The GOAT debate and era/timeline adjustments

[GOATcards]

For purposes of comparison I took the top position players of each decade and added up the WAR for their top 10 and top 3 seasons (separated by the "/" mark).

As you can see, in eras with fewer players (and Black people kept out of the Majors) there were still quite a few more players with over 80 WAR in their 10 best seasons and 30 WAR in their 3 best than there are today. These days, barely over 60 WAR over the player's 10 best seasons put that player in the top two of a decade.

So what's the proper timeline adjustment so that the Bambino can be placed on a properly even footing with Pujols and Trout? (Also, does the era adjustment need to go slightly the other way when comparing deadball-era players to those after, as the lively-ball era apparently made it less difficult for top players to rack up WAR?)

(I'm using only Bonds' '86-98 seasons since he suspiciously hulked-up after that. I don't know where or how to lop off A-Rod seasons so I leave them as is with an imagined asterisk.)


1900s
Wagner 87.5 / 31.0
Lajoie 77.4 / 28.4

1910s
Cobb 90.0 / 32.5
Collins 84.3 / 29.6
Speaker 84.2 / 29.1

1920s
Ruth 115.7 / 39.4
Hornsby 99.0 / 33.4

1930s
Gehrig 92.3 / 31.7
Foxx 75.9 / 28.0

1940s
Williams 89.5 / 31.4
Musial 85.7 / 30.0

1950s
Mays 100.3 / 32.8
Mantle 83.4 / 32.9

1960s
Aaron 84.1 / 27.2
F Robinson 70.4 / 24.3
Yaz 70.0 / 32.5

1970s
Schmidt 80.1 / 27.5
Morgan 75.0 / 29.9
Carew 63 / 25
Bench 62 / 24

1980s
Henderson 73.1 / 28.6
Boggs 71.4 / 25.8
Ripken 70.7 / 29.7
Brett 68.1 / 26.3

1990s
Bonds (86-98) 85.5 / 29.5
Griffey 69.6 / 27.6
Bagwell 63 / 23
Thomas 59 / 21

2000s
A-Rod 87.0 / 29.2
Pujols 81.3 / 27.6
Beltre 64.2 / 24.6
Chipper 61 / 22

2010s
Trout 74.6 / 31.2
Cano 60.5 / 23.8
Cabrera 59.9 / 22.2
Votto 58.3 / 22.9

[mfw13]

I'm not sure you can make a valid adjustment for different eras, for several reasons.

1) Different population of players due to systemic racism.
2) Many defensive stats used to calculate dWAR weren't systemically kept prior to the 70's/80's, and without game video (only common for all 1962 games in the last few decades, it's impossible to calculate non-quantifiable defensive stats like range.

[GOATcards]

Eying it roughly/intuitively, an adjusted Top Five probably looks like this, in chronological order:

Ruth
Mays
Bonds
Pujols
Trout

Top Ten:

Ruth
Williams
Mays
Mantle
Aaron
Schmidt
Bonds
A-Roid
Pujols
Trout

[MoreToppsPlease]

I wonder if WAR can be used the same way in the years where the AL did not play against the NL.

[chilly55]

I'm going to get this going by why does racism have to brought in when talking about GOAT? You can easily add some of the great Negro league ballplayers into the argument.

I get the fact that black america was not allowed to play in the MLB. That meant a lot of really good/great black baseball players were kept out of the MLB. That my friends is a valid point.

But what everyone else seems to forget is that just a few of these great black players existed. The rest of the Negro league was average to borderline minor league players. That's not a racist statement, but fact. The same can be said today about white, hispanic, black & asian ball players. Each "color" if you will, has their really good/great ball players. Each "color", has their average to borderline minor league players in the MLB.

What I don't understand is why if we insert black players into the 1920's, then all of a sudden Ruth becomes less of a great. You mean to tell me that all of the black pitchers in the Negro league were at the level of Satchel Paige, Bill Foster, Bullet Rogan or Smokey Joe Williams? No, they were not. No doubt that Ruth might, and probably would have struggled against the great blacks of that era, but the rest of the black pitchers he would have feasted on just like he did the crappy white pitchers. Unless someone can prove to me that the Negro leagues were greater than the MLB. You can't because I don't believe the MLB was greater than the Negro league. It's subjective just like my argument. But all I know is that if you insert Negro league pitchers into everyone of Ruth's at bats, he would still have built that house. Because the Negro leagues had crappy pitchers just like the MLB did.

So for me, Ruth is Ruth. He built baseball and did something no one else did. He put baseball on the map to stay. Whether he would have faced white, black, hispanic or asian pitchers, I think his numbers would have still been Ruthian. He could hit the best and worst that the white MLB had to offer. Anyone would assume he could have done the same to the best and worst that the Negro leagues had to offer.

[GOATcards]

Originally Posted by chilly55

I'm going to get this going by why does racism have to brought in when talking about GOAT? You can easily add some of the great Negro league ballplayers into the argument.

I get the fact that black america was not allowed to play in the MLB. That meant a lot of really good/great black baseball players were kept out of the MLB. That my friends is a valid point.

But what everyone else seems to forget is that just a few of these great black players existed. The rest of the Negro league was average to borderline minor league players. That's not a racist statement, but fact. The same can be said today about white, hispanic, black & asian ball players. Each "color" if you will, has their really good/great ball players. Each "color", has their average to borderline minor league players in the MLB.

What I don't understand is why if we insert black players into the 1920's, then all of a sudden Ruth becomes less of a great. You mean to tell me that all of the black pitchers in the Negro league were at the level of Satchel Paige, Bill Foster, Bullet Rogan or Smokey Joe Williams? No, they were not. No doubt that Ruth might, and probably would have struggled against the great blacks of that era, but the rest of the black pitchers he would have feasted on just like he did the crappy white pitchers. Unless someone can prove to me that the Negro leagues were greater than the MLB. You can't because I don't believe the MLB was greater than the Negro league. It's subjective just like my argument. But all I know is that if you insert Negro league pitchers into everyone of Ruth's at bats, he would still have built that house. Because the Negro leagues had crappy pitchers just like the MLB did.

So for me, Ruth is Ruth. He built baseball and did something no one else did. He put baseball on the map to stay. Whether he would have faced white, black, hispanic or asian pitchers, I think his numbers would have still been Ruthian. He could hit the best and worst that the white MLB had to offer. Anyone would assume he could have done the same to the best and worst that the Negro leagues had to offer.

Another question to raise is how a career like Ruth's, where he began as a pitcher (a WS-record-setting one at that), can be compared to anything today. Ruth is like in a category of his own.

[mfw13]

Originally Posted by GOATcards

Eying it roughly/intuitively, an adjusted Top Five probably looks like this, in chronological order:

Ruth
Mays
Bonds
Pujols
Trout

Pujols hasn't been good enough defensively to be in a top five, not have his post-30 years been good enough. Same reason why Griffey doesn't make it.

I'd replace him with Hammering Hank....

[GOATcards]

Originally Posted by mfw13

Pujols hasn't been good enough defensively to be in a top five, not have his post-30 years been good enough. Same reason why Griffey doesn't make it.

I'd replace him with Hammering Hank....

The case for Pujols rest on the strength of his 00s seasons and era-adjustment.

[cardsin47]

Originally Posted by GOATcards

As you can see, in eras with fewer players (and Black people kept out of the Majors) there were still quite a few more players with over 80 WAR in their 10 best seasons and 30 WAR in their 3 best than there are today.

Why is race being interjected in a WAR discussion? I don’t get it

[RiceBondsMT2Yng]

Originally Posted by cardsin47

Why is race being interjected in a WAR discussion? I don’t get it

Believe it or not, race was already interjected in baseball. They called it the color barrier I believe? Why would the mere acknowledgment of an era defined by its treatment of an entire race of people bother you I wonder? Aren't we attempting to correct for eras?

[MoreToppsPlease]

Originally Posted by RiceBondsMT2Yng

Believe it or not, race was already interjected in baseball. They called it the color barrier I believe? Why would the mere acknowledgment of an era defined by its treatment of an entire race of people bother you I wonder? Aren't we attempting to correct for eras?

What does this have to do with wins above replacement?

[YouTheManNick]

They're all great in their own way and for their own time and place.

[Wiseguy917]

Originally Posted by MoreToppsPlease

What does this have to do with wins above replacement?

Bc you’re not woke unless you inject at least 3 “isms” into your daily conversations.

[free2131]

Originally Posted by MoreToppsPlease

What does this have to do with wins above replacement?

Because replacement level would have been different had black players been allowed to compete, thus giving players during the non-integrated era higher WAR.

[BraveAtlanta]

It’s just like cnn. Nothing can be said without saying something is racist. Some people only see color and nothing’s else.

[RiceBondsMT2Yng]

Originally Posted by MoreToppsPlease

What does this have to do with wins above replacement?

The boomers are storming the castle tonight, lol. Hm, I dunno, when you open up baseball to a larger group of people, and take the best of a larger group of people, does the average skill of a baseball player go up or down?

The world may never know...

[MoreToppsPlease]

Originally Posted by free2131

Because replacement level would have been different had black players been allowed to compete, thus giving players during the non-integrated era higher WAR.

You don’t know how replacement level works.

“replacement-level player
A player of common skills available for minimum cost to a major league baseball team. A team of replacement-level players would be expected to win a baseline minimum number of games, typically 40-50, per 162 game season.”

[MoreToppsPlease]

Originally Posted by RiceBondsMT2Yng

The boomers are storming the castle tonight, lol. Hm, I dunno, when you open up baseball to a larger group of people, and take the best of a larger group of people, does the average skill of a baseball player go up or down?

The world may never know...

You don’t know how replacement level works.

“replacement-level player
A player of common skills available for minimum cost to a major league baseball team. A team of replacement-level players would be expected to win a baseline minimum number of games, typically 40-50, per 162 game season.”

[RiceBondsMT2Yng]

Originally Posted by MoreToppsPlease

You don’t know how replacement level works.

“replacement-level player
A player of common skills available for minimum cost to a major league baseball team. A team of replacement-level players would be expected to win a baseline minimum number of games, typically 40-50, per 162 game season.”

Lol, so you must just not be able to see through your own obvious prejudice. Do you think a theoretical player of common skills would tend to be better or worse if you include black people? If the whole league gets better you need better players to win 40-50 games in a season.

Was the league average skill higher or lower when Mays, Jackie, and Hank were allowed to play or not?

How are we even arguing this? What year is this? Just admit you're wrong and move on.

[Stifle]

What needs to be mentioned, it’s only about the regular season and it’s utilizing WAR.
Is baseball the only sport that we disregard the Playoffs and utilize a value system that equates all situations as equal, when it’s obviously not. If all situations were equal we would have near equal results in each different situation.

The goal for winning in baseball is to produce more runs than the other team. I value production. Does the player score runs and do runs cross the plate in that players opportunity.

What is valued, over-inflated fielding positions, in a era where fielding has become less valuable. What is devalued, situational hitting, what is Votto in the playoffs 0-9 in RISP, What was Joe Mauer like 1-10, and the WAR people wonder why they never advanced in a Post season series. There is WPA in the post season, and of all the times you want a player to help the odds of a team to win.

[jhssketchcards]

For me, it’s impossible to adequately compare guys like Babe Ruth, Ted Williams, Hank Aaron etc to today’s players for many reasons, but especially quality of pitching. The HOF arms that those previously mentioned are way better than what guys today face. We may have 4-5 HOF potential pitchers in the league right now, but realistically the stats for HOF pitchers has gotten so watered down with bullpens. We will never see a SP with 15-20 let alone 5-10 complete games again. 300 wins will likely not be reached so 250 or even 200 may become the new benchmark. We could realistically see a guy pitching today in the HOF years from bow with less than 200 wins but because of WHIP, K-rate and other saber stats they will get in. Obviously guys like Verlander, Scherzer, Kershaw are in, but so many threads are listed about is a guy a HOF or not. Seems only offensive players trend toward locks more than pitchers. The overall quality of pitching today is so weak it’s ridiculous. But, the same could be said that Ruth and Aaron never faced specialty guys either. Let’s just enjoy the players today and appreciate the ones from the past without trying to compare who the best is. It’s impossible.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stifle]

Originally Posted by jhssketchcards

For me, it’s impossible to adequately compare guys like Babe Ruth, Ted Williams, Hank Aaron etc to today’s players for many reasons, but especially quality of pitching. The HOF arms that those previously mentioned are way better than what guys today face. We may have 4-5 HOF potential pitchers in the league right now, but realistically the stats for HOF pitchers has gotten so watered down with bullpens. We will never see a SP with 15-20 let alone 5-10 complete games again. 300 wins will likely not be reached so 250 or even 200 may become the new benchmark. We could realistically see a guy pitching today in the HOF years from bow with less than 200 wins but because of WHIP, K-rate and other saber stats they will get in. Obviously guys like Verlander, Scherzer, Kershaw are in, but so many threads are listed about is a guy a HOF or not. Seems only offensive players trend toward locks more than pitchers. The overall quality of pitching today is so weak it’s ridiculous. But, the same could be said that Ruth and Aaron never faced specialty guys either. Let’s just enjoy the players today and appreciate the ones from the past without trying to compare who the best is. It’s impossible.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Absolutely disagree. Today’s pitchers are torquing their arms at rates where velocity of pitches and the spin rates are astonishing. They are unable to launch off a hill like in the 60’s. These players are bigger and throw harder. Today’s game management keeps arms fresher for the length of the season.

[cardsin47]

Originally Posted by RiceBondsMT2Yng

Believe it or not, race was already interjected in baseball. They called it the color barrier I believe? Why would the mere acknowledgment of an era defined by its treatment of an entire race of people bother you I wonder? Aren't we attempting to correct for eras?

I don’t know if I’m unwillingly being “sucked in to” some out of left field ( get it? ), unwelcome racial injustice debate....... I thought this was a thread about WAR being adjusted over time / that’s the only thing I’m bothered by

[RiceBondsMT2Yng]

Originally Posted by cardsin47

I don’t know if I’m unwillingly being “sucked in to” some out of left field ( get it? ), unwelcome race debate....... I thought this was a thread about WAR being adjusted over time / that’s the only thing I’m bothered by

I mean...if anything you kind of sucked yourself into it right? No one was even making a racial point until you brought it up to make the point that we shouldn't bring it up. The OP was accounting for an era in history - maybe you would've preferred a term like "pre-integration" or something that sounds less like it has to do with a race ban of all black people by white people?

The post wasn't about race except to the most fragile ears. The OP was talking about a non-coincidental, stunted pool of talent. Plenty of rankings try to calculate a color barrier quotient to try and take that fact into account. It's a legitimate, baseball-only discussion regarding eras. If that makes you uncomfortable, I mean sack-up, and blame the losers who made race a thing to begin with.

[Chris Lyle]

This thread would be a great discussion, but instead in turns into -isms and you don't understand, no you don't understand. Why can't there just be a conversation about baseball without it turning borderline political or whatever you want to call it??