It's end of March, and my mind is turning to baseball....
In 2003, Bill James...the number crunching guru, published the following list of the best MLB players of all time. It is surprising that Babe Ruth is not number one. But James documents his reasoning pretty well in the following article. Of course the list is almost 20 years old. I don't see that he has updated it however.
Here is the original article.
https://www.billjamesonline.com/article151/ (https://www.billjamesonline.com/article151/)
I know we are mostly wargamers. But Ty Cobb did call baseball a "war." So curious if folks think there are any glaring omissions, or guys who don't belong.
This is a complete listing of the best players in baseball since 1901:
1. Cy Young 1901-1903
2. Honus Wagner 1904-1909
3. Ty Cobb 1910-1912 and 1917-1918
4. Walter Johnson 1913-1916
5. Babe Ruth 1919-1924 and 1926-1931
6. Rogers Hornsby 1925
7. Lou Gehrig 1932-1937
8. Mel Ott 1938
9. Joe DiMaggio 1939-1941
10. Ted Williams 1942, 1947-49
11. Charlie Keller 1943
12. Stan Musial 1944, 1950-53
13. Hal Newhouser 1945-46
14. Duke Snider 1954-55
15. Mickey Mantle 1956-1962
16. Willie Mays 1963-1966
17. Ron Santo 1967
18. Carl Yastrzemski 1968, 1970
19. Hank Aaron 1969, 1971
20. Bobby Murcer 1972
21. Joe Morgan 1973-1977
22. Dave Parker 1978-79
23. Mike Schmidt 1980-1984
24. Rickey Henderson 1985
25. Wade Boggs 1986, 1988
26. Tim Raines 1987
27. Will Clark 1989-1991
28. Barry Bonds 1992-98, 2001-03
29. Jeff Bagwell 1999
30. Jason Giambi 2000
Heh I have to admit being kind of shocked to see Jason Giambi show up in the list, even at #30...I forget how good he was. Same with guys like Tim Raines and even Mel Ott.
Also interesting to see Honus Wagner NOT at number one...
Quote from: Gusington on March 30, 2022, 09:21:36 PM
Heh I have to admit being kind of shocked to see Jason Giambi show up in the list, even at #30...I forget how good he was. Same with guys like Tim Raines and even Mel Ott.
Also interesting to see Honus Wagner NOT at number one...
Reading the article, James used "win-shares" and "established value" as the stats he used for this list. I am not familiar with these but it would be interesting to see where guys like Jackie Robinson, Napoleon Lajoie and Johnny Bench would come in with this ranking method.
Here is the reference for "win-shares"
https://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/Win_Shares (https://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/Win_Shares)
I can not find an explanation for "established value"...I guess I have to get James' book. :coolsmiley:
For the last six months or so, I have been playing OOTP22s Perfect Team sub-game. Basically fantasy baseball with historical and current players. It has been a great way to "get to know" classic players like Nap Lajoie or Hack Wilson. The thing I come away with is the value of utility players who can hold down multiple positions and do them well. And if you add in utility value, you are right, old Honus should be at the top of the list.
and...Giambi is on my OOTP Perfect Team...the man is golden!!!!
O0 it feels like only yesterday watching Giambi
Sorry, that list is Bull$hit
How the hell is Griffey NOT on that list? He's better than that turd nugget Bonds.
^Heh, true. Lots of situations/players like that. LET YOUR ANGER FLOW
That list is chronological and not rank ordered.
Hmm then shouldn't Griffey Jr. take Giambi's #30 spot?
Did you read the article? It's not the #30 position, it's who was considered to be the best player in 2000 (in James' opinion). James' methodology doesn't rate Griffey very highly.
I am still trying to come to grips with Bill James' methodology.
I recently went on a business trip, and thought to myself...no problem...I'll just read James' book over the 5 hour flight.
So I put his book, "The New Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract" on my Kindle.
It took me about 10 minutes to realize I was in way over my head. I have been just a baseball analysis 'dabbler' and his book was clearly for someone more well versed; it left me gasping for air. I felt like I was reading a book about astrophysics written for rocket scientists, while I have only once ever tried to fly a bottle rocket.
https://www.amazon.com/Bill-James-Historical-Baseball-Abstract/dp/0743227220/ref=sr_1_4?crid=1C1Q0N35YFOHI&keywords=bill+james&qid=1650903525&sprefix=%2Caps%2C92&sr=8-4 (https://www.amazon.com/Bill-James-Historical-Baseball-Abstract/dp/0743227220/ref=sr_1_4?crid=1C1Q0N35YFOHI&keywords=bill+james&qid=1650903525&sprefix=%2Caps%2C92&sr=8-4)
I had to put James' book down while my head was spinning.
But I did not give up. I found a really good primer on the world of 'Sabermetrics' that frankly left me feeling like I could go back to James' tome with confidence: "A Fan's Guide to Baseball Analytics: Why WAR, WHIP, wOBA, and Other Advanced Sabermetrics Are Essential to Understanding Modern Baseball" by Anthony Castrovince.
https://www.amazon.com/Fans-Guide-Baseball-Analytics-Understanding/dp/1683583442/ref=sr_1_1_sspa?crid=1C1Q0N35YFOHI&keywords=bill+james&qid=1650904097&sprefix=%2Caps%2C92&sr=8-1-spons&psc=1&spLa=ZW5jcnlwdGVkUXVhbGlmaWVyPUEyM1Y1S0tHN04xNUJPJmVuY3J5cHRlZElkPUEwNjE1MTg3U05YNU1LNDBGTFY0JmVuY3J5cHRlZEFkSWQ9QTA0Mzk5ODcxTjJSMEFXN0VHUk83JndpZGdldE5hbWU9c3BfYXRmJmFjdGlvbj1jbGlja1JlZGlyZWN0JmRvTm90TG9nQ2xpY2s9dHJ1ZQ== (https://www.amazon.com/Fans-Guide-Baseball-Analytics-Understanding/dp/1683583442/ref=sr_1_1_sspa?crid=1C1Q0N35YFOHI&keywords=bill+james&qid=1650904097&sprefix=%2Caps%2C92&sr=8-1-spons&psc=1&spLa=ZW5jcnlwdGVkUXVhbGlmaWVyPUEyM1Y1S0tHN04xNUJPJmVuY3J5cHRlZElkPUEwNjE1MTg3U05YNU1LNDBGTFY0JmVuY3J5cHRlZEFkSWQ9QTA0Mzk5ODcxTjJSMEFXN0VHUk83JndpZGdldE5hbWU9c3BfYXRmJmFjdGlvbj1jbGlja1JlZGlyZWN0JmRvTm90TG9nQ2xpY2s9dHJ1ZQ==)
The book really does a great job in pointing out the flaws in old standard stats such as Batting Average, RBI or even Errors. It also shows how the more modern stats such as On Base Percentage (OBP) or On Base Plus Slugging (OPS), while not perfect, better represent a player's contribution. It also explains WAR (Wins Above Replacement) pretty well...but I have to admit I am not enthralled with that particular stat (it just seems too speculative to me).
So, I am almost ready to go back to James' book...