Best Players In Baseball
Posted: January 4th, 2010 | Filed under: Baseball | 105 Comments »
Well, my Hall of Fame ballot should be up at Sports Illustrated Tuesday … just in case you want to read 5,000 more words about the Hall of Fame from me.
In the meantime … this project was a lot of fun. I don’t know if it MEANS anything, but it was fun. I was doing my usual investigative mayhem to get a better feel for the Hall of Fame ballot, and I thought it would be worthwhile to come up with the best players in baseball since, say, 1970. I don’t mean the overall best players — I mean, who were the best players in baseball at any given time.
I think this should play a pretty big role in the Hall of Fame arguments. You will hear, quite often, something like this: “Well, Don Mattingly or Dale Murphy or Dave Parker or Andre Dawson or Jim Rice or Tim Raines may not have the career statistics or whatever, but for a time he was the best player in baseball.”
But is it true? Were these guys the best in baseball? Were they close to the best? Were they in the discussion?
So, here’s what I did: Using Bill James’ Win Shares — I suppose you could use some other statistic, if you like, but I like Win Shares — I added up the best players in baseball for every five year window from 1970 to now. Every window. That is, I added up from 1970-1974, from 1971-1975, from 1972-1976, etc. Why five years? Well, to be honest, it’s arbitrary. It could have been longer. If you want to do the same experiment for seven years or 10 years, you are welcome. I thought five was a pretty good number.
Generally, here is what I found (there will be plenty of specifics later, if you want them):
1. By Win Shares, there have been 11 players who qualify as the best players in baseball. Most of these will ring true to anyone — Bonds, Schmidt, Pujols, etc. — but there are a couple of surprises in the bag.
2. Beyond those 11, there are others players who I call “Close” or, in rare circumstances, “Very close.” These are players who were not the five-year Win Shares leader but were close enough to have a legitimate argument as the best player in baseball — after all, even Bill James doesn’t claim that Win Shares are ultra-precise. For instance, Alex Rodriguez never quite made it as the best player — thank you Barry Bonds and Albert Pujols — but he was close seven times. I think you could make a pretty strong argument that A-Rod was, at times, the best player in baseball.
You will notice that some years, nobody was close to the best player in baseball.
3. And beyond those who were close, I list off a bunch of players who did not lead in Win Shares and were not especially close. But I think they were “in the discussion.” That is: These were really good players who put up big Win Shares numbers. They might not be quite the best in baseball but they were good enough to spice up the conversation.
Fun, right? Here then, by my Win Shares calculations, were the best players in baseball the last 30 years … and the players who they beat out:
1970-74: Joe Morgan
Close: Pete Rose, Johnny Bench.
In the discussion: Bobby Murcer, Willie Stargell, Bobby Bonds.
Comment: You may ask yourself, how could the Cincinnati Reds have the three best players in baseball from 1970-74 and not win a World Series? Well, you know the answer to that: They did it so that this book could be written.
Notice Bobby Bonds on there — he was, by my calculations, close to the best player in the period just before I started this thing, from 1969-74. Pete Rose was the best player, Morgan second, Bonds third. So Bobby Bonds has a Hall of Fame peak case, I think. And his career case? I don’t know. He didn’t play 2,000 games and as such didn’t manage 2,000 hits.
But … you know Andre Dawson fans like to point out (as they should) that he is one of only three players to hit 400 homers and steal three bases — Dawson, Barry Bonds, Willie Mays. Well, Bobby Bonds is one of only TWO players to steal 400 bases and hit 300 homers — Bobby Bonds and Barry Bonds.
1971-75: Joe Morgan
Close: Nobody
In the discussion: Rose, Stargell, Jackson, Bench, Murcer.
Comment: Even moderate Joe Morgan fans probably do not appreciate just how good he was from 1970-78. He was the best player in baseball all five periods, and nobody was especially most of those years. Notice Bobby Murcer is on the list again — he’s one of the more underrated players in baseball history.
1972-76: Joe Morgan
Close: Nobody
In the discussion: Rose, Bench, Bobby Grich, Jackson, Rod Carew, Cesar Cedeno.
Comment: Morgan had 43 more Win Shares in those five years than anyone else in baseball — a truly stunning number. By Win Shares, Morgan from 1972-76 was better than anyone else the last 30 years … except Barry Bonds. You will, of course, notice Bobby Grich up there, speaking of underrated players.
1973-77: Joe Morgan
Close: Nobody
In the discussion: Carew, Rose, Mike Schmidt, Jackson.
Comment: Schmidt makes his first appearance on the list — he’s will soon be dominating.
I was just curious — you probably know that Joe Morgan was elected to the Hall of Fame first ballot. You may not know (I didn’t) that he only got 80.8% of the vote. I mean, “only” is probably the wrong word — 81% of the Hall of Fame vote is a lot. But I do think that maybe Morgan was better than that. I think that’s probably why I think Morgan is underrated — everyone seems to know he was a great player. But he was more than a great player. He was a legendary player. Funny thing is: I’m not sure even Joe himself knows how good he really was.
1974-78: Joe Morgan
Close: Mike Schmidt, Carew.
In the discussion: Rose, Ken Singleton.
Comment: Well, we are, about to hit one of our first big surprises — just how good a player Ken Singleton really was. Shocked the heck out of me. I suspected he was wildly underrated. I know he walked a ton and hit for power. But, I never thought he was in the discussion for best player in baseball. And yet …
1975-79: Ken Singleton
Very Close: Schmidt, Dave Parker.
In the discussion: Morgan, George Brett, Rose.
Comment: There he is — Ken Singleton, best player in baseball. Wow. Now, to be fair, he’s only one WIn Share ahead of Schmidt and three ahead of Parker — so really it’s about a three way tie.
Still, he is ahead. He is our official best player in baseball. This is why I really believe it’s important, as baseball fans, to look back at players with a fresh eye and new approaches. Because Ken Singleton was wildly under-appreciated. He punched up a 152 OPS+ from 1975-79 — second only to George Foster. But he got about 200 more plate appearances than Foster, and his on-base percentage was about 50 points higher.
If you had told people in 1979 that Ken Singleton was better — markedly better in many cases — than Parker or Jim Rice or Dave Winfield or Steve Garvey, they would have called you nuts. Many of them still would call you nuts. But that doesn’t make it any less true. Ken Singleton played in a low-scoring era and in a bad hitters ballpark. And he did the things that win games — he got on base, which leads to scoring runs, which leads to winning games. It was that way 1912, and in 1958 and in 1979 and today.
1976-80: Mike Schmidt
Close: Brett
In the discussion: Singleton, Parker, Dave Winfield, George Foster.
Comment: The best two players in baseball — third basemen. That’s probably the only time that has happened in baseball history. But with Alex Rodriguez entrenched and Evan Longoria, Ryan Zimmerman, Pablo Sandoval and David Wright entering their primes, it will probably happen again.
1977-81: Mike Schmidt
Close: Singleton.
In the discussion: Brett, George Foster.
Comment: Singleton is still one of the best players in baseball — I do think about how long a player has to be either the best or in the discussion to be considered a Hall of Famer. I don’t know the answer … but Singleton has been at or near the top for eight seasons — 1974-81. I think that’s sort of a magic number — seven or eight years at or near the top, to me, makes for a compelling Hall of Fame argument.
1978-82: Mike Schmidt
Close: Nobody
In the discussion: Brett, Eddie Murray, Gary Carter.
Comment: I have tried in the past as — as a loyal Kansas Citian and as someone who has spent a lot of time with George Brett — to make the argument that George Brett was better than Mike Schmidt. That argument is built around …
1. Brett consistent ability to rise to the occasion. We all know that the “ability” to hit in the clutch is a controversial topic, but it is simply fact that Brett, in his career: (A) Hit the three-run homer that tied the game in ‘76 — leading to Chris Chambliss’ theatrics; (B) Hit three homers in a playoff game; (C) Hit the massive home run off of Goose Gossage which sent the Royals to their first World Series; (D) Had one of the greatest playoff games in baseball history against Toronto in 1985 — four-for-four, two homers, double, remarkable defensive play; (E) Hit home run that gave Royals the lead against Toronto in decisive game; (F) Hit .375 and .370 in his two World Series. That’s pretty good.
2. Brett was the emotional leader of the Royals, everyone understood that. Schmidt was not an emotional leader.
3. Brett played in a crummy home run park so his numbers did not always pop like Schmidt’s did. But for a career, Brett hit 1,119 extra base hits to Schmidt’s 1,115. Brett was the most balanced hitter of his era, one of the most balanced of all time.
But I can see now … Schmidt was better. My arguments are mostly based on emotion. And, sure, emotion is a part of things. But Schmidt was the superior fielder, and he walked so much that he got on base more that Brett despite the difference in their batting averages. His consistency is staggering. And here’s the big difference: Schmidt just PLAYED a lot more than Brett. Schmidt played 150 games ten times in his career, and was close to 150 three other times. Brett played 150 only five times. He was constantly fighting injuries, especially in the later years of his career. At his best — in 1979, 1980, 1985 — I say he was Schmidt’s equal. But Schmidt was at his best more often.
1979-83: Mike Schmidt
Close: Nobody
In the discussion: Brett, Murray, Andre Dawson, Robin Yount, Rickey Henderson.
Here is Andre Dawson’s one year in the best player in baseball discussion. In these five years, he twice finished second in the MVP voting, won Gold Gloves in center field four of the five years and hit .around .300 four of the five years as well. He really was some kind of player … one of his Hall of Fame issues for me is that he was not a great player after 1983. His knees gave out, and he was moved to right field. He more or less stopped stealing bases. His power numbers dwindled too until he resurged at Wrigley Field in 1987, led the league in homers and RBIs and won the MVP award. I don’t think he was a great player that year, though — he only had 20 Win Shares and did not get on base much. Anyway, I have a more in-depth Hall of Fame thought coming on Dawson …
1980-84: Mike Schmidt
Close: Henderson
In the discussion: Yount, Murray, Dale Murphy, Carter.
And Dale Murphy makes his first of four appearances on our list.
1981-85: Mike Schmidt
Very close: Rickey Henderson.
Close: Murray, Murphy.
In the discussion: Tim Raines, Yount, Carter, Pedro Guerrero.
Just three Win Shares separated Schmidt and Henderson.
1982-86: Mike Schmidt
Close: Henderson, Murphy, Raines
In the discussion: Cal Ripken, Wade Boggs.
Mike Schmidt had 155 Win Shares over those five years — and Henderson, Murphy and Raines all had 150. I think you could make a viable argument for any of the four as best player in baseball. I would make an argument for Dale Murphy as the best … more on that in the Hall of Fame story.
1983-87: Tim Raines
Very Close: Wade Boggs
Close: Murphy
In the discussion: Ripken, Schmidt, Henderson, Keith Hernandez.
One win share separated Raines from Boggs … Keith Hernandez was a great player in the mid-1980s.
1984-88: Wade Boggs
Close: Raines
In the discussion: Don Mattingly, Henderson, Tony Gwynn.
There’s Don Mattingly — lots of people remember Mattingly as the best player in baseball over that time period. He was great. But did you know that Darryl Strawberry had a better OPS+ during those five years? Sixteen players had a better on-base percentage. Mattingly was a stud … a high-average slugger who played a slick first base. I think he’s in the discussion for best player of the late 1980s, absolutely, but he didn’t walk and he did play the easiest defensive position on the field. I’ll just say, I think he was Top 5.
1985-89: Wade Boggs
Close: Raines.
In the discussion: Mattingly, Henderson, Puckett, Gwynn.
What was Wade Boggs greatest season? Was it the year he hit .368 and led the league with 240 hits? Was it the year he hit .363 and led the league in OPS+? Was it the year he hit .366 and led the league in runs scored? Was it the year he hit .357 and also led the league in walks? Hard to pick.
Interesting tidbit: Boggs in his career hit .354 at home … .302 on the road.
1986-90: Wade Boggs
Close: Will Clark, Henderson.
In the discussion: Kirby Puckett, Yount.
We’re about to enter our second surprise … or anyway a surprise to me. Was Will Clark the best player in baseball?
1987-91: Will Clark
Close: Barry Bonds.
In the discussion: Henderson, Boggs, Ryne Sandberg.
The thing I like about OPS+ is that, at a glance, it gives you a little perspective about the time and place of the player. For instance — pick an OPS. Any OPS. How about .793?
OK, Pete Rose had a .793 OPS in 1971. George Brett had a .793 OPS in 1989. Curt Flood had the .793 OPS in 1967, Al Kaline in 1969, Homer Summa in 1923, Jermaine Dye in 2004 and again in 2009, Juan Pierre in 2001, Cleon Jones in 1968, Charlie Grimm, 1925. Were these seasons the same? Of course not. Were these seasons SIMILAR? Of course not.
Cleon Jones, 1968: 136 OPS+
Pete Rose, 1971: 130 OPS+
Curt Flood, 1967: 128 OPS+
Al Kaline, 1969: 116 OPS+
Homer Summa, 1923: 108 OPS+
Jermaine Dye, 2004: 105 OPS+
Jermaine Dye, 2009: 103 OPS+
Charlie Grimm, 1925: 100 OPS+
Juan Pierre, 2001: 89 OPS+
So Cleon Jones in ‘68 had a huge year. Juan Pierre in 2001 was well below average. Curt Flood was an MVP candidate in 1967, Jermaine Dye was just about league average. OPS+ has its flaws, of course — several flaws — but if you just want to tell how good a season someone had based on a quick glance, it is pretty effective I think.
What does this have to do with Will Clark? Well, here are Will Clark’s traditional numbers from 1987-91:
1987: .308, 35 HRs, 91 RBIs, 89 runs.
1988: .282, 29, 109 RBIs, 102 runs
1989: .333, 23, 111 RBIs, 104 runs
1990: .295, 19, 95 RBIs, 91 runs
1991: .301, 29, 116 RBIs, 84 runs
So what do you think? Good numbers, right? I mean, they don’t pop your eyes out or anything — if you were judging Clark’s Hall of Fame case, those numbers would probably register as being good but nothing historically special.
So how is it that those numbers made Clark the best player in baseball for those five years? Well, for one thing, he played half his games in awful hitting Candlestick Park. For another, it was a low-scoring time — those 109 RBIs in 1988 led the league as did those 104 runs he scored in 1989.
Then, you add that he did a lot of things that are not reflected in the traditional stats. He walked quite often — led the league in walks in 1988. Twice in the five-year stretch, he led the league in times on base and in runs created. He led the league in equivalent average in 1988, was second in 1989 and third in 1991. He was an above average defensive first baseman.
People often talk about how it can be unfair to judge previous players by today’s standards. But I think it’s unfair that some of the players who did the things that helped teams win baseball games were so under-appreciated. Will Clark had baseball’s best OPS+ from 1987-91 too.
1988-92: Will Clark
Close: Barry Bonds
In the discussion: Sandberg, Henderson
One more year on top for Clark … four Win Shares ahead of Barry. But Barry will dominate the next decade and a half.
1989-93: Barry Bonds
Close: Nobody
In the discussion: Clark, Sandberg, Henderson.
Young Barry was 40 Win Shares better than any player in baseball.
1990-94: Barry Bonds
Close: Nobody
In the discussion: Frank Thomas, Ken Griffey Jr.
And Young Barry was 50 Win Shares better that anyone … it’s funny because I distinctly remember that at the time most people would have said that Ken Griffey was the best player in baseball. In retrospect, Griffey was obviously a great player — and he played center field. But Bonds did everything a little bit better (except throw).
1991-95: Barry Bonds
Close: Nobody
In the discussion: Thomas, Craig Biggio, Greg Maddux.
Pitchers are rarely in the discussion for best player in baseball simply because they just don’t get the innings. Even Pedro Martinez, who was as dominant as any pitcher ever, did not get the innings to get a lot of Win Shares. Now, Old Hoss Radbourn — he got the innings. In 1884, he put up 89 Win Shares. Just that one year. That will happen when you throw 678 innings.
1992-96: Barry Bonds
Close: Nobody
In the discussion: Thomas, Craig Biggio, Jeff Bagwell, Greg Maddux.
All Barry, all the time.
You know, I guess I never really considered that Houston from 1991 to 2000 had two of the four or five best players in baseball — the only two players, as you will see, who take the top spot away from Barry Bonds — and yet the Astros never even made it to the NLCS. And the Astros had good pitching much of the decade.
1993-97: Barry Bonds
Close: Nobody
In the discussion: Thomas, Biggio, Mike Piazza, Bagwell, Maddux, Albert Belle.
Every so often I hear someone ask: “Is Frank Thomas a Hall of Famer?” Are you kidding? Frank Thomas’ first full seven years — .330/.452/.604 with OPS+ of 182. I want to repeat that — an OPS+ of ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY TWO. Just as an example …
First seven full years:
Frank Thomas: 182
Mickey Mantle: 181
Albert Pujols: 167
Willie Mays: 164
Barry Bonds: 160
Joe DiMaggio: 159
To give you an idea, Roberto Clemente, Al Kaline, Hank Greenberg, and a 100 other Hall of Famers never ONCE had an OPS+ of 182 in a season. Frank Thomas is one of the best hitters in baseball history.
1994-98: Barry Bonds
Close: Biggio
In the discussion: Piazza, Bagwell, Thomas, Belle.
It’s interesting watching Bonds career — he was very clearly the best player in baseball in the ten year period from 1989-98. I mean if you are being realistic, nobody was even close. And then, right around this time, things shifted. McGwire and Sosa had their home run race. And players like Biggio and Bagwell and Piazza were closing in on Barry’s dominance.
Decisions are always more complicated than we tend to make them, but you could certainly understand Barry right around this time going: “OK, this is ridiculous. I am the best player in baseball. And if people don’t believe me … well, I’ll give them a show they’ll never forget.” And, like him or not, he definitely did that.
1995-99: Craig Biggio
Very Close: Bonds
Close: Bagwell, Piazza, Mark McGwire.
In the discussion: Belle, Bernie Williams, Thomas.
I’ve mentioned this before: I love Biggio’s 1997 season. He played every game. He hit .309. He walked 84 times. He led the league in getting hit by pitch (34 times!). He stole 47 bases. He slugged .500. He led the league in times on base and runs scored. And he did not hit into a single double play.
1996-00: Jeff Bagwell
Close: Bonds, Piazza, Griffey Jr.
In the discussion: Biggio, Alex Rodriguez, McGwire, Thomas, Sheffield.
For six straight years, Jeff Bagwell walked 100 times, scored 100 runs, drove in 100 RBIs and had 300 total bases. Nobody else ever did that — except Ted Williams, if you count as consecutive the years before and after his service in World War II. And you should count those … so Williams and Bagwell are the only two to ever pull that off six straight years.
1997-01: Barry Bonds
Close: Bagwell
In the discussion: A-Rod, Jason Giambi, Sammy Sosa, Piazza, Biggio, Chipper Jones.
A-Rod will be either close to the best or in the discussion every single year until the present. But he will never quite make it to the top.
1998-02: Barry Bonds
Close: Giambi, A-Rod, Sosa.
In the discussion: Chipper, Bagwell, Sheffield, Manny Ramirez, Bernie Williams, Jeff Kent, Derek Jeter.
You know, Jason Giambi did not seem to show great plate discipline when he was a young player. He walked a fair amount in the minors, but in his first three years he walked only 134 times in 336 games — which was nothing special. But in 1998, he started to walk and his on-base percentage jumped up 20 points, and apparently he liked it. From 1999-2005, he averaged 107 walks per year — led the league four times — and his on-base percentage was .436.
1999-03: Barry Bonds
Close: Nobody
In the discussion: Jason Giambi, Alex Rodriguez, Sosa, Sheffield, Chipper.
Barry Bonds in those five years: .322/.497/.748 with a 223 OPS+.
2000-04: Barry Bonds
Close: Nobody
In the discussion: A-Rod.
Even A-Rod is only barely in the discussion. Barry Bonds for these five years: .339/.535/.781 with a 241 OPS+ and 306 intentional walks.
2001-2005: Albert Pujols
Close: Barry Bonds, A-Rod.
In the discussion: Sheffield, Todd Helton, Bobby Abreu, MannyBManny.
Bonds only played 14 games in 2005 and he STILL was the clear winner in total Win Shares. But the idea is to get the best player over the five years, and that was Pujols by a length over A-Rod. Pujols takes over now as the best player in baseball.
2002-06: Albert Pujols
Close: Bonds, A-Rod.
In the discussion: MannyBManny, Abreu, Helton, Lance Berkman.
Bill James said 30 Win Shares makes for an MVP type season — Pujols has had more than 30 Win Shares every single season from 2002 to present.
2003-2007: Albert Pujols
Close: A-Rod.
In the discussion: Carlos Beltran, Bonds, Helton, Abreu.
The most underrated player of our era is, of course, Bobby Abreu. He’s underrated for many of the same reasons that players like Ken Singleton are underrated. He does underrated things. Abreu’s batting averages are good — he has hit .299 for his career — but his on-base percentages are off the charts because he walks 100 times every year. He doesn’t hit a lot of home runs — between 20 and 30 in his prime, less the last few years — but he hits a lot of doubles and led the league in triples one year. He has a reputation as a guy who is afraid of the wall — and he is not an especially good outfielder — but he is the only player in baseball to play 150 or more games every single year since 1998. Attendance is underrated.
He has never put up a huge RBI season, but has put up between 100 and 110 eight times. He has never led the league in runs scored, but he has scored 100 eight times. He is an intensely boring player to watch — foul ball, take a pitch outside, take a pitch inside, foul ball, foul ball — but he’s brutally effective.
2004-2008: Albert Pujols
Close: Nobody
In the discussion: A-Rod, Berkman, Beltran, Miggy Cabrera, Mark Teixeira.
Not that this is too important but it’s something I didn’t know it: Lance Berkman has hit more home runs on the road than he has at home. That’s interesting. Of course, it’s interesting how Enron/Minute Maid Field has gone from an extreme hitters park to a neutral park to even something of a pitchers park over the last decade or so.
2005-2009: Albert Pujols
Close: A-Rod, Chase Utley.
In the discussion: David Wright, Cabrera, Joe Mauer.
And that brings us up to the present day. Pujols is still very clearly the best player in the game, I think. But Utley and Mauer are definite candidates over the next couple of years, and so is a guy not quite on this list: Hanley Ramirez. In fact, here is the projection for the best player in baseball after the 2010 season.
2006-2010 (Projected): Albert Pujols.
Close: Hanley Ramirez, Chase Utley, Joe Mauer.
In the discussion: Prince Fielder, Lance Berkman, Adrian Gonzalez, Cabrera, Ichiro Suzuki, A-Rod, Wright, Ryan Howard.
Loading ...
Love it. Not enough Jim Rice, obviously. But other than that…
Joe,
Bill actually did something similar to this in 2003. You can find the article on Bill James Online in the Nov 2007 archives, I believe.
His method was a little different, though: he used Win Shares in a four-year window, and he weighted the years so the most recent year was the most important (his weights: 40-30-20-10, with 40 being the current year). It was a great read, and it came up with pretty similar results (notably Will Clark and Tim Raines).
And not to be a leech here, but just yesterday I looked at that same article of Bill’s and updated it to use WAR in place of Win Shares to see how the lists differed. Take a look if you like (I even tried to chart it some): http://wezen-ball.com/2010-articles/january/revisiting-bill-james-qbaseballs-best-playerq.html
Funny how ARod never quite got to the top of the mountain.
Do the Cardinals give Pujols a 20% stake in the team when they re-sign him?
One reason why the Devil Rays sucked for so long – they draft Abreu in the expansion draft and immediately trade him for Kevin Stocker. Could also explain why Houston never won a World Series with the killer b’s.
Sorry, I should clarify: in Bill’s article, he uses a four-year weighted average, not a sum. It also covers all 100 years of baseball history, up until 2003 (when he wrote it)
Circle me, Robbie Thompson
how close in win shares so you have to be to be considered close and in the discussion?
Trivia: Who has the most 30/30 (HR/SB) seasons in ML history?
Answer: It’s a tie: Bonds and Bonds. Amazing that Bobby did it 5 times in only 10 full seasons.
(To be fair, Barry also had 29 SB twice and 28 SB once in years he had over 30 HR.)
As a late-70s Yankee fan (who ran into that buzzsaw called . . . what what that clever moniker, again?), I distinctly remember “fearing” Ken Singleton at-bats — not Jim Rice ones. It’s only taken 35 years to validate the thoughts of that eight-year-0ld, but thanks, Joe!
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by JPosnanski: The best players in baseball since 1970? Well, hey, just killing time until the Fiesta Bowl. http://bit.ly/7ThfKP...
I love this blog. I could read stuff like this all day. Thanks, Joe.
For what it’s worth, I’d also like to know more about why the Astros never even made the NLCS with those 90s teams. There’s a weird theory about Houston always being bumped into mid-day playoff games since they weren’t a major market, so hitters had to deal with low sunlight (?)
Interesting that the ONLY pitcher even mentioned in any of these five-year strings is Greg Maddux. I guess Pedro and Clemens hit their strides when ‘roids really started inflating the numbers (I’d rather not go there with Clemens), but Mad Dog in his prime was pretty special.
I kind of always figured Ken Singleton didn’t really actually exist. Instead, one night Earl Weaver dreamed about what a perfect ballplayer would be: switch hitter to gain the platoon advantage at all times; doesn’t make outs; plays solid defense; smart baserunner. And suddenly there was Ken Singleton the next day.
If a manager and player ever fit, it was those two.
I’m always happy to see that it’s not just sentimentalism that has me remembering Will Clark so fondly.
Joe, you’ve written before that you think Barry Larkin is a Hall of Famer. And I completely agree. But I was surprised to not see Larkin anywhere on this list during any 5-year period. I’m sure that’s due to injuries taking away too many games, but how do you think that affects his Hall of Fame candidacy?
My minor quibble would be that using win shares really places a premium on staying healthy for all 5 years of the window you are looking at. If a player suffers a major injury in their prime, it’s enough to knock them out of contention.
I know it’s semantics, but if I have Player A who puts up huge numbers in 100 games, versus Player B who puts up simply great numbers in 162 games, I would label Player A as the better player while Player B would have been more valuable to his team. Maybe using OPS+ with a minimum number of PA’s for each 5 year window would be a better method of determining the “best player in baseball”. Then again, durability is one of the more underrated attributes, so maybe you are on the right track.
Also, count me as another Will the Thrill fan. The ‘89 World Series was probably the first one that I started following as a kid. I remember being pissed off when Game 1 was cancelled, wasn’t quite old enough to understand why they had to postpone it.
‘Every so often I hear someone ask: “Is Frank Thomas a Hall of Famer?”’
Really? I was just a kid when Thomas was at his peak, but I still distinctly remember how good he was. And then, looking back at his under-30 numbers, he was really just staggeringly good. I was a devoted SI for Kids reader in the early 90s, and I remember Griffey and Thomas completely dominated baseball coverage. Very little on Barry Bonds. From my memories of being 10 years old, Griffey was maybe the only athlete in the 90s to come close to Michael Jordan in popularity, so I’m surprised that he was never the best player in baseball.
Too bad Barry was what he was, in addition to his on the field stuff. If not for “all that other stuff” would there be any doubt he’s the best baseball player ever?
As for mattingly, I still don’t get the love. I really don’t. I know there are lots of different stats, but Hrbek outslugged and outOBP him all but 2-3 years. Hrbek also played slick 1B. Hrbek was also saddled with injuries at the end. The old school players love donnybaseball even though he didn’t win anything (unlike Hrbek) and the stats guys love Mattingly (somewhat), and yet I can’t really see the big difference. There are some differences, but I don’t see the big difference that makes one “one of the greatest” and one “just another 1B”. They were both someplace between very good and great in stretches, but neither is one of the best ever.
I love how Rickey is near the top straight through from 1979 to 1993, even if he never held the top spot.
So if you wanted to go by decade, it would basically be:
70s: Morgan
80s: Schmidt
90s: Bonds
00s: Pujols
These are arbitrary endpoints, of course, and Wade Boggs had a nice run in the late 80s…but that seems to more or less work.
Hmm, I prefer win shares too, but the one drawback is that the DH adds an extra slot that draws win shares away from the other hitters. It makes your list a little NL-heavy. Maybe there should be different lists for the NL and AL. Allow crossover guys to qualify for the league they spent the most time in during that 5 year window.
Otherwise, a great list and a great resource for the HOF debates. Hopefully this type of stuff will replace the “he was in x number of all star games” type of analysis.
Thought it was weird that you wrote almost the same article that lar @ wezen-ball wrote yesterday, but I see he’s already chimed in here. Both articles were interesting and different anyway.
Talking about Ken Singleton reminds me how much I love the 70s. Talk about a Golden Age for Baseball.
Top winners in each division for the 70s:
AL East, Orioles, 944 (and that is leaving 108 wins on the table in 1969 and 100 wins on the table in 1980)
AL West, Royals, 851, A’s 838
NL East, Pirates, 916
NL West, Reds 953.
Not a big market team to be seen. Of course, the Yankees, Red Sox and Dodgers were also very good teams, but still a decade where the best teams from each division are the O’s, the Royals, the Pirates and the Reds. Awesome.
I am glad you understand how good Thomas was Joe. So many people don’t seem to understand that perhaps during the majority of the 90s, he was the hitter pitchers least wanted to face. Forget the ridiculous numbers, his sheer size made pitchers wet themselves. I can’t wait for the big man to be eligible for the HOF because he should be voted in on the first ballot. And he was clean unlike others in the decade.
I’m very surprised that Vlad Guerrero wasn’t on there at least once. From 2000 – 2007 he was a beast, and I would think he would be in the discussion at least one of the five year periods in that time.
Was this an omission, Joe? Or did the fact that he played RF, didn’t walk a ton, and became a sub-par baserunner hurt him too badly?
“But I can see now … Schmidt was better.”
This pains me, Joe.
That’s why I’ve never ever considered comparing the two from a purely statistical standpoint.
Regardless, #5 will forever be the greatest 3rd baseman ever – to me!
What’s with the dominance of the National League?
Ah…Ken Singleton…
Anyone who played APBA growing up in the 70s (I’m sure it was the same for Strat players)…or anyone who plays WhatIfSports now…will absolutely echo that Singleton was a better player than Rice.
Ken has to be one of the most underrated players in history.
Brett vs. Schmidt… I’m from Kansas City, I saw Brett’s whole career. In my opinion he’s the greatest clutch hitter of all time(just ask the 1985 Blue Jays!), but I admit up front I’m completely biased.
Let’s break down the stats a bit more though:
George Brett hit 655 doubles(6th all time) where as Mike Schmidt hit 408 (148th all time).
Brett also hit 137 triples(70th all time) to Schmidt’s 59(tied for 511th all time).
Brett hit .305 for his career, including .390 in 1980 and also won 3 batting titles. Schmidt had a career average of .267 and only hit .300 once in his career(.316 in 1981).
Of course we all know that chicks dig the long ball and Schmidt hit 548(14th all time) to Brett’s 317(104th all time). Schmidt was a power hitter, Brett was a pure hitter that had excellent power.
In Brett’s defense, Kaufmann stadium has always been a ballpark that home runs just don’t happen. Doubles… Absolutely.. Homers… Nope. The fact that 36 homeruns(Bye Bye Balboni 1985) is still the Royals single season record should speak to that.
Interstingly, both could pilfer a bag.. Brett had 201 and Schmidt 174.
Schmidt won 3 MVPs, Brett won 1 in 1980 but got screwed out of a 2nd in 1985(the choice of Mattinly was total east coast bias.. Brett had a better overall season, and trust me the 1985 Royals wouldn’t have sniffed the playoffs let alone won the World Series without Brett carrying them. Isn’t that a definition of an MvP?)
They ended their careers with exactly the same amount of RBI (1595).
In 11,624 PA Brett walked 1096(73rd all time) times and struck out only 908 times. Meaning he struck out once every 12.8 plate appearances.
In 10062 PA Schmidt walked 1507(17th all time) times and struck out 1883 times(7th most all time). Meaning he struck out once every 5.3 plate appearances!
As for defense, Schmidt is acknowledged as the better defensive player due to the vast difference in gold gloves between Schmidt and Brett. Career Numbers at 3b back this up. Schmidt had a career .955 Fielding percentage and a 3.00 range factor.
Brett had a career .951 Fielding percentage and a 2.98 range factor. Schmidt was clearly better, but the difference was hardly earth shattering.
Go ahead and throw some advanced defensive metrics in here, I pulled these from Baseball reference but neither player was Brooks Robinson (.971 FP and 3.10 range factor) or Buddy Bell (.964 FP and 3.08 range factor.) Those 2 guys along with Graig Nettles and Gary Gaetti won the AL gold gloves during Brett’s reign at 3rd base.
During Schmidt’s 9 straight gold glove run, Brett had 3 seasons that were better than Schmidt’s in both fielding percentage and range factor during that run. I’m willing to bet Buddy Bell had more.
While Schmidt and Brett were contemporaries, I submit that Schmidt wouldn’t have won anywhere near 10 straight gold gloves if he, Brooks Robinson, Buddy Bell, Graig Nettles and George Brett had all played in the same league during that time frame.
Another thing that is glossed over when comparing the 2 players is Post Season and All-Star numbers. Brett raised his game to an even higher level in the post season, Schmidt hit like Neifi Perez.
Brett hit .337/.397/.627 with 10 homers and 23 RBI in 184 post season plate appearances
Brett hit .278/.381/.667 with 1 homer and 4 RBI in 27 All Star plate appearances (He made 10 all-star games, played in 9 and started all 9 of them)
Schmidt hit .236/.304/.386 with 4 homers and 16 RBI in 158 post season plate appearances.
Schmidt hit .292/.355/.583 with 1 homer and 3 RBI in 22 All Star plate appearances (He made 12 all-star games, played in 10 and started in 7)
Brett moved to first base in 1987 and later to DH, because frankly the guy was fragile. If he had averaged 150 games a season for his career .. we probably wouldn’t be having this conversation (he only played 150 games 6 times in his 21 year career).
Just a clarification to my Brett vs. Schmidt post – Schmidt won 9 straight Gold Gloves and 10 total.
I always remember Bobby Murcer as a pretty good outfielder with the Cubs. I completely missed his time in the early ’70s with the Yankees.
Looking forward to the HOF ballot article. Reading Shaunessy and Heyman’s articles today made my eyes absolutely BLEED.
I know you always try to be nice to that viewpoint, but I’ll never get the “you nerdy stat-geeks say X was better than Y, but I saw them, and I can tell you Y was better than X, no matter what you say.” In what other venue of life does that work? “I know you measurement geeks say that planes go faster than trains, but I’ve been one both, and I can tell you that you see the ground WHIZZING BY on a train, but the clouds look like they move pretty slowly on a plane …”
A shame about Bobby Abreu. What brought him the most notoriety is also the think that caused most of the baseball-watching population to vastly underrate him.
Up until 2005, he was (and still is today) the solid if un-spectacular player he is today, as Joe mentioned above. But what happened u 2005??
He wins the Home Run Derby
Not only does he win the HRD, but he wins it in spectacularly record-breaking fashion. This leads people to not see him as a solid player, but as a slugger, and because he was so non-descript before that night, nobody figures him for anything more than a slugger because: who the hell is Bobby Abreu, anyways??
So what happens after that?? He gets traded the next season to the Yankees (based on no small part by his performance in the HRD) and is labeled as a failure by the NY fans and media, despite the fact that his numbers in NY were nearly IDENTICAL to his career stats…the guy’s like clockwork.
And that’s why people underrate Bobby Abreu. Everyone thinks he’s a home run hitter, and when he doesn’t hit home runs, well, then he’s not the player he used to be, even though he was never that player in the first place.
I am stunned that Rickey Henderson was never considered the Best Player in Baseball for any 5 year stretch. He was so money in the 80s, and was always right there in the discussion. I guess Schmidt and Boggs were just that good.
Will Clark shocked me a bit, and I grew up watching Bay Area baseball. Very interesting.
Abreu is the most consistent player in the MLB, to me, that makes him the Most Invaluable Player. He brings something to a team that not many do, intangibles.
Which is what makes players like Derek Jeter and Dustin Pedroia and Joe Mauer so special.
It’s a shame Griffey was named best player of the 90’s.
It was quite a steal!
Retroactively Bonds should be given the award.
Ken Singleton? Really? I knew he was a big star, but, I had no idea. Maybe he’d have been a HOFer if he played in Boston or Detroit.
I don’t know anything about how to calculate Win Shares, but, right now I think 20 win shares for Dawson seems high (by percentage of team wins compared to the other guys %’s on this listing). I’m going to have to look deeper into how Win Shares are calculated. I need to understand them better.
Henderson was close in ‘86-90, even though he was injured for most of ‘87!! WOW!
Anyone too young to have seen the ‘89 NLCS, needs to go watch Will Clark smack a grand slam off a young Greg Maddux right now. That’s how I remember Will Clark to this day. Very dangerous.
You’ve heard people actually question whether Frank Thomas has a HOF case? LOL I hope they’re not in the BWAA
Abreu has that whole over .400 OBP with at least 7000 PA’s thing going… totally HOFer in the making.
Very interesting Joe! Great research! I always felt Bobby Bonds should be given more consideration for the HOF. I never would have guessed Joe Morgan was up there as long as he was. I took a sociology class at JCCC in 1977 and the first 10 minutes of every class I used to argue with the teacher who the best player was between George Brett and Mike Schmidt. The teacher was from Philadelphia of course!!
I really enjoyed the article. Ken Singleton was always a great player (on a great team during the Baltimore years), but he is the prime example of the kind of player who slips through the cracks when it comes to fan and media appreciation.
The player who does everything superbly, but does not have the one thing (Often Home Runs or a gaudy batting average or our old nemesis RBI’s) can be the best player in baseball and nobody knows-except for a few geeks. It is a shame.
Boggs in Fenway: .369/.464/.527/.991
away from Fenway: .306/.388/.398/.786
[...] the original post: Joe Posnanski » Blog Archive » Best Players In Baseball By admin | category: best | tags: audit, baseball-since, better-feel, biggest, chittum, [...]
absolutely loved this post. great stuff and thanks for going to all the trouble. other than the ones you pointed out (most notably Ken Singleton – who knew?), the names that surprised me the most were Ryne Sandberg and Bernie Williams. I saw Sandberg in his prime and always thought he was pretty overrated. Seems like this would indicate that the rep was deserved. I also saw Bernie Williams during his prime and thought he was fairly underrated. This too would suggest that maybe so…Rickey’s prolonged greatness was pretty remarkable – he truly was a special player
Thanks for using win shares. I agree that they are an excellent starting point for evaluation — not conclusive, but a great starting point.
Bill James has said he considers 300 career win shares a good Hall of Fame presumption — again, as a starting point for analysis.
And of course exceptions, even in the presumption stage, need to be made for players whose careers have been shortened through no fault of their own, particularly if they had high peak years.
I think we ought to keep in mind a win-share position spectrum. That is, more corner outfielders and first basemen put up big numbers; catchers and pitchers have a very hard time reaching 300 (and 200 is a good presumption for a career reliever). I’d put the presumption line at about 380 lf, 375 rf, 365 1b, 350 3b and cf, 335 2b, 320 ss, 300 c or sp. DH’s fail to pick up any shares for their fielding, but they may be able to play extra years, so what to expect from a career DH . . . 400?
Again, NOT a HofF line, just a starting point for discussion. If a player is over the line, explain why he should be kept out. If he is under the line, explain why he should get in. (Explanations can be persuasive.) This year I’d vote for Raines (390), perhaps Alomar (375), Larkin (346), Blyleven (339), perhaps Trammell (318). NOT on the basis of their career win shares — that’s just a starting point, or, perhaps, a confirmation of judgments made based on the other data.
What I really interested in here is WHY there are 11 right fielders with 400+ ws, only 3 shortstops (even counting Ripken’s and Yount’s numbers from other positions) and no catchers. The best hitters are steered to positions which will allow them to play longer careers? The best hitters have body types which tend to disqualify them for some positions in the field? [Voters missed out, IMO, on such hybrids as Joe Torre and Ted Simmons (315 each).]
Only Spahn and Clemens get to 400 among post-WWII pitchers, and with five-man rotations and no complete games, not many future pitchers will reach 400. . . .
“OK, this is ridiculous. I am the best player in baseball. And if people don’t believe me … well, I’ll give them a show they’ll never forget.”
As a lifelong Bonds fan, that pretty much sums it up right there. Thanks Joe. Great stuff.
Attendance is underrated. –YUP
Win Shares is one point of view but I can’t say that just because win shares sees Singleton as the best player from ‘75-79 that necessarily means he was the best player from that time period. According to WAR he was the 20th best player of that time period.
I think Singleton’s defense is rated too highly in Win Shares I’m not sure.
One problem with win shares is it’s based on “zero” so as pitchers innings totals get lower by the years, it makes it almost impossible for them to compete fairly next to a hitter. That’s part of the reason you never see pitchers in these top 5 year list from win shares.
Where as Pedro Martinez from ‘97-01 has to be rated as one of the best if not the best player in baseball.
WAR uses replacement level so pitchers can at least be compared to hitters more evenly.
WAR sees Mike Schmidt as the best player from ‘75-79:
Schmidt: 38.7
Niekro: 37.5
Brett: 34.5
Carew: 33.9
Morgan: 32.3
Parker: 30.1
Palmer: 29.8
Seaver: 29.2
Foster: 28.1
Reuschel: 27.2
Blyleven: 27
Tenace: 26.9
Tanana: 26.7
Cey: 26.7
Nettles: 25.8
Eckersly: 25.7
Winfield: 25.5
Lynn: 24.7
Singleton: 23.3
Like everyone else, I was surprised at Singleton’s showing on these charts. However, I’m non-plussed that so many are astounded by Will Clark’s performance. In my recollection, he was a truly dominant player in the late 80’s. And it wasn’t just me; for a time, he was also the highest-paid player in MLB, so some people must have shared the opinion that he was pretty good.
Although I never liked Clark, I feel as if he is one of those guys like McGriff, whose refusal to join the steroid craze turned them from dominant stars into merely real good ballplayers. Kind of a shame, especially since it will likely keep both out of the Hall Of Fame.
I also echo the statement from above about Ryno; I knew he was damn good, but I didn’t realize he was among the best 3 or 4 players in the sport for an extended period of time. However, the sky-high ratings of 2nd baseman in this exercise (Ryno, Grich, Biggio and Morgan all had eye-popping rankings, compared to conventional wisdom as to their abilities) makes me somewhat question the methodology.
Then again, maybe all along we’ve just been undervaluing guys who can expertly play the keystone sack.
Yeah!! Will Clark! He has always been my favorite player ever!
I grew up idolizing Griffey Jr. so I hoped he would top one of the periods in the 1990s. Looking back, I guess his downfall for this particular way of ranking players was his injury-shortened 1995 season. The injury, of course, was a broken wrist suffered while making one of his trademark stunning catches.
Here are his OPS+ numbers from 1993 to 1999, excluding 1995:
171
170
153
165
150
139
All while playing what is still the greatest CF defense I have ever witnessed, stealing 15-20 bases, and just being… cool. To those of us who came of age as baseball fans in the early 90’s, there is no more iconic player than Junior. Unless you were one of those Frank Thomas kids.
Still enjoyed the article.
I forgot Ted Simmons at 23.7, so Singleton is the 21st best player from this time period according to WAR.
Reggie Jackson is at 23.1 22nd during this time period and really in hindsight not that big a factor in the regular season for the 77-78 Yankees.
Gaylord Perry is in 23rd place with 22.1 and Jim Rice 22.0 who is supposed to be the most feared hitter in baseball during this his “peak” years is the 24rth best player according to WAR.
All this love for Bobby Abreu needs to stop. How about these statistics:
~Phillies trade Bobby at the trade deadline in 2006, at 6 games under .500 and finish the year with the 3rd best record in the NL and 8 games over .500. The subsequently go on to win three division titles, a World Series and were runners-up to another former Abreu team.
~With Bobby A, the Yankees lost two division series and failed to make the playoffs in 2008 for the only time in the decade. After he left, they win the 2009 World Series while beating Bobby’s new team.
Look, as a Phillies phan, I liked Bobby. But we all realized he had a lot of hollow numbers, stunk in the field and was not a winner. This is one of those cases where the numbers lie (and I love numbers).
So I guess A-Rod has pretty consistently been the 2nd best player in baseball for his whole career.
I was surprised that Reggie Jackson wasn’t a more dominant presence in this list, but then I realized that he actually was, but his career didn’t fit neatly into 5-year blocks. For instance, he was “in the discussion” for best player in the game in the early ’70’s, but that inconveniently leaves off his 1969 season, when he challenged the Maris record, and finished with 47 HR and an AL-leading OPS+ of 189.
He also had a strong late career. As late as 1980, he put up a .300/.400/.600 line, and was robbed of the MVP by George Brett’s 117-game “season.”
(I’m KIDDING. I know that this is the cathedral website for St. George. Besides, Reggie’s actual line was only .300/.398/.597, and he only finished 2nd in the MVP ballot that year. And yes, I would have voted for Brett too, although Reggie did snare 5 first-place votes.)
Jackson also put up a 147 OPS+ as a 36-year old, and was still putting up 130-ish numbers while pushing 40. So my memories are correct: he was indeed a dominant ballplayer.
And, like Brett, he wasn’t too shabby come October, either.
Bobby Abreu is not a “winner.”
I’m sure that had nothing to do with the 8 other guys on the field and the pitching staffs.
Or maybe they were full of grit and hustle it just wasn’t enough to overcome Abreu’s massive amount of non-winnerness.
@47….I was a Frank Thomas kid and even I can recognize the overall greatness of Griffey…but I’m such a Sox guy I even think that Albert Belle should be in the HOF for what he did to the White Sox, and with the White Sox.
@49 – I don’t think all of that can be put on Bobby A; I would think that his bat outweighed his glove. Besides, the Yanks had other problems besides him…Giambi underperforming….Wang being injured.
Yes, I just wanted to say Wang being injured.
A few fun Abreu facts, who I think will have a very interesting HoF case when he retires:
-His speed/power number is top 10 in every year since 1999.
-Top 10 in walks, except for 2008, every year since 1998
-Most impressively, he has been in the top 10 in times on base every year since 1999. That’s an 11 year period. He should coast into the top all time 25 in both times on base and runs created. Those are two pretty significant counting stats these days. He also should reach the top 25 in doubles and the top 50 in steals.
-Jim Rice reached base 3,186 times in 9,058 PAs. Abreu has reached base 3,395 times in 8,417 PAs. This means Abreu could go a full season (641 PAs) without reaching base once, retire, and still have a higher OBP than Rice in the same # of PAs. And it wouldn’t be close. Abreu: .374. Rice: .352.
Here is how it looks with Rally’s WAR:
70-74: Morgan (close: Perry, Seaver)
71-75: Morgan
72-76: Morgan
73-77: Morgan
74-78: Schmidt (close: Morgan, Niekro)
75-79: Schmidt (close: Niekro)
76-80: Schmidt (close: Brett)
77-81: Schmidt
78-82: Schmidt
79-83: Schmidt
80-84: Schmidt (close: Yount, Rickey)
81-85: Rickey
82-86: Rickey (close: Ripken, Boggs)
83-87: Boggs
84-88: Boggs
85-89: Boggs
86-90: Clemens (close: Boggs)
87-91: Clemens (close: Bonds)
88-92: Bonds
89-93: Bonds
90-94: Bonds
91-95: Bonds
92-96: Bonds
93-97: Bonds
94-98: Bonds
95-99: Bonds
96-00: Bonds
97-01: Bonds
98-02: Bonds
99-03: Bonds
00-04: Bonds
01-05: Bonds
02-06: Pujols (close: Bonds)
03-07: Pujols
04-08: Pujols
05-09: Pujols
@Garrett Hawk, Jackson’s defense was pretty horrible by the time he went to the Angels and that 1 year with the A’s in ‘87 so that kind of negated anything good he was doing with the bat. 1982 was the only year he was productive player during his 1982-1987 west coast run.
Jackson’s Yankee years are very overrated especially by the team. Great post season but 1980 is really his only great year with the Yanks. Jackson always gave a lot of credit to Dick Howser for that ‘80 season. He was essentially past his prime from 77-81
I suspect that Abreu’s case will be much too subtle to be appreciated by most of the HOF voters.
I don’t think it’s fair to blame Abreu for the Phillies lack of playoff appearances. He was a best offensive players during his tenure with the Phills and up until 2004 was a decent defensive player. Phillies problem was their medicore pitching during those years.
2005 was really the Team’s fault in keeping Howard on the bench while Thome could barely play.
2007 was most more about a Mets collapse than a Phillies victory. 95/100 the Mets win the division.
2008 was partly a minor Mets collapse.
The Phillies never had a decent pitching staff during those years. You’re not going to be a top flight team with Randy Wolf as your staff ace.
@Ryan JL,
Good list,
I find it interesting how underappreciated Mike Schmidt was during the mid-late 70’s. He was the best player in baseball and he didn’t “Start” an All Star game until 1979??
I think he’s the rare exception of a player who was basically the best player in baseball from 1974-1979 and only started “1″!! All Star Game.
Phil Niekro was a very underrated pitcher. If he played on a good team he would have won 2 or 3 Cy Young awards.
Boggs is an underrated player.
Also, Jim Rice owes his HOF plaque to Wade Boggs for getting on base from 1983-1988.
It’s funny when you look at this list that many people had Griffey jr. as the best player of the 90’s when Bonds was clearly the best player, not even close. I Can’t think of a decade where the perception of who was the greatest was so far away from the reality of who was the best player.
HAHAHA. Abreu is not a “winner”? Was THE GREATEST LEADER EVER not a winner those years also? jeter was the leader, and they didn’t win, so it must be him? Really, w-l stats for an individual in a team game are silly. Repeat after me: “win loss stats for one player in a team sport are silly”.
[...] [...]
It’s easy to forget how good Bonds was pre-steroids. Back when he was with the Pirates and skinny he was a 5 tool player. It’s too bad he had to go and ruin his legacy. He was already a hall of famer without the steroid inflated numbers.
Correction to your recollections/perceptions: Griffey was NOT considered the best player of the 1990s; Bonds was (at least according to this somewhat reputable source: http://tsn.sportingnews.com/baseball/bonds/qa.html)
Previous winners of TSN’s Decade Player of the Decade Award were Mike Schmidt (1980s), Pete Rose (1970s), Willie Mays (1960s), Ted Williams (1950s), and Stan Musial (1946-1956).
Joe, as usual a very interesting study. You raise some great points, and while I do not agree on all of them, especially slighting George Brett for Mike Schmidt is the most glaring in my opinion.
I read your Boise State article on SI.com, and while I didn’t necessarily disagree with anything, there was one thing…
“It created multiple celebrations. What’s wrong with an everlasting argument about whether Alabama or USC was better in ‘78?”
USC beat Alabama 24-14 at Legion Field in Birmingham in 1978, it should be noted.
Well, Jon Heyman is an idiot.
My recollection of Ken Singleton was that he was a double play machine. The numbers, when you look closely, bear this out. And, at certain points in his career Singleton was worse of a DP hitter than the awful, DP machine Jim Rice ever was. In 1981, for example, Singleton led the league in GDP with 21. This corresponded to a GDP once every 6.71 PAs with men on 1st base. In 1984, Singleton hit into a DP once every 7.1 PAs with men on 1st. In Rice’s 4 worst seasons (hitting into 36, 35, 31 and 29 DPs), the PA/GDP rates with men on 1st were 8.08, 7.37, 9.06 and 8.38, respectively, all better than Singleton’s worst two seasons. Rice had 5 seasons where he hit into a DP once every 10 PA or fewer, and they are 7.37, 8.08, 8.22, 8.38, 9.06. Singleton also had 5 seasons at 6.71, 7.1, 8.59, 9.86, 9.88.
Rice had more DP opportunities (3242 PAs in career with men on 1st base) than Singleton (2699 PAs), leading to more GDP opportunities. Rice hit into a DP once every 10.3 PAs with men on 1st in his career, while Singleton did it once every 10.9 PA. It’s not that huge a difference, and that’s even with Singleton batting lefty over 70% of the time.
I’m not saying this means Rice was better than Singleton, I’m just saying that Singleton hit into a lot of DPs. This is part of what I recall about Singleton. Advanced stats don’t back it up because advanced stats haven’t advanced enough to adjust raw GDP to GDP per GDP opportunity. Otherwise, GDP numbers are about as reliable as RBI.
Schmidt’s career splits: .272/.393/.540 at home; .263/.368/.515 away; .258/.369 /.511 against RHP; .297/.414/.579 against LHP
Brett’s career splits: .320/.383/.506 at home; .290/.356/.469 away; .318/.388/.517 against RHP; .280/.331/.429 against LHP
Bobby Bonds for Bobby Murcer: a huge trade at the time, superstar CF named Bobby for superstar CF named Bobby. Too bad it turned out to be a trade that pretty much hurt both teams and both players.
PacBellPilgrim makes a great point above about how Win Shares seems to take away from AL players.
You can put together a team of underrated players from the list that would be way better than most would think:
LF: Abreu, RF: Singleton, 1B: Clark, DH: Thomas, 2B: Grich, CF: Murphy or Murcer, C: Piazza or Carter.
The other positions are tougher: SS: Yount is the only one mentioned who might possibly be considered underrated, but he’s a Hall of Famer and pretty universally acclaimed. 3B: Bagwell was a minor league third baseman. Boggs is a Hall of Famer, but maybe is still underrated. People mention his home/road splits, but he should be credited for tailoring his swing to the park he played in 81 times a year. He took advantage of what was there for him.
Joe,
Just finished your HOF article on SI and it’s a great read, however, I’d like to hear a more detailed examination of Lee Smith. I think I’d leave him just short as well, but you reference the W-L record of a closer as a strike against which is a little silly as that means next to nothing. Really appreciate someone banging the drum for Murphy though. I know his peak was too short but for about 6 years it was between Schmidt or Murphy for the best player in the game.
Finished your HOF article and I loved your support of Murphy. He needs a champion. Maybe once Bert and Raines get in, you can start on that. Also, loved your Boise column. Why not just call them the champs?
As per the AL players getting fewer win shares:
Isn’t that the result of the AL being the inferior league in the ’70’s? It’s kind of like today, only reversed (today the NL is considered the inferior league).
Because of a lot of reasons (with AL-owner racism being a big one) the NL featured more star players, and won 22 of 23 All-Star games at one point (including 9 of 10 in the 70’s). That ain’t random chance…they were a stronger league.
The power shift between leagues is kind of an interesting dynamic. For instance, in the teens (1910 to 1919) the NL had…who? An aging Honus Wagner at the end of his career? Yes, Pete Alexander was dominant on the hill, but who was the NL position player of the decade? Gavvy Cravath? the wonderfully named Heinie Groh? Sherry Magee? You gotta admit, it’s not the most inspiring list.
Meanwhile, the AL was featuring the prime years of Ty Cobb, Tris Speaker, Shoeless Joe Jackson (that’s a pretty good All-Star outfield, right there) Eddie Collins, Home Run Baker, and Babe Ruth. And that Big Train fellow didn’t have a bad decade on the mound. Seems pretty obvious which league would dominate the Win Shares picture, no?
More on Brett’s splits –
Brett’s splits back up what I said about Royal’s stadium. He hit 314 doubles, 40 triples and 181 homers on the road in 5227 ABs and 351 doubles, 97 triples and 136 homers at home in 5122 ABs.
So he hit 37 more doubles, 57 more triples and 45 less homers at home in 105 less home At Bats.
Brett also walked a bit more at home(558 to 538). Interestingly he struck out 161 more times on the road. That probably can be attributed to being behind more on the road and trying to hit home runs. He also stole almost twice as many bases at home (127-72)
Brett vs. Schmidt – Runners in Scoring Position:
Schmidt – .268/.400/.530 /.931
Brett – .307/.410/.481/.891
On the surface Schmidt had a .931 OPS vs. Brett’s .891 OPS, so he was better with runners in scoring postion, right??
While Brett played 303 more games than Schmidt he only came to the plate with Runners in scoring position 316 more times.
Schmidt’s numbers 3071 PA, 2362 AB, 633 Hits, 100 doubles , 23 triples, 158 homers, 1055 RBI, 570 BB, 589 SO.
Brett’s Numbers 3387 PA, 2701 AB, 828 Hits, 162 doubles, 32 triples, 82 homers, 1207 RBI, 543 BB, 271 SO.
So in 316 more plate appearances Brett had 195 more hits, 152 more RBI and 318 less strikeouts. Even though Schmidt had a higher OPS, who would you rather have at the plate?
Joe — in your HoF article you wrote this: “I’m just wondering what’s going on in the commissioner’s mind.”
See, that’s the problem. You think Bud has a mind; however, I’m pretty sure Bud is brainless.
“So in 316 more plate appearances Brett had 195 more hits, 152 more RBI and 318 less strikeouts. Even though Schmidt had a higher OPS, who would you rather have at the plate?”
So…in more opportunities he had higher counting numbers. How is that an argument against rate stats?
The only number that really matters is SLG. We don’t care about walks with RISP and its idiotic to count all hits as the same. Schmidt had a much higher SLG with RISP, which is better.
That’s not why I’d pick him though; I’d pick him because he was better, completely irrespective of meaningless “RISP” stats with no predictive value.
Speaking of the best players in baseball, InsidePulse did a story on the #1 overall draft picks of the decade which I thought was an interesting look at how teams have fared in the draft.
http://sports.insidepulse.com/2010/01/04/where-are-they-now-1st-overall-draft-picks-of-the-decade/
“~With Bobby A, the Yankees lost two division series and failed to make the playoffs in 2008 for the only time in the decade.”
I was led to believe this was A-Rod’s fault.
I know that George Brett is the favorite son on this site, and being the greatest Royal ever (by far), it’s deserved.
And I LOVED watching him play: fiery, intense, clutch as hell, dirty uniform, massive chaw bulging from his cheek…what’s not to like?
However, picking Schmidt over Brett is not at all a slap in Brett’s face; it’s just that Schmidt is almost universally regarded as the best 3rd baseman in baseball history. It’s pretty much accepted by 99% of the baseball history buffs who don’t live in Kansas City, Mo.
A similar case would be “all-time greatest 1st baseman.” It’s Lou Gehrig, right? Except,
Jimmie Foxx was an exact contemporary (like Schmidt/Brett), and was damn near equally good: he won 3 MVP’s at the height of Lou’s career, he was a multiple World Series champion, he was probably a slightly better fielder than Lou, was likely just as good a baserunner (in one 6-year period he averaged 10 triples per year, he stole a decent amount of bases, he scored 151 runs one year…we’re not talking about a fat slugger with cement in his shoes), and he hit a freaking TON. Absolutely nobody is saying he sucked. At all.
He just wasn’t quite as good as the all-time standard-bearer, Lou Gehrig. Same with Schmidt/Brett.
[...] to his (long) form, Joe Posnanski examines the best players in baseball from 1970 through the present. He covers every single year, [...]
And closer to topic…
Active OPS+ leaders since 1970, by year (3000 PA requirement):
‘70, ‘71-’77: Dick Allen
‘78: Willie McCovey
‘79-’81: Reggie Jackson
‘82-’87: Mike Schmidt
‘88-’89: Wade Boggs
‘90-’91: Will Clark
‘92: Fred McGriff
‘93-’94, ‘01-’07: Barry Bonds
‘08-’09: Albert Pujols
Crap, made an omission:
‘70, ‘71-’77: Dick Allen
‘78: Willie McCovey
‘79-’81: Reggie Jackson
‘82-’87: Mike Schmidt
‘88-’89: Wade Boggs
‘90-’91: Will Clark
‘92: Fred McGriff
‘93-’94, ‘01-’07: Barry Bonds
‘95-’00: Frank Thomas
‘08-’09: Albert Pujols
What about RJ? 99-04 beisdes having one injury plagued season he was pretty incredible, struck out a ton, won a ton of games, threw a ton of innings, kept his whip and era very low… what gives or is that Bonds just dominates the era.
RJ had one of the greatest peaks that any pitcher has ever had. It compares quite favorably to the famed Koufax peak.
But Bonds’s performance during those same years was also historic. I would guess that the only batting peak in MLB history that compares would be Jidge Ruth, 1920-1924.
And just for a fuller picture, BA/OBP/SLG leaders under the same parameters…
BA
‘70-’72: Clemente
‘73-’85: Carew
‘86-’94: Boggs
‘95-’01: Gwynn
‘02-’06: Helton
‘07: Ichiro
‘08-’09: Pujols
OBP
‘70-’73: Robinson
‘74: Yastrzemski
‘75-’77: Morgan
‘78-’83: Hargrove
‘84-’85: Henderson
‘86-’94: Boggs
‘95-’02: Thomas
‘03-’07: Bonds
‘08-’09: Helton
SLG
‘70: Mays
‘71-’76: Aaron
‘77: Allen
‘78: Stargell
‘79-’80: Rice
‘81-’86, ‘88-’89: Schmidt
‘87: Mattingly
‘90: Strawberry
‘91: Canseco
‘92-’94: McGriff
‘95-’98: Thomas
‘99-’00: McGwire
‘01: Ramirez
‘02-’04: Helton
‘05-’09: Pujols
As an aside, I’ve convinced myself that the Crime Dog deserves enshrinement for something other than the Tom Emanski commercials.
Joe, you *really* should be listing the leagues separately. I know the idea is to find the “best player in baseball”, but the fact is Win Shares (or OPS+, or whatever) cannot account for the relative strengths of the two leagues—indeed the necessary adjustments are almost impossible to estimate before interleague play. To illustrate: Little Pete Rose is 14 years old and plays in a little-league version (same number of players, teams, and games) of the 70’s National League. Let’s say Little Pete earns 50 Win Shares in that league in 1974. Meanwhile Big Pete earns 27 WS in the National League itself.
This speaks volumes about the Schmidt/Brett debate. Indeed, I would argue that the Schmidt/Brett debate *is* the debate between their league-strengths.
[...] the Hall of Fame. No, he didn’t reach the “magic numbers,” but for a time he was one of the best players in baseball. Never the best, but one of the best. There was never a doubt in my mind, and there still [...]
I like the groud from 1998-2002. So what do these four guys have in common?
1998-02: Barry Bonds
Close: Giambi, A-Rod, Sosa
Pimply backs, shrunken stones, and rage?
I had to squint in order to find HOFer Kirby Puckett’s name on the list. Interesting, since you would think he’d be one of the best players in baseball over an 8-year period …
I had season tickets to the O’s when Singleton was in his heyday. A fact one might find amazing is that Ken Singleton was the slowest human being I have ever seen on a baseball diamond from tee ball to the majors. Any one of the Molina brothers could beat him to first while running backwards. This makes his marks all the more amazing.
It is really interesting to see how high up Tim Raines places in the win shares calculations in the mid to late 80s. The reason that his current hall of fame voting percentages are down at 30% is because all the voters underestimate the importance of stolen bases. A stolen base should be considered just as important, if not more important, than a base hit. If you add his 800 stolen bases to his 3700 total bases he has 4500 total bases which is ahead of quite a few hall of famers. I don’t know why there isn’t a slugging percentage-related stat that takes into account stolen bases – there sure should be. He is fifth all-time in stolen bases and has one of the highest success rates – that alone should get him in the hall of fame. A base- stealer also rattles all the pitchers as they have to focus on him thus allowing the hitters after him (Andre Dawson being one) to have more success. Their bases running also leads to more runs as they score more from second base on hard hit singles and advance on sacrifice flies a lot more. Tim Raines playing before Dawson in the Montreal lineup probably got Dawson the extra numbers he needed to make the hall of fame. Let’s hope the voters learn to appreciate base stealers. Raines would have also had a lot more RBIs if he had batted anywhere else in the lineup – by batting first you have far less opportunity for RBIs, especially obviously in the NL where the pitcher very often ends the previous inning.
’cause I’m lazy – did anyone do the same calcs but over a short time span than 5 years? Would be interesting to see how the names come up. Not sure what it would prove but it would be interesting anyway.
Thanks a lot for the post!
I was surprised by Ken Singleton. I grew up as an orioles fan in the 70’s and 80’s and he was always a favorite. I knew he was good but even as a hometown heor he was under appreciated. Thanks for shedding light on a great career, hopefully someday maybe the veterans committee will take a good look at him.
[...] Still speaking of the Hall of Fame, who are the best players in baseball? [...]
Joe Posnanski says: I think that’s probably why I think Morgan is underrated — everyone seems to know he was a great player. But he was more than a great player. He was a legendary player. Funny thing is: I’m not sure even Joe himself knows how good he really was.
Have you ever listened to Morgan?
It would be nice to have a similar “Best Pitcher in Baseball” article.
I love seeing the Bobby Abreu love. After Dawson got into the HoF, during an off-the-top-of-my-head rant at work I said something along the lines of “That’s two years in a row that undeserving guys get into the Hall: First Rice then Dawson. Nobody thinks Bobby Abreu is a Hall of Famer now, and he’s better than both of those guys!”
To people at my job, who are generally unprepared to match any baseball-related argument I make with facts, nobody challenged the statement, but when I went home that day I felt uneasy about making a potentially untrue statement and decided to look more deeply into the matter to ensure I was being factual.
I was shocked to find that, while Abreu is only a borderline HoF player by my view, you could definitely make a case on his behalf, and I absolutely think that he has a better case than either Dawson or Rice — And his career isn’t even over yet, though its clearly in the decline phase.
Having just gone through that about a week and a half ago, its good to see this post which essentially reaffirms what I was thinking.
[...] great Joe Posnanski used Win Shares to help determine the best players in baseball for every five-year period from 1970 forward. There are no Yankees — not even Don Mattingly [...]
Mike #17 said: “would there be any doubt (Barry Bonds is) the best baseball player ever?”
Two words: Babe. Ruth.
You may have an argument about offensive players (which should probably include Teddy Ballgame, maybe Honus Wagner). But when that argument is done, whatever the conclusion, I have the trump card: 92 wins as a pitcher — and all his other pitching accomplishments.
Babe Ruth was a freak (I mean that in a good way). There was never anybody like him before or since, and there certainly never will be in the future, since there is NO WAY a player will be both a pitcher and a position player, especially at that level of talent at either position.
[...] to Joe Poz, the players who topped Mattingly in the span from ‘84-’88 were Wade Boggs and Tim [...]
to David in NYC…we all know Babe Ruth was tremendous as a hitter and a pitcher…but we are no longer in the days where he is the undisputed king of baseball….the league back then didnt have quite the field of talent today, I think the argument made across 5 decades is pretty difficult to make, no matter which side of the fence you’re on….still, i like to see that Barry Bonds got his love as a best player for about a decade and a half….most people lump him in with mark mcgwire and sammy sosa for the PEDs, but most ppl refuse to acknowledge, or are just oblivious to the fact that Bonds was the perfect 5 tool player before the 2000’s.
[...] Geert De Lombaerde wrote an interesting post today on  Here’s a quick excerpt  I was doing my usual investigative mayhem to get a better feel for the Hall of Fame ballot, and I thought it would be worthwhile to come up with the best players in baseball since, say, 1970. I don’t mean the overall best players — I … [...]