: 6

Not that is utility. Says in that list that O’Rourke’s appearances in centerfield trail his appearances in left field by 300 games. But when it comes to the 19th Century, things get wacky. The leagues’ schedules changed almost constantly until 1904 when the 154-game slate became the standard. Every few years, as the game’s popularity grew, the magnates would tack on more games, increasing profits on ticket sales and concessions. Yay! More baseball! But for guys like me who have a little dollop of engineering in their brain, assigning a primary position without accounting for the schedule feels not quite right. Especially when you also prefer to assign position based on where the player earned the most value. (For examples why, see Banks, Ernie and Rose, Pete.) So when we actually break out O’Rourke’s appearances, we find out that most of his innings in left field came in the last seven years of his career, when the schedule was as much as twice as long as in his first ten or fifteen years. During that earlier time, O’Rourke got most of his centerfielding in. Even if we adjusted the innings for a 162 sked and all that, it probably wouldn’t make enough difference to overcome the late left field advantage, but it would be awfully close. But when I season by season partition his WAR (with all my adjustments baked in) based on the percentage of his defensive innings played (or estimated to have be played) at each position, centerfield wins out over left field. Much of that is due to the fact that O’Rourke was at his physical peak during the late 1870s and a few subsequent seasons when he played centerfield most often. He was in his closing act when he went to left field to stay late in his days. “Simple” as that.—Eric

Are there any players who MAPES+/CHEWS+ might overrate or underrate? 

Rich Ashburn had a short career by the standard of great players—just fifteen years. He rarely missed a game, so his plate appearances don’t reflect it, and he went out on a high note. Well, as high as you can get on the 1962 Mets, for whom he netted 2.1 WAR with a 121 OPS+. If Whitey had chosen to keep grinding along with the Amazings, he might have slipped a couple pegs down the ladder. Any system that prefers longevity to peak or prime value might see Ashburn a little less favorably.—Eric

If defensive numbers are overblown, as Bill James suggests, we may overrate Andruw Jones. If the mythology put into song by Terry Cashman is right, we may underrate Duke Snider. But I want to take a shot at explaining a player who we rank correctly. I am incredibly confident that Joe DiMaggio is exactly the fifth best center fielder ever. At the HoME, we don’t give credit for seasons missed due to military service. Maybe we should, but I prefer our position for a myriad of reasons. Still, let’s say we replace DiMaggio’s three missed seasons. If we give him 5.6 WAR each year, which tips just a little more to what he did before he left compared to when he returned, he’s still fifth.—Miller

***

Join us back here in a week as we finish off center field.

Advertisements

Discussion

4 thoughts on “All-Time HoME Leaders, Center Field – 1-20

  1. Billy Hamilton is interesting. How do you compensate for his stolen bases, most of which were picked up when the definition of a “stolen base” was different from today? As far as I know, they’ve been unable to determine how many would be “stolen bases” by today’s definition (and if someone’s figured that out, let me know where to find it). And what sort of adjustments do you make for play before and after the advent of the mound?
    Just curious.
    v

    Posted by verdun2 | May 21, 2018, 8:27 am
    • So you seem to have a couple of questions here, the second of which is easy enough to answer, so I’ll take that one first.

      I do not make any adjustments to position players for a 50′ mound, though I do make pitcher adjustments since they didn’t have to work as hard. As for hitters, they were still competing at the highest level and still competing against the other best hitters in the game. In other words, though they were challenged differently, I cannot say they were challenged more or less. Thus, no adjustments.

      Your other question is much, much harder. But even for hard questions, there can be some easy answers. Mine is that I don’t compensate for Hamilton’s added stolen bases or missing baserunning data. Let me try to explain.

      We use Baserunning Runs numbers at BBREF. One thing they recognize is, “For many leagues before 1950, we are missing caught stealing data. Not accounting for this will grossly inflate some players’ wRAA, because the basic wOBA is going to treat someone like Hugh Nicol as 138 out of 138 stealing bases in 1887.”

      So…

      They estimate… “a player’s caught stealing percentage using a regression (on league-seasons we have CS) based on the league SB/CS values (we have these totals for catchers back to 1890), and the rate at which runners stole bases when second was open, which is estimated using (SB/(.8 * 1B + .6 * (BB+HBP))). This regression was divided between live ball and dead ball eras (pre- and post-deadball) and we said that no player can be more than 80% successful (or CS% >= 20%).” BBREF finds that those numbers are better estimators than just using league average.

      You’ll probably note that Hamilton played a year and change before 1890, so this imperfection isn’t even perfect.

      What we’re saying is that we think we’re using the best data available, and we’re trusting that BBREF is going to be able to guesstimate a bit better than we would. That’s certainly a reasonable assumption.

      As a check to see how BBREF does with their numbers, let’s look at their WAR Runs from Baserunning up until Jackie came into the game. The only three guys over 50 are Max Carey (88.1), Hamilton (52.8), and Ty Cobb (52.5). If we take it up until the season before the DH, we add Luis Aparicio (88.3), Willie Mays (77.2), Maury Wills (54.8), Lou Brock (52.2), and Mickey Mantle (50.5).

      What I’m saying is that for a century, Hamilton looks like about the fifth best baserunner ever. Today, there are 38 men with 50+ WAR Runs from Baserunning. We could say that we have better numbers now so we can see differentiation between the best and worst runners.

      So I’m throwing a bunch of stats at you. The truth is that I think we underestimate the best baserunners before 1950 and overestimate the worst. But I don’t know by how much. So I don’t guess any more than BBREF does.

      Perhaps that’s not a satisfying answer. It is, however, the best one I have.

      Posted by Miller | May 21, 2018, 12:33 pm
  2. So you seem to have a couple of questions here, the second of which is easy enough to answer, so I’ll take that one first.

    I do not make any adjustments to position players for a 50′ mound, though I do make pitcher adjustments since they didn’t have to work as hard. As for hitters, they were still competing at the highest level and still competing against the other best hitters in the game. In other words, though they were challenged differently, I cannot say they were challenged more or less. Thus, no adjustments.

    Your other question is much, much harder. But even for hard questions, there can be some easy answers. Mine is that I don’t compensate for Hamilton’s added stolen bases or missing baserunning data. Let me try to explain.

    We use Baserunning Runs numbers at BBREF. One thing they recognize is, “For many leagues before 1950, we are missing caught stealing data. Not accounting for this will grossly inflate some players’ wRAA, because the basic wOBA is going to treat someone like Hugh Nicol as 138 out of 138 stealing bases in 1887.”

    So…

    They estimate… “a player’s caught stealing percentage using a regression (on league-seasons we have CS) based on the league SB/CS values (we have these totals for catchers back to 1890), and the rate at which runners stole bases when second was open, which is estimated using (SB/(.8 * 1B + .6 * (BB+HBP))). This regression was divided between live ball and dead ball eras (pre- and post-deadball) and we said that no player can be more than 80% successful (or CS% >= 20%).” BBREF finds that those numbers are better estimators than just using league average.

    You’ll probably note that Hamilton played a year and change before 1890, so this imperfection isn’t even perfect.

    What we’re saying is that we think we’re using the best data available, and we’re trusting that BBREF is going to be able to guesstimate a bit better than we would. That’s certainly a reasonable assumption.

    As a check to see how BBREF does with their numbers, let’s look at their WAR Runs from Baserunning up until Jackie came into the game. The only three guys over 50 are Max Carey (88.1), Hamilton (52.8), and Ty Cobb (52.5). If we take it up until the season before the DH, we add Luis Aparicio (88.3), Willie Mays (77.2), Maury Wills (54.8), Lou Brock (52.2), and Mickey Mantle (50.5).

    What I’m saying is that for a century, Hamilton looks like about the fifth best baserunner ever. Today, there are 38 men with 50+ WAR Runs from Baserunning. We could say that we have better numbers now so we can see differentiation between the best and worst runners.

    So I’m throwing a bunch of stats at you. The truth is that I think we underestimate the best baserunners before 1950 and overestimate the worst. But I don’t know by how much. So I don’t guess any more than BBREF does.

    Perhaps that’s not a satisfying answer. It is, however, the best one I have.

    Posted by Miller | May 21, 2018, 12:32 pm

Tell us what you think!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Institutional History

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: