Gehrig vs. Pujols

[Olympic Fan]

Not sure anybody else is interested in this stuff, but I was listening to an interesting debate on the Major League Network ... in the course of discussing Albert Pujols' 361 HR -- which tied him with Joe DiMaggio on the alltime list -- two of their experts (sorry I didn't get their names ... both were former players) voiced the opinion that Pujols was on pace to pass Lou Gehrig as the greatest first baseman in baseball history.

I think it's an interesting question, so I was looking the numbers up. It's obviously tough to compare, since they played in different eras. Plus Gehrig played 2164 games in his career ... Pujols is at 1371 at age 29.

As it stands, their raw triple crown numbers stand:

Gehrig .340 493 HR 1,995 RBI
Pujols .333 361 HR 1,090 RBI

Of course, those aren't the best numbers to measure things -- more signficantly:

Gehrig .447 OBP .632 SLUG 1.080 OPS
Pujols .427 OBP .628 SLUG 1.055 OPS

Now, we have to take era into effect. It's interesting because in the context of their times, Pujols' .333 batting average is more impressive than Gehrig's .340 (Gehrig played in the highest average era in baseball history), while Gehrig's power numbers are actually better than they look vs. Pujols' power (Pujols has played in the greatest power era in history).

OPS Plus (which relates OPS to ballparks and era) gives Gehrig a slight edge -- 179 plus (fourth best in baseball history) vs. 172 plus (seventh best).

Defense appears to be a wash -- Pujols has won one gold glove. His career fielding percentage at first is .001 better than the league average ... his career range factor is 3.4 chances per games better than the league average. But Gehrig's fielding percentage was also .001 better than the league average and his career range (we only have range per game, not range per 9 innings for his era) is 3.2 better than the league average.

I think the edge still has to go to Gehrig. Forget average, HRs and RBIs, which are all team and era dependent. But the Iron Horse still has a small, but significant edge in OPS Plus. It's possible that in the next 8-9 years of his career that Pujols can raise his number, but it's not likely -- the only players better in their mid-to-late 30s than in their late 20s were the steoid freaks.

Right now, I do Pujols the honor of believing that he's steroid free. He's on a career track that will leave him close to, but just short of Gehrig's impact. I do think he'll end up ranked second behind Gehrig -- and ahead of traditional No. 2 man Jimmie Foxx (163 OPS Plus) -- in the alltime first base rankings.

[YmoBeThere]

Just curious, how would one consider the presence of other players in the lineup and their impact on stats? Gehrig of course played with several other Hall of Famers, most notably Ruth and DiMaggio. Pujols certainly hasn't had comparable players in the lineup with him.

[YourLandlord]

I approve of this analysis. About time someone here introduces a truly intelligent statistics-based baseball discussion. Refreshing!

I recommend this thread for in depth 1B analysis:
http://sonsofsamhorn.net/index.php?showtopic=43458

also:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/pl...ujolal01.shtml

[Olympic Fan]

Just curious, how would one consider the presence of other players in the lineup and their impact on stats? Gehrig of course played with several other Hall of Famers, most notably Ruth and DiMaggio. Pujols certainly hasn't had comparable players in the lineup with him.

That's why such stats as RBIs and runs scored are flawed measures of greatness ... they are very much dependent on teammates. I don't believe such stats as batting average, On Base Percentage and Slugging Percentage (which are combined to form OPS) are impacted to any large degree by teammates.

Obviously, some people believe that other batters in the order can impact the pitches a particular batter sees, but that's a hotly debated topic in statistical circles -- for all the talk about finding a hitter to "protect" Pujols, the addition of a red-hot Matt Holliday to bat behind Pujols hasn't had an impact on his performance. It's helped the team, of course, but Pujols' average, OBP and SLUG have all actually declined since Holliday has joined the team ... that's short term of course, so I wouldn't read too much into it, but still it's hardly evidence that good or bad teammates actually help or hurt a player's individual stats such as BA, OBP, SLUG, OPS.

As for Gehrig, he spent most of his career batting fourth behind Ruth, then DiMaggio -- except for the 1926 season, when he batted fifth (Bob Meusel batted fourth, between Ruth and Gehrig) and 1935, the one year when neither superstar was on the team.

Interesting that in his greatest years, Gehrig was "protected" by Hall of Famer Tony Lazzeri, who usually hit fifth in the order. But in 1931, when Gehrig had one of his greatest year (he hit .341 with 46 HRs and drove in an AL record 184 runs), Lazzeri had one of his worst years -- batting .267 with a mediocre .401 SLUG. That's not much better than Pujols has had to protect him.

Just an aside ... it's a coincidence that the DBR should have on its front page a note about Gehrig and how Jeter will soon pass him for the record for most hits by a Yankee (hey, I posted first!). I was taken with the comment about how a lot of his career records are being broken.

That brings up one of my favorite "what ifs" -- what if Gehrig had not been striken by ALS, the rare disease that ended his career prematurely. I realize you can't rate players on what might-have-been, but it's still fun to speculate. And in Gehrig's case, a rare disease caused his career to end prematurely,

Gehrig was 34 years old in 1937, when he was still a great player -- he .351 with 37 homers, 159 RBIs, .473 OBP, .673 SLUG, and an league best 1.116 OPS.

The next year, he was showing the effects of the disease that would kill him and his production dropped off drastically -- still good, but not Gehrig-like .295 with 29 home runs and 114 RBIs (and a .932 OPS). The next year, he played the first eight games and couldn't go anymore ... his career was over at at 36 and he died two years later.

But what if he doesn't get the disease? He's 35 years old in 1938, but he's one of the best-conditioned athletes of his era. He doesn't party or overindulge in alcohol ... he stays in shape in the offseason. There's not reason to think he couldn't keep playing a few more years at a very high level -- maybe not as high as in 1937, but still productive in his career decline.

The Yankees certainly could have used him ... he was replaced in 1939 and 1940 by Babe Dahlgren, who was quite simply the worst first baseman in the AL (.689 OPS in '39; .709 in 1940). In 1941, the Yankees brought up Johnny Sturm who was even worse -- an unbelievably low .592 OPS.

Is it farfetched to think a healthy, well-conditioned Gehrig could have played -- and played effectively -- through 1941, when he was 38 years old? And if he had stuck around that long, what happens after Pearl Harbor ... when most of the top players in baseball are drafted into the service. During the war years, the majors were loaded with overage players -- 39 year old Bill Dickey caught 54 games during that period ... there were several 40-plus year olds.

I could see Gehrig playing through 1945, when he was 42 years old. Those extra years would have cut into some of his averages -- his career BA would not have been .340 and his career OPS would probably be lower than 1.080.

However, think about some of his raw numbers -- that hit total of 2721 that Jeter is approaching would be over 3500 ... his 493 HRs probably would be over 600 ... he'd have 2500-plus RBIs and close to that in runs scored. Don't know about his consecutive game streak -- I suspect he would have had to take some time off as he got older, but it would certainly be longer than the record Ripken broke.

It's just interesting to think about.

[Mal]

Oly, thanks for bringing up the hypothetical "What would have happened had Gehrig not gotten his own disease?" projections topic. I've of course seen the same sort of analysis applied to Ted Williams, since he missed so much of his prime in WWII (and some decline time in Korea, of course). But I'd never thought of Gehrig's lost years that way. He played so many games in a row I guess I've always viewed him as probably within a couple years of retiring anyway. Certainly fun to speculate.

I'll be interested in seeing how long Pujols plays and what pace his decline takes. It's tough to tell if some of the guys hitting productively into their late 30's these days are the product of simply superior, um, medicine, or better conditioning and knowledge of physiology, etc. I guess I wouldn't be shocked if Pujols is still swatting 35 homers a year a decade from now. At a point fairly soon, he'll start seeing "all-time" numbers in front of him in certain categories, and that could be a great motivator for him to play a long time.

YourLandlord, I think you'll find that there are more than a few modern, Bill James/Rob Neyer followers in our baseball discussions here, who don't believe advanced stats are the devil's magic the way most sportswriters do, if you hang around long enough. We like some intellectual rigor, even if we still harbor romanticized notions about baseball generally. We're Dukies, after all.

[rasputin]

Oly, thanks for bringing up the hypothetical "What would have happened had Gehrig not gotten his own disease?" projections topic. I've of course seen the same sort of analysis applied to Ted Williams, since he missed so much of his prime in WWII (and some decline time in Korea, of course). But I'd never thought of Gehrig's lost years that way. He played so many games in a row I guess I've always viewed him as probably within a couple years of retiring anyway. Certainly fun to speculate.

I'll be interested in seeing how long Pujols plays and what pace his decline takes. It's tough to tell if some of the guys hitting productively into their late 30's these days are the product of simply superior, um, medicine, or better conditioning and knowledge of physiology, etc. I guess I wouldn't be shocked if Pujols is still swatting 35 homers a year a decade from now. At a point fairly soon, he'll start seeing "all-time" numbers in front of him in certain categories, and that could be a great motivator for him to play a long time.

YourLandlord, I think you'll find that there are more than a few modern, Bill James/Rob Neyer followers in our baseball discussions here, who don't believe advanced stats are the devil's magic the way most sportswriters do, if you hang around long enough. We like some intellectual rigor, even if we still harbor romanticized notions about baseball generally. We're Dukies, after all.

Count me as one of those followers. I agree with most of what Oly said, except for defense being a wash. Gehrig was pretty ordinary as a defensive player at first. Not so Pujols. Yes, he has only one Gold Glove, but he should have had several others. GG voting is often a joke, especially at first base (like Palmeiro getting a GG at first in a season when he was primarily a DH).

[YourLandlord]

YourLandlord, I think you'll find that there are more than a few modern, Bill James/Rob Neyer followers in our baseball discussions here, who don't believe advanced stats are the devil's magic the way most sportswriters do, if you hang around long enough. We like some intellectual rigor, even if we still harbor romanticized notions about baseball generally. We're Dukies, after all.

Ha, great. I used to avoid the baseball threads because I would get so worked up reading absolutely wrong things that would be a waste of time to point out and correct. (Jeter makes that jump-throw so well, he is the best defensive shortstop ever!!!! )

[Olympic Fan]

I love the debate about how much weight to give external factors that impact the career of great players.

It can be taken too far -- like wondering how great Pete Reiser would have been if he hadn't kept running into walls ... that was part of who he was. Mickey Mantle had his last great year at age 32 (and even before that, he missed a lot of injury time). Sure he had physical problems, but he acerbated his problems by not taking care of himself.

I personally don't give guys credit for time lost due to injuries. Injuries are part of the game.

But World War II is different. I've found that a lot of baseball historians take missing war years into account when rating a player's career. For instance, Phil Rizzuto's marginal HOF credentials look a heck of a lot better if he's credited with the three prime seasons he missed during WWII.

Ted Williams dual service 1943-45 and most of 1952-53 has created a double whammy. Sure, he's a lock HOF anyway, but it is fun to speculate what he would have done with this extra five seasons (well, just under five because he played a handful of games early in '52 and 37 games late in '53).

I've seen partisans who suggest he would have made a run at Ruth's career HR record. I don't agree -- in the two years before and the two years after his WWII service, he averaged 36.1 home runs -- so it's fair to suggest that he missed about 110 home runs for WWII. Before and after his Korean War absence, he was averaging just 28.8 home runs -- he lost about 58, but he actually hit 14 in his limited time those two seasons, so he probably lost 44 home runs.

That's about 154 home runs he most to military service. Added to the 521 that he did hit, he would have finished at 675 ... still at least two seasons short of Ruth. I won't go into the details, but I also figure that he lost at least 800 hits in those missing seasons, meaning that instead of 2,643 hits, he would have been around 3,500.

Of course, a lot of great players missed time -- Willie Mays missed what would have been his second and third seasons for Army service (he played 34 games in 52, none in '53). He hit 92 home runs in his first two seasons back. He ended up with 660 ... if he gets those two military seasons, how close does he come to Ruth?

I think the two great players hurt most by military service are Hank Greenberg and Bob Feller.

Greenberg was the best power hitter in baseball when he was called up after the 1940 season -- the first major player drafted (more than a year before Pearl Harbor). He was 29 when called up and had hit 172 home runs and driven in almost 700 runs in the previous four seasons.

He missed four and a half season (returning to play 78 games in 1945). He still hit 44 home runs and drove in 127 in his first full season back. Greenberg lost about 180 home runs to the war -- which would make his career total (306) look a LOT better.

There's a special place in my heart for Bob Feller (and I'm a Yankee fan, not a fan of the Indians). Most of the great players hung on to play through the 1942 season and only left when they were drafted or about to be drafted.

Feller, who was not even 1-A (I forget the designation, but he was the sole support for his parents) walked into a Navy induction center on Monday Dec. 8, 1941 and enlisted for the duration. When reporters asked him why he'd do that, he said, "Because as of today America needs heroes."

Feller was a hero ... he was also a greater pitcher than his 266 career wins or his 2,581 strikeouts would indicate. He missed almost four full seasons from his prime. He was 22 years old when he enlisted and already had won 17-24-27-25 games in his four previous seasons with just under 1,000 strikeouts in this four seasons. He returned to win 26 games with 348 (!) strikeouts in his first full season back.

It's not unreasonable to suggest that Feller lost 100 wins and 1,000 strikeouts to the war (remember, he would have been 23-26 years old). Give him those years and we wouldn't just call him a great pitcher, but we'd be debating whether he was the greatest pitcher ever.

BTW, When the Navy tried to use Feller as a baseball player (as the service used most of the stars who enlisted), he protested and got himself assigned a combat job. He served as the chief of an anti-aircraft crew on the battleship Alabama during some of the fiercist fighting in the Pacific.

Bill James did an interesting essay on the impact of the war in his Historical Baseball Abstract, listing the top 12 players he thought might have missed the HOF due to war service. He included Joe Gordon, who has since gotten in, but his No. 1 guy was Cecil Travis who was a shortstop who had hit .317 or better seven times before his induction (including .359 in 1941 -- two points higher than DiMaggio). He was 27 years old at the time. During the war, he reportedly suffered frostbite (some stories dispute this), but whatever happened in the service, he missed four seasons and was not able to play at a Major League level when he returned.

[DU82]

That's why such stats as RBIs and runs scored are flawed measures of greatness ... they are very much dependent on teammates. I don't believe such stats as batting average, On Base Percentage and Slugging Percentage (which are combined to form OPS) are impacted to any large degree by teammates.

Obviously, some people believe that other batters in the order can impact the pitches a particular batter sees, but that's a hotly debated topic in statistical circles -- for all the talk about finding a hitter to "protect" Pujols, the addition of a red-hot Matt Holliday to bat behind Pujols hasn't had an impact on his performance. It's helped the team, of course, but Pujols' average, OBP and SLUG have all actually declined since Holliday has joined the team ... that's short term of course, so I wouldn't read too much into it, but still it's hardly evidence that good or bad teammates actually help or hurt a player's individual stats such as BA, OBP, SLUG, OPS.

As for Gehrig, he spent most of his career batting fourth behind Ruth, then DiMaggio -- except for the 1926 season, when he batted fifth (Bob Meusel batted fourth, between Ruth and Gehrig) and 1935, the one year when neither superstar was on the team.

Interesting that in his greatest years, Gehrig was "protected" by Hall of Famer Tony Lazzeri, who usually hit fifth in the order. But in 1931, when Gehrig had one of his greatest year (he hit .341 with 46 HRs and drove in an AL record 184 runs), Lazzeri had one of his worst years -- batting .267 with a mediocre .401 SLUG. That's not much better than Pujols has had to protect him.

Just an aside ... it's a coincidence that the DBR should have on its front page a note about Gehrig and how Jeter will soon pass him for the record for most hits by a Yankee (hey, I posted first!). I was taken with the comment about how a lot of his career records are being broken.

That brings up one of my favorite "what ifs" -- what if Gehrig had not been striken by ALS, the rare disease that ended his career prematurely. I realize you can't rate players on what might-have-been, but it's still fun to speculate. And in Gehrig's case, a rare disease caused his career to end prematurely,

Gehrig was 34 years old in 1937, when he was still a great player -- he .351 with 37 homers, 159 RBIs, .473 OBP, .673 SLUG, and an league best 1.116 OPS.

The next year, he was showing the effects of the disease that would kill him and his production dropped off drastically -- still good, but not Gehrig-like .295 with 29 home runs and 114 RBIs (and a .932 OPS). The next year, he played the first eight games and couldn't go anymore ... his career was over at at 36 and he died two years later.

But what if he doesn't get the disease? He's 35 years old in 1938, but he's one of the best-conditioned athletes of his era. He doesn't party or overindulge in alcohol ... he stays in shape in the offseason. There's not reason to think he couldn't keep playing a few more years at a very high level -- maybe not as high as in 1937, but still productive in his career decline.

The Yankees certainly could have used him ... he was replaced in 1939 and 1940 by Babe Dahlgren, who was quite simply the worst first baseman in the AL (.689 OPS in '39; .709 in 1940). In 1941, the Yankees brought up Johnny Sturm who was even worse -- an unbelievably low .592 OPS.

Is it farfetched to think a healthy, well-conditioned Gehrig could have played -- and played effectively -- through 1941, when he was 38 years old? And if he had stuck around that long, what happens after Pearl Harbor ... when most of the top players in baseball are drafted into the service. During the war years, the majors were loaded with overage players -- 39 year old Bill Dickey caught 54 games during that period ... there were several 40-plus year olds.

I could see Gehrig playing through 1945, when he was 42 years old. Those extra years would have cut into some of his averages -- his career BA would not have been .340 and his career OPS would probably be lower than 1.080.

However, think about some of his raw numbers -- that hit total of 2721 that Jeter is approaching would be over 3500 ... his 493 HRs probably would be over 600 ... he'd have 2500-plus RBIs and close to that in runs scored. Don't know about his consecutive game streak -- I suspect he would have had to take some time off as he got older, but it would certainly be longer than the record Ripken broke.

It's just interesting to think about.

There's a connection between RBIs/runs scored and good/great players, but their value is certainly overrated, especially RBIs. (Joe Carter, anybody?)

Given that the drunk, out of shape Jimmie Foxx played until he was almost 38 in 1945 tends to indicate that Gehrig probably would have been able to hang on until then. Gehrig's percentage stats would have taken a pretty good hit, given the quality of the ball (especially in '45.)

Another thing about Gehrig's place in history is that the quality of players today is much better, as baseball as aged (I'm not talking about the color line here.) The further along something that takes skill is, the better the average person is, and the harder it is to rise above the average (Bill James discusses this in one of his abstracts far better than I could.) If that's true, then Pujols perhaps is already the best first baseman in baseball history. At this point, I think he's certainly no lower than second.

[Olympic Fan]

Another thing about Gehrig's place in history is that the quality of players today is much better, as baseball as aged (I'm not talking about the color line here.) The further along something that takes skill is, the better the average person is, and the harder it is to rise above the average (Bill James discusses this in one of his abstracts far better than I could.) If that's true, then Pujols perhaps is already the best first baseman in baseball history. At this point, I think he's certainly no lower than second.

This is certainly a valid point of view -- and one that I agree with to some extent.

Athletes today are bigger, stronger, faster and better trained. Permit a personal anecdote -- my father was a swimmer in the 1930s and 40s who grew up idolizing Johnny Weismuller (who, in addition to being Tarzan, was the greatest swimmer of his time). I used to goad my father into anger by pointing out that by the late 1970s, there were 14 year old girls swimming faster times than Weismuller did.

My father was just short of being a world-class swimmer. He swam in college and even held a world record as part of a relay team. Naturally, he brought me up as a swimmer too. In high school, I was fairly good -- good enough to swim faster times than my father swam in his prime. But whereas those times made my father among the best swimmers in the nation, I rarely won age-group meets and was not good enough to even think of swimming in college.

Was I a greater swimmer than my father? Was those 14 year old girls greater swimmers than Johnny Weismuller?

My point is that we have to judge the impact of athletes on their era. While Bill James does argue that the quality of play in baseball has steadily risen, that doesn't lead him to discount older players. He still rates Honus Wagner, who started playing in the 19th Century, as the greatest shortstop of all time (and in fact argues that the gap between Wagner and the No. 2 player at the position is wider than the gap between 1-2 at any other position).

That doesn't mean he thinks that if you could get a time machine and go back and get the 1908 Wagner and give him to today's Pirates that Wagner would be anywhere near as dominant today than he was in the first decade of the 20th Century. But measured against the context he played in, Wagner was far, far away more dominant than any other shortstop measured against his era.

I suspect that if you could take 29-year-old Lou Gehrig and put him in the same game as 29-year-old Albert Pujols, that you'd find that Pujols was a greater player. If that's the way you want to rate players ... fine -- we'll just focus on the last 25 years or so.

But I believe that you rate players based on their impact on the game -- and by that measure, I have Gehrig No. 1 and Pujols sliding into the No. 2 spot (I'm not sure he's quite there yet, but that's where I think he will end up).

PS: Interesting point about deviation above average. What was an average first baseman in Gehrig's day? Well (based on Bill James' rating of alltime first baseman), No. 1 Gehrig was a contemporary of No. 2 Jimmie Fox, No. 6 Johnny Mize, No. 8 Hank Greenberg, No. 24 George Sisler, No. 26 Bill Terry, No. 29 Dolph Camilli, No. 35 Jack Fourier; No. 36 Jim Bottomley, No. 38 Hal Trotsky; No. 44 Joe Judge, No. 46 Elbie Fletcher; No. 54 Frank McCormick; No. 56 Rudy York; No. 64 Joe Kuehl; No. 66 George Kelly (who is in the Hall of Fame!); No. 73 Gus Suhr (the best fielding first baseman of that era); No. 77 Lu Blue; No. 79 George Burns (not to be confused with the contemporary outfielder of the same name); No. 83 Wally Pipp (the guy Gehrig replaced at first base for the Yankees); No. 85 Charlie Grimm; No. 100 Ripper Collins.

Keep in mind that James factors in park and era, so the plethora of first basemen from the late '20s and 1930s is not an illusion created by a high offensive era.

That means that in Gehrig's day, he was being measured against three of the top eight first basemen in history (he was a fourth of the top eight); 11 of the top 50; and 21 of the top 100.

That's a pretty darn good "average"

[YourLandlord]

He still rates Honus Wagner, who started playing in the 19th Century, as the greatest shortstop of all time

Obviously this "Bill James" person you speak of has never heard of YANKEES CAPTAIN DEREK JETER.

[YmoBeThere]

Obviously this "Bill James" person you speak of has never heard of YANKEES CAPTAIN DEREK JETER.

LOL!

[Olympic Fan]

I'm the biggest admirer of Jeter around. I think he's unquestionably the greatest shortstop of the modern era -- he's had far more impact than Ripken or Ozzie Smith.

If you take the position that baseball is better today than it used to be, hence all of the great players come from the last 20 years or so, then, yes, Jeter is the greatest SS of all time.

However, Mr. James and I (and most rational baseball historians) still rate players based on their relative impact on their eras. By that measure, Wagner is still far and away the greatest SS.

Let me say this about Jeter -- maybe because he's been so worshipped by the New York fans and New York media, there's arisen a sort of cottage industry of detractors. They've latched onto the biggest flaw in his game -- his subpar range factor at short -- and converted that into the cry that he's a lousy shortstop. They love to claim that the Yankees have a better shortstop at third base in A-Roid (never mind that with his ailing hip, A-Roid can barely play third base now, much less short).

We talked about this in another thread -- Jeter may have limited range, but he's more sure-handed that the average shortstop and he has a better double play rate (which James suggests maybe one of the most important of all defensive factors for a middle infielder). Overall, his fielding percentage and his double play facility balance his limited range -- all in all, he's an average defensive shortstop, not a lousy one.

Offensively, Jeter ranks very high among the list of great shortstops in baseball history. Using OPS-plus (which combines the two most significant offensive stats -- OBP and SLUGGING, then normalizes them for home ballpark and era) we get this list:

(1) Honus Wagner 150
(2) Alex Rodriguez 147 (still played 65 percent of his career at SS)
(3) Arky Vaughan 136
(4) Derek Jeter 121
(5) Lou Boudreau 120
(6) Joe Cronin 119
(7) Barry Larkin 116
(8) Robin Yount 115 (although he played barely half his games at SS)
(9) (tie) Cal Ripken 112
Luke Appling 112
(11) Alan Trammell 110 (the most underrated great SS in baseball history)
(12) Pee Wee Reese 99
(13) Joe Tinker 95 (of Tinker to Evers to Chance)
(14) Phil Rizzuto 93
(15) Ozzie Smith 87
(16) (Tie) Luis Aparicio 82
Rabbit Maranville 82
(18) Marty Marion 81

When you try to weight defensive impact, most of the great defenders are pretty far behind the great hitters at the position -- you can make a case for Ozzie Smith, Rabbit Maranville, Marty Marion and Phil Rizzuto (the best double play SS in baseball history) as being superior defenders. But there's no way their edge on defense, makes up the huge gap between them and the top offensive players.

The one exception is Wagner -- far and away the greatest defensive player of his era and the greatest offensive shortstop of any era (if you were to put A-Roid in his prime and Ozzie in his prime into one player, you'd get Wagner).

So where does Jeter rank on the alltime list? Clearly he's behind Wagner and Vaughan (Bill James choice in 2001 as the No. 2 guy). If we consider A-Roid as a SS and disregard his admitted use of PED, he'd be No. 2 on the list.

I'd also strongly consider moving Boudreau -- a superior fielder and a good enough leader that he was a successful player-manager (he won a world championship as a player/manager) -- ahead of Jeter, a slightly better hitter -- very slightly better. However, you might give Jeter an edge for being a great player longer -- he's already played 500 games more than Boudreau and he's still going strong.

Just had a thought -- did Boudreau miss time for WWII? Nope, I checked and he played during the war years, so no credit for that.

That would probably leave Jeter as the No. 4 or 5 shortstop in baseball history -- or No. 3 or 4 if you disqualify the druggie.

Actually, Boudreau and Jeter are a pretty good comparison. Both were similar offensive players ... both were considered to be very classy players and great leaders. Because Boudreau played the bulk of his career in Cleveland, he didn't get the attention he deserved (especially in that pre-ESPN era) ... while Jeter has gotten plenty of attention in New York.

I would argue that Jeter has gotten a LOT of attention ... but I would argue that he does deserve it.

PS Anybody notice that Jeter just passed Aparicio for the career record number of hits as a shortstop? Several career SS's have more hits (Ripken, Wagner, etc.), but they compiled a lot of hits at other positions. The record counts only hits made while playing SS.

[DU82]

This is certainly a valid point of view -- and one that I agree with to some extent.

Athletes today are bigger, stronger, faster and better trained. Permit a personal anecdote -- my father was a swimmer in the 1930s and 40s who grew up idolizing Johnny Weismuller (who, in addition to being Tarzan, was the greatest swimmer of his time). I used to goad my father into anger by pointing out that by the late 1970s, there were 14 year old girls swimming faster times than Weismuller did.

My father was just short of being a world-class swimmer. He swam in college and even held a world record as part of a relay team. Naturally, he brought me up as a swimmer too. In high school, I was fairly good -- good enough to swim faster times than my father swam in his prime. But whereas those times made my father among the best swimmers in the nation, I rarely won age-group meets and was not good enough to even think of swimming in college.

Was I a greater swimmer than my father? Was those 14 year old girls greater swimmers than Johnny Weismuller?

My point is that we have to judge the impact of athletes on their era. While Bill James does argue that the quality of play in baseball has steadily risen, that doesn't lead him to discount older players. He still rates Honus Wagner, who started playing in the 19th Century, as the greatest shortstop of all time (and in fact argues that the gap between Wagner and the No. 2 player at the position is wider than the gap between 1-2 at any other position).

That doesn't mean he thinks that if you could get a time machine and go back and get the 1908 Wagner and give him to today's Pirates that Wagner would be anywhere near as dominant today than he was in the first decade of the 20th Century. But measured against the context he played in, Wagner was far, far away more dominant than any other shortstop measured against his era.

I suspect that if you could take 29-year-old Lou Gehrig and put him in the same game as 29-year-old Albert Pujols, that you'd find that Pujols was a greater player. If that's the way you want to rate players ... fine -- we'll just focus on the last 25 years or so.

But I believe that you rate players based on their impact on the game -- and by that measure, I have Gehrig No. 1 and Pujols sliding into the No. 2 spot (I'm not sure he's quite there yet, but that's where I think he will end up).

PS: Interesting point about deviation above average. What was an average first baseman in Gehrig's day? Well (based on Bill James' rating of alltime first baseman), No. 1 Gehrig was a contemporary of No. 2 Jimmie Fox, No. 6 Johnny Mize, No. 8 Hank Greenberg, No. 24 George Sisler, No. 26 Bill Terry, No. 29 Dolph Camilli, No. 35 Jack Fourier; No. 36 Jim Bottomley, No. 38 Hal Trotsky; No. 44 Joe Judge, No. 46 Elbie Fletcher; No. 54 Frank McCormick; No. 56 Rudy York; No. 64 Joe Kuehl; No. 66 George Kelly (who is in the Hall of Fame!); No. 73 Gus Suhr (the best fielding first baseman of that era); No. 77 Lu Blue; No. 79 George Burns (not to be confused with the contemporary outfielder of the same name); No. 83 Wally Pipp (the guy Gehrig replaced at first base for the Yankees); No. 85 Charlie Grimm; No. 100 Ripper Collins.

Keep in mind that James factors in park and era, so the plethora of first basemen from the late '20s and 1930s is not an illusion created by a high offensive era.

That means that in Gehrig's day, he was being measured against three of the top eight first basemen in history (he was a fourth of the top eight); 11 of the top 50; and 21 of the top 100.

That's a pretty darn good "average"

Well, given that BJ covers about 100 years, 21 is right about average for roughly two decades worth of players. A quick check shows there's twenty years age difference between Pipp (1893) and Mize/York (1913.)

Sorry my point went offline a bit. I wasn't trying to argue that the last 25 years or so are all that counts. My point was (and I definitely didn't explain it the way I wanted) is that it's tougher to rise above an average, or (more appropriate in most baseball analyst circles) a replacement player than it was in the '20s and '30s. I don't think that's an absolute to (only) compare players against their contemporaries. Given all that, Pujols's value to his team may approach that of Gehrig's (ignoring for a moment that Gehrig played longer than Pujols has so far.) I think he's the first first baseman in a long while to be able to be in the same plateau as the Iron Man. (Just as nobody's come close to Wagner or Ruth's level.)

It is interesting that four of the eight top first basemen played in that era (not based on era biases like the high offense of those decades, for those reading not familiar with Bill James's methodology, such as the guy posting Derek Jeter's picture) but I don't think it invalidates my point. Just as half the top ten third basemen were playing in the '80s doesn't validate an argument that baseball's better (in this case, more that the role of the third baseman's changed, especially since WWII.)

[Mal]

Disparate thoughts on a number of items here:

1. Wow, Barry Larkin at No. 7? Mad props to the player I most tried to emulate as a high school/Legion baller.

2. Du82's point about quality over eras isn't that (as Oly notes) if you could transport today's stars back in time, they'd dominate. We all recognize that to be true, and that it doesn't mean they're "better" in an historical impact sense. It's perhaps better made in statistical speak. There are a heck of a lot more people in this country today, and there are a heck of a lot more athletes from around the globe playing baseball with access to MLB than there were in 1935. The margin, then, between those who are playing AAA ball today and stars in the majors, is probably less than the margin was between replacement level major league starters and the stars on those same teams in the Golden Era. More players = more better players = harder to hit .350.

Counters to that - 1. I don't know that the statistics bear it out. What does James have to say on that? Is there a larger or smaller spread between, say, league average ERA and the marginal outliers now as compared to 50 years ago? 2. Less talent draw to baseball these days as opposed to eras past, when football was less dominant and basketball was something of an afterthought. 3. More teams in the majors, perhaps too many. We're all aware of the claims of a great dearth in pitching during the 'roids era. Was it really a dearth in pitching or something else?

3. DU82, just to be sure you didn't misinterpret, Yourlandlord was joking on the Jeter thing.

4. Jeter's been in a hole from the start, and it's not his fault, of course. Probably no player's performance could justify the nauseating man crush Yankee fans and the media lavished on him from the beginning, but that was especially true for a Jeter in his 3rd, 4th, 5th big league season, when, yes, he was a subaverage SS in the field, and while a good hitter, he probably wasn't even in the top 3 overall shortstops in the American League (Tejada, Nomar were in their (medicinally aided, in the case of the former) primes, and ARod was still a SS).

So, Yankee fans and NY media had to go with all this "clutchiness" and leadership and intangibles and winner talk, and hailing him as the heir to Mantle and DiMaggio as the next in a long line of Yankee captains whose farts don't smell. It was natural people either resented him or wanted him to prove it. I think, among informed fans, Jeter now gets his due respect, but he gets it from his numbers accumulated over a period of time and persevering as a high level producer for much longer than his early career competitors. That's shown him to be a legitimately great player.

Which is why things like the insufferable Allan Barra (in the WSJ last week) making a case for Jeter to win the MVP this year based on his overall Jeterness, and as a Lifetime Achievement award, are still enough to make those of us outside the A.L. East vomit. We respect him, for crying out loud. Stop with the Jesus at Shortstop stuff. Lifetime Achievement is what the Hall of Fame is for.

[YourLandlord]

JETER CAN CATCH FIRE AT ANY MOMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?...=.jsp&c_id=mlb

BARF.

as a red sox fan, i'd be perfectly happy if jeter caught on fire, right at this moment. i heard from costanza those cotton uniforms are quite flammable.

[DU82]

Disparate thoughts on a number of items here:

1. Wow, Barry Larkin at No. 7? Mad props to the player I most tried to emulate as a high school/Legion baller.

2. Du82's point about quality over eras isn't that (as Oly notes) if you could transport today's stars back in time, they'd dominate. We all recognize that to be true, and that it doesn't mean they're "better" in an historical impact sense. It's perhaps better made in statistical speak. There are a heck of a lot more people in this country today, and there are a heck of a lot more athletes from around the globe playing baseball with access to MLB than there were in 1935. The margin, then, between those who are playing AAA ball today and stars in the majors, is probably less than the margin was between replacement level major league starters and the stars on those same teams in the Golden Era. More players = more better players = harder to hit .350.

Counters to that - 1. I don't know that the statistics bear it out. What does James have to say on that? Is there a larger or smaller spread between, say, league average ERA and the marginal outliers now as compared to 50 years ago? 2. Less talent draw to baseball these days as opposed to eras past, when football was less dominant and basketball was something of an afterthought. 3. More teams in the majors, perhaps too many. We're all aware of the claims of a great dearth in pitching during the 'roids era. Was it really a dearth in pitching or something else?

3. DU82, just to be sure you didn't misinterpret, Yourlandlord was joking on the Jeter thing.

4. Jeter's been in a hole from the start, and it's not his fault, of course. Probably no player's performance could justify the nauseating man crush Yankee fans and the media lavished on him from the beginning, but that was especially true for a Jeter in his 3rd, 4th, 5th big league season, when, yes, he was a subaverage SS in the field, and while a good hitter, he probably wasn't even in the top 3 overall shortstops in the American League (Tejada, Nomar were in their (medicinally aided, in the case of the former) primes, and ARod was still a SS).

So, Yankee fans and NY media had to go with all this "clutchiness" and leadership and intangibles and winner talk, and hailing him as the heir to Mantle and DiMaggio as the next in a long line of Yankee captains whose farts don't smell. It was natural people either resented him or wanted him to prove it. I think, among informed fans, Jeter now gets his due respect, but he gets it from his numbers accumulated over a period of time and persevering as a high level producer for much longer than his early career competitors. That's shown him to be a legitimately great player.

Which is why things like the insufferable Allan Barra (in the WSJ last week) making a case for Jeter to win the MVP this year based on his overall Jeterness, and as a Lifetime Achievement award, are still enough to make those of us outside the A.L. East vomit. We respect him, for crying out loud. Stop with the Jesus at Shortstop stuff. Lifetime Achievement is what the Hall of Fame is for.

Look for Larkin to get marginally more respect than Alan Trammell come HoF voting time. Probably not as much as Tim Raines, another ignored great. (Just to point out that it wasn't that much different in past eras, Johnny Mize, discussed briefly above, was inducted as a Veteran's pick.)

I believe Bill James did cover the variance from the average issue previously. Some is described in the 2000 Historical Abstract under time line adjustment, in the discussion of player ratings (just before the position rankings.)

I was not aware that YourLandlord was joking when I posted earlier. (I should have guessed from some of the other posts, though!) I stay mostly on the bball forum, however -jk (one of the moderators) pointed out the thread to me. (Anything related to baseball and traffic.) I agree with you that Jeter could never live up to the hype, but I disagree that he was behind Tejeda and Nomar. I did think at the time, when the Yankees traded for ARod, Jeter should have moved to either second or center, rather than ARod moving from short.

Jeter's a better MVP candidate than Texiera, but Tex gets mentioned more because RBIs impress the ignorant press voters more than runs scored. There's not a more valuable player in the AL than Mauer, I think, this season or overall. I'm not sure there's another player in the AL that one would want to start a team with. Perhaps Evan Longoria.

[Mal]

Well, in the time period I was talking about, when the Jeter's the Clutchest Hitter of All-Time train was just leaving the station, there's no question Nomar was the better shortstop (Tejada, you're right, now that I look back at it). From '98-'02, Garciaparra had an OPS of .961 (142 OPS+), which I would imagine has to be one of the most underappreciated 5 year periods for any shortstop ever, due to the fact that ARod was still easily eclipsing him. During that time he hit 111 homers, had 189 doubles and drove in 450. And he missed basically all of 2001. Jeter, over the same period, playing five full seasons to Nomar's 4 1/5, had a dozen fewer homers, less doubles, drove in less runs, and had an OPS above Garciaparra's 5-yr. average once (and an OPS+ 14 points lower). I don't care what the fielding comparisons were, Jeter was clearly an inferior player at the time. He just happened to reside on one of the all-time juggernauts of a team and add to his ring collection over that period while Nomar was with the still snakebitten Bosox. Those weren't anomalous years for Jeter, either. He's been remarkably consistent throughout his career, in fact.

I certainly won't disagree with you on the overall A.L. MVP commentary (Twins fan here). Unless the definition of "value" is set in such a way as to essentially disqualify players on teams who don't make the playoffs due to no fault of their own, there's just no way to argue Mauer's value this season is less than that of any other player in the league, and by a wide margin. Anyone think the Twins, if they could go back to the beginning of the season, would trade Mauer for Texeira? The fact they have Morneau may at first glance appear to make it an invalid question, but in fact it proves the point even more.

[YourLandlord]

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/player...?playerId=5378

Mauer is having one of the top 2 offensive seasons by a catcher, ever. If he hadn't missed the beginning of the season, potentially THE best.

Mauer discussion for ya.

[DU82]

Well, in the time period I was talking about, when the Jeter's the Clutchest Hitter of All-Time train was just leaving the station, there's no question Nomar was the better shortstop (Tejada, you're right, now that I look back at it). From '98-'02, Garciaparra had an OPS of .961 (142 OPS+), which I would imagine has to be one of the most underappreciated 5 year periods for any shortstop ever, due to the fact that ARod was still easily eclipsing him. During that time he hit 111 homers, had 189 doubles and drove in 450. And he missed basically all of 2001. Jeter, over the same period, playing five full seasons to Nomar's 4 1/5, had a dozen fewer homers, less doubles, drove in less runs, and had an OPS above Garciaparra's 5-yr. average once (and an OPS+ 14 points lower). I don't care what the fielding comparisons were, Jeter was clearly an inferior player at the time. He just happened to reside on one of the all-time juggernauts of a team and add to his ring collection over that period while Nomar was with the still snakebitten Bosox. Those weren't anomalous years for Jeter, either. He's been remarkably consistent throughout his career, in fact.

I certainly won't disagree with you on the overall A.L. MVP commentary (Twins fan here). Unless the definition of "value" is set in such a way as to essentially disqualify players on teams who don't make the playoffs due to no fault of their own, there's just no way to argue Mauer's value this season is less than that of any other player in the league, and by a wide margin. Anyone think the Twins, if they could go back to the beginning of the season, would trade Mauer for Texeira? The fact they have Morneau may at first glance appear to make it an invalid question, but in fact it proves the point even more.

'97-2000 is pretty impressive, though. Can't argue with putting Nomar on in second, ahead of Jeter, at the time. Unless you take off points for Nomar like I do because he ended up marrying a Tar Heel. (Admitted, one of the best looking Tar Heels of all time.) :-)

I personally think there's one definition to MVP, which is the best player in the league. He's done the most to help his team win. Sometimes, it's unfortunate that such a player winds up on a team that is so bad, it can't pick up around that player. ie, unlike many, I equate MVP with MOP (most outstanding player).

Thinking of the NL equiv. of starting a team, I'd probably lean towards David Wright, assuming that his bell isn't still ringing.