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

All-Time HoME Leaders, Right Field – 21-40

For me, this week’s entry is a pretty interesting one. You’ll see a bunch of HoMErs top the charts, with a couple of near-HoMErs mixed in. There are also four other Hall of Famers, one of whom has a decent case with just a little twisting of MAPES or CHEWS. Then there’s a guy like Jesse Barfield. Curious.

I was young enough when Barfield’s career finished that my understanding of the game was still in the batting average sphere. I thought career totals and Black Ink were cool (still do, by the way). And I didn’t really appreciate defense, though like everyone else, I loved Barfield’s arm. I think I understand more today. Yet, when I look at Barfield’s BBREF page, I remain unimpressed. We’re looking at only nine seasons of over 84 games. Nine! Only twice did his OPS+ reach 140, and only two other times did it reach 120. Oh, but the defense. In the game’s history, there are only 36 guys who spent at least 75% of their careers at a corner outfield position who totaled 50 Rfield. Only 17 of those guys top 75. When we make it 100, it’s just seven guys. Barfield’s number is 161.4. He’s bested only be Roberto Clemente and Barry Bonds. That defense has tremendous value.

DRA, as you may know, loves the old time guys. Still, Barfield is seventh on a similar list by that measure. And among guys over the last century, he trails only Roy White and Clemente in DRA. It’s his defense that gets a guy nobody ever thought much of into the top-40 ever in right field.

For the top-40 at other positions, please see the links below.

[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], [CF, 1-20], [CF, 21-40], [RF, 1-20]

Right Field – 21-40

RF, 21-40

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

Jose Bautista

I must confess not knowing where Jose Bautista was when the season began. When I learned he wasn’t signed for a while, I was a bit surprised. Then the shockers came. He signed with the Braves. And they signed him to play third base!?! Anyway, I’m sure you know that the Brave experiment ended just a dozen games after it began. And now the Mets are giving him a shot! Hell, at this point even he’s better than David Wright. If the Mets take too much more time than the Braves to catch on, he’s going to fall behind Parker and Barfield. I suspect they won’t let it go on so long. Of course, I didn’t think they would sign him in the first place…—Miller

I’ve always like Bautista. He’s sort of the Hank Sauer of our time. I wish him well in his bid to get more MLB playing time.—Eric

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

It seems we’re two of the only folks who think Vlad Guerrero rests comfortably on the borderline. I don’t suppose those who use conventional wisdom think a lot about Chuck Klein. If they do, I’d suspect they like him more than we do, what with all the Black Ink in the live ball 1930s. I think this list is pretty much what you’d expect. And Barfield.—Miller

I love me some Jesse Barfield. I wish like crazy that he hadn’t hurt his wrist. It sapped his power and turned him into a shell of himself. An outstanding player with the most amazing arm ever.

But as to the question at hand, I have three answers: Sam Thompson, Reggie Smith, and Dave Parker. Most folks would look at Sam Thompson, Hall of Famer, with his .400 season, his .331 lifetime average, 147 OPS+, two home-run titles, three RBI titles, and three 200 hit seasons and wonder what we’re not seeing. The Hall of Merit also elected him. But my cat Bogey could probably have hit .400 in 1894. Thompson hit .415 and didn’t win the batting title. He got a late start, his career was short on the back end too, and that’s that.

Now Reggie Smith goes in the other direction. He’s a SABR darling, but his lifetime totals don’t scream all-time great. The only pretty impressive one is his 137 OPS+. He had the same troubles staying in the lineup that Larry Walker had, too. But Smith’s performance came from center field for half his career, and up-the-middle players who hit like first basemen aren’t easy to find. He provided a huge boost to his teams that way (until he moved permanently to right field, of course), and that’s a buried lead in the baseball world.

Lastly, Dave Parker. I feel badly for Parker. No one wants to become a cokehead. But doing so pretty much killed his career. After he got off the powder, he only had one more good season (1985). Yet, he kept getting 10–25% of the vote from the BBWAA, and he’s popped up on Veterans’ committee ballots. So we have a very strong divergence of opinion from body of baseball people out there. Who? I don’t know, but they ain’t like us.—Eric

Where do we disagree with one another the most?

Probably Enos Slaughter. Even though it appears that we are in complete agreement about him. Last week I mentioned that Miller has always had a stronger opinion in favor of Willie Keeler than I have. The opposite is true for Enos Slaughter. Again, probably just quirks of our respective perspectives, but it’s been a true difference. I’ve had Country at the borderline the whole way, and Miller hasn’t. Slaughter has a lot of potential variability in his profile. If/when BBREF uses the Retrosheet data now available to expand the reach of the baserunning, DP, and outfield arm value calculations, he’s one guy who could really benefit. Until then, however, this is where we’re at with him. In fact, I could probably have listed him under fellows we don’t currently agree with the mainstream view of.—Eric

At this point I have to say we disagree the most on whether or not this should be a category. We simply don’t disagree with each other too much on position players. So I’ll get to a more esoteric point. This year, we were eligible to elect six players, representing the two elected by the Era Committee and four elected by the BBWAA. Based on our rules, we must elect exactly six players. To elect six, we must vote for six. To vote for fewer would mean we’re breaking our rules. To vote for more, I think, is also wrong, though not exactly breaking our rules since we can only elect six. But what if I had voted for the same seven but just flipped the order of Eric’s last two? If that were the case, we’d have five guys in and two guys tied. However, only one of those guys could go in. I know, I’m basically arguing constitutional law in front of folks who don’t really care about the nitty gritty, nor should you. To be honest, I’m just looking for something to write here.—Miller

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

Enos Slaughter? Several years ago, Eric did some pretty cool work giving credit for time missed due to war or color barrier. While his methods have changed some since then, I suspect he still would support this statement: “Adding 12 eqWAR to his resume makes him a no-brainer in the mode of Andre Dawson or Dewey Evans.” It’s totally reasonable to give credit for games missed due to military service. Were I to do that with Slaughter, I could see him as high at #15, getting all the way past Tony Gwynn. Even if you think that’s too much of a jump, virtually anyone crediting him for the three seasons he missed would have to put him on the good side of the in/out line.—Miller

What you said! And what I said! The whole war-credit discussion is very interesting. I don’t exactly have a horse in that race. On one hand, I see the value of doing so; on the other hand I see rationales why not to. Cases such as Slaughter’s make me think that doing so, in a conservative way, probably makes the most sense. It’s hardly a player’s fault that he fought for his country. So it’s really about doing so in a measured way so that the player receives appropriate benefit but we don’t stiff other players whose records are not compromised by military duty.

But I do draw one line in the sand on the matter of war credit. I don’t give any to pitchers. The very act of pitching creates an ongoing danger of injury that can wipe out a career in a single moment. Not that combat is any kind of cake walk, but in certain ways it may give the pitcher’s arm a long period of reduced stress. The elbow might have given way on the mound in the peaceful alternative world during the same stretch of parallel time the player served in the military. Sorry if this seems cold-hearted, but it’s the logical conclusion of several ideas that underpin my thinking, including adjusting innings for usage patterns and giving pitchers (but not hitters) some credit for their playoff innings. —Eric

***

In a week, we head to the mound, otherwise known as the land where Miller and Eric finally disagree. A little.

Advertisements

Discussion

6 thoughts on “All-Time HoME Leaders, Right Field – 21-40

  1. Surprised Reggie Smith doesn’t clear the 100 bar/have a shot at 110.

    He falls within the top 150-165 position players for me reviewing a mixture of Baseball-Reference and Baseball Gauge WAR. Mid 60s WAR career, not a peak guy, but an impressive prime. Maybe he gets that extra nudge from his Japan year(s) through my lens?

    Posted by Ryan | June 11, 2018, 11:44 pm
    • I think both Eric and I are peak voters more than anything else, and that hurts Smith some. Of course, we’re high enough on him to have elected him.

      Posted by Miller | June 14, 2018, 1:51 pm
  2. Time to finish catching-up on the outfielders.

    But first, speaking of catching (segue alert!), one last point about catchers – I discovered that I was using an old catcher-bonus equation, so long story short, all catchers got a minor boost in my system, so now Berra Bench and NgL-credited Campy are now are in my inner-circle, and Munson crosses my in-out line.

    Center Field:

    1/2. Ty Cobb/Willie Mays 302
    3. Tris Speaker 260
    4. Mickey Mantle 230
    5. Joe DiMaggio 195
    6. Ken Griffey Jr. 155
    7. Billy Hamilton 146
    8. Mike Trout 135
    9. Paul Hines 132
    10. Jim O’Rourke 129
    11. Pete Browning 122
    12. Duke Snider 121
    13. Larry Doby 119
    14. Jim Edmonds 113
    15. Carlos Beltran 112
    16. Lip Pike 112
    17. Andre Dawson 110
    18. Andruw Jones 105
    19. George Gore 104
    20. Kenny Lofton 101

    Others of note: Max Carey (98), Earl Averill (98), Richie Ashburn (98), Jim Wynn (94).

    Cobb/Mays – I’m not sure which I have ahead. I’m waiting for Eric to finish his NgL MLE’s to do my MMP ballots/All-Star teams from the first half of the 20th Century. Once I calculate it for Cobb, he may be just ahead of Mays, just behind, or they might end up just tied. Anyway, it’s within any reasonable margin of error either way, although without Korean War credit, Mays would most likely definitely be behind Cobb.

    Trout – Yeah, he’s good. His 8th place ranking is as of before this season started. If he doesn’t have another plate appearance this year, he passes the original Sliding Billy for 7th. And I calculated it out, if he continues his ytd performance for the rest of the season, he’ll race past Junior Griffey and will just cross my inner-circle line. (I’ll revisit my complete inner-circle some time in the future, harkening back to your inner-circle post from a few months ago.)

    Browning – Maybe I’m giving him too much credit for 4 times being the best position player in his league. Yes, 3 of those were in the AA, which throughout its history was inferior to the NL, although it was close a couple of years. But the counter-argument is that he was the best position player in the PL in 1890, which was the best of the 3 leagues in 1890, albeit just slightly ahead of the NL (counter-counter-argument: although the best in the PL, I do have Pebbly Jack as the best position player overall in baseball in 1890.

    Doby – NgL credit.

    Pike – Pre-NA credit.

    Carey – I figure we will jump over the in/out line once the advanced base-running numbers come out for his era.

    Averill – Only that high with MiL credit.

    Ashburn – A lot of it is that he just wasn’t an outstanding rate player. During his prime, he only twice had a SFrac of less than 1 – his rookie year at .80 and 1955 when he was at .99. He was never the best cf in baseball any single year (not really his fault when he was contemporaries of Willie, Mickey and the Duke), but he also only once was a top-10 player in baseball for a year. So no high peak with lackluster rates just don’t make it for me.

    Wynn – The Toy Cannon is one of my favorite historical players – a great nickname, tons of factors for being underrated, arguably the best player ever not to get a single HoF vote, etc. But he was hurt by a number of factors. One, he played in one of the deepest times for CFs. Two, he played in an expansion era, thus was hurt by standard deviation adjustments. And finally, his peak also wasn’t super-high, his career was relatively short, and if only he hadn’t gotten stabbed before the 1971 season and put up a typical for him season, he would probably be in.

    Posted by Michael Mengel | June 13, 2018, 2:12 pm
    • Do I remember correctly that you give a bonus as the league’s best position player? I think I’m a bit troubled by that if it’s the case. Trout, for example, is destroying the AL this year (and all of MLB). Would his bonus be the same as Browning’s if Browning’s AA was of somewhat sketchy talent? Or if Browning were really close to second place?

      Regarding Pike, how does the math work for you on pre-NA?

      Posted by Miller | June 14, 2018, 1:57 pm
  3. (Argh – I was 90% done with my reply and accidentally closed the tab).

    Note – all bonus points get divided by 100 for inclusion in my composite score for each player. My in/out line is 5.00 total points

    I give 3 types of seasonal bonus points – 5 pts for best positional player/pitcher in each league (MVP/Cy Young bonus) for every year of ML history (NgL players get this bonus if they were better than either AL/NL MVP/Cy that year). 2 pts for every time a player was the best at his position in baseball that year/ rotation spot for pitchers/ 1 reliever post WWII (All-Star bonus).

    The last bonus is based on my yearly MMP points. The number of players awarded points varies from 6 to the current number of 15 (based primarily on # of ML teams/divided by 2, with some adjustments for NgL players, etc. The best player gets 10 pts, decreasing in equal increments down the line (e.g. currently the 2nd best player each year gets 9.33 pts, 3rd best 8.67, 4th best 8, down to .67 for 15th).

    Now to compare Browning and Trout.

    Browning – MVP bonus: AA in 1882, 1883, 1885, PL 1890 – 20 pts. All-Star bonus: 2b-1882, CF – 1883, 1885, 1887, LF – 1890 – 12 pts. MMP bonus: 1882 – 10 pts (1st), 1885 – 2.5 pts (7th), 1887 – 3.75 pts, 1990 – 2 pts (8th) – 18.25 MMP points total. Total of 48.25 bonus points, increasing his composite score from 5.62 (112 PEACE+) to 6.10 (122 PEACE+).

    Trout – MVP bonus: AL 2012-2016 – 25 pts. All-Star bonus: CF – 2012-2017 – 12 pts. MMP bonus 2012-2014, 2016 – 10 pts each (1st), 9.33 pts in 2015 (2nd behind Harper), 8.67 in 2017 (3rd behind Altuve and Judge) – 58 MMP points total. So Trout has accumulated 98 bonus points so far (and of course, is on pace for 17 more bonus pts this year).

    So Trout has already accumulated twice as many bonus points as Browning had in his entire career. And this doesn’t account for the fact that most years Trout ends up getting more basic (non-bonus credit than Browning because he’s putting up more mWAR each year than Browning did,

    As to my math for pre-NA players, in the 1927 HoM ballot discussion on BBTF, David Foss posted some stats for pre-NA players. Based upon these numbers (mainly runs, hits and/or total bases per game), I create a basic guesstimate for WAR with some adjustments for playing time, position, etc. I doubt they would stand up to strict scientific scrutiny, but it is based on the available stats they put up and I do want to give credit for those players who actually were playing baseball pre-NA.

    Posted by Michael Mengel | June 15, 2018, 11:32 pm
    • I kind of love it! First, it had to be a lot of fun putting these bonus points together. Second, it makes a lot of sense in that it’s a peak-oriented lean to your system, which I think makes a lot of sense. Thanks for explaining!

      Posted by Miller | June 16, 2018, 7:58 am

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: