Weighing Offensive Titles

[Batman]

.


Re. Weighing Offensive Titles


Of the ten traditional offensive categories -- Runs, Hits, Doubles, Triples, Home Runs, RBIs, Walks, Average, Slugging and Stolen Bases -- how would you value each in respect to a league leadership title?

Specifically I’m putting together something like a “leader line” (versus a leader board) of single-season titles won by a player. I’ve tentatively assigned values for each category as shown in this example:



LL R H 2B 3B HR BI BB AV SA SB Total
~values >> 3 4 5 6 7 9 2 8 10 1 LL.Val

Willie Mays: 21 2 1 0 3 4 0 1 1 5 4 120



The objective of course is to weight league titles to facilitate cross-era comparison. For example Dan Brouthers led the league in home runs twice, as did Eddie Mathews. Although Brouthers’ titles were with 8 and 11, and Mathews’ were with 47 and 46, each topped his peers in the style of the day. Brouthers also led the league in slugging seven times, which I’m guessing is way up there (I haven’t gotten to everyone), but his lifetime SA of .519 ranks 61st, between Kevin Mitchell and Charlie Keller.

As you can see, what I’ve done so far is just allocate one through ten points to each of the ten categories -- just slapping it together for the moment.

QUESTION: Limited to mutually exclusive point assignments of from one to ten -- or not -- how would you weigh each title, and why?

By the way, OBP, OPS, et al. are accounted for elsewhere in the player analysis; this “leader line” business just an expanded single criterion among many.

Thanks in advance.

-- Tom

.

[Skip]

What makes these 10 the 'traditional' 10? I'd certainly kill triples for OBP if nothing else. Triples are, at least for a long time now, a total fluke stat. And, you are certainly discounting the value of BB, at least by popular perceptions, just as you are inflating the value of RBI.

[Batman]

.

By "traditional" I mean stats that fans are familiar with going back to pre-SABRmetrics. Please read the whole post. OBP, OPS, et al. are accounted for elsewhere in the player analysis; this “leader line” is just an expanded single criterion among many. The point is to try to get a fix on 19th century players.

"...discounting the value of BB ... inflating the value of RBI..." Okay. How would you weigh them?

-- Tom

.

[Ytown Tribe fan]

I always thought that the pre-SABR "traditional" stats were leadership, courage, grit, determination, baseball savvy, clutch ability and, of course, character. Oh, and RBI.

[SmedIndy]

As a huge fan of the 19th century - I find that evaluating those players with current sabremetric tools - OPS, etc. is just as valuable. Since stats back then, especially in the counting categories, were, let's say, dubious at times and non-existent in the others, I'd throw RBI out the window for sure for 19th century players. And SB as well, since the SB rule changed.

OBP and SLG are just as important then.

[sweaver]

Why runs at 3 points and RBI at 9? I would place a higher value on runs than RBI. And OBA has to be in there, if slugging is.

[SmedIndy]

The fact that Yank Robinson played many years for the Browns means that they valued OBP then, even if they didn't compute it.

[Wolf Hopper]

Here goes..............

SA - 10
BB - 9
- above, let's say the Beane counters got to me
BA - 8 (hits are good, frequency of hits is better)
HR - 7 (really push up the SA)
then..........
H - 6 (hits are good, like I said)
2B - 5
3B - 4
closing the true important stats.
and..........then
R - 3
BI - 2
because they're contingent to those on your team, and lastly
SB - 1, because everyone says they are overrated

[Batman]

.

Thank you, Steve. That's exactly what I was looking for. Now I'll get back to the spreadsheet. Will report.

-- Tom

.

[Batman]

.

Ytown Tribe fan --

You're totally right. And I think that's still the measure. We're just trying to find the right numbers to put with it.

-- Tom

.

[sweaver]

Need to find the study in the old Baseball Abstracts about how leadership in each offensive category correlated with run scoring. That was on a team level, but it should translate to individuals. Best I can recall, SBs and triples were the lowest correlation.

[KCBOOMER]

Steve's listing is probably as good as any. I might switch BA and SLG. Modern theorists prize OBA over SLG and BA is the largest component of OBA.

[Batman]

.

KC -- I agree. The list I'm working on comprises OBA title-holder only (for now).

sweaver -- re. Triples and Stolen Bases, it strikes me a first view that triples in 19th century were something like the home run of the day. If there ever was a correlation of wins and triples it would have been then; Ruth certainly took care of it since. I'll check it out.

-- Tom

.

[SmedIndy]

.

KC -- I agree. The list I'm working on comprises OBA title-holder only (for now).

sweaver -- re. Triples and Stolen Bases, it strikes me a first view that triples in 19th century were something like the home run of the day. If there ever was a correlation of wins and triples it would have been then; Ruth certainly took care of it since. I'll check it out.

-- Tom

.

I think you'd find that because of the disparate eras, trying to set a specific weight over time for counting stats is going to be one tough gorilla to work out. Dan Brouther's triples did correlate to wins, much more so than his home runs. Methinks you may have to carefully define eras and weight stats in each era accordingly.

[Batman]

Speaking of disparate eras...

[Skip]

I'm missing something. What numbers are you weighting according to your legend to generate the totals on the vertical scale? I assume it's rank in each category or something similar.

[Batman]

.


Skip -- Sorry, I thought it was clear. Going back to the first "leader line" example that started the thread, of the ten "traditional" offensive categories, Willie Mays led the league 21 times. Assigning Steve's point value to each single-season title, the sum of Mays’ titles comes to 123.

A respectable number, it’s dwarfed by several player’s totals before and after. Assuming -- expecting no argument -- that Mays ranks among the top who’ve ever played the game, why the relatively low score?

There’re lots of reasons, of course. I posted the above chart (just a detail of the larger canvass) because it shows trends, and may provoke some adjustment ideas.

SmedIndy said that “...because of the disparate eras, trying to set a specific weight over time for counting stats is going to be one tough gorilla to work out.”

No doubt. Is it a baby gorilla, an 800-pounder, or King Kong?

-- Tom

.

[TGwynn19]

Is it a baby gorilla, an 800-pounder, or King Kong

Batman,

Why not use the era adjustment factors that Bill James uses in his RC formulas as a starting point?

[Batman]

.

TGwynn19 -- Thank you.

If subtracting 1800 from birth year, dividing by ten and adding the number to a player’s analyzed totals is not an arbitrary adjustment, then we do live and play in a perfect world.

The chart below, albeit something of a caricature (everything’s been smoothed for easy apprehension), portrays well the mess we have to muddle through to get to a stats-based -- not an arbitrarily imposed formula, regardless of its reasonableness, but -- a stats-based adjustor.

Algorithms and higher math doesn’t help much: Baseball’s refused to conform to any systems, programs, whatever, having to do with predictability. It takes, I believe, a sociological approach. And that’s touchy-feely at best.

Re. “Era Adjustment” -- although I have some ideas, I wouldn’t mind some more.

Will keep you posted.

-- Tom

.

[gyb13]

one problem I have with league leaders is the following:

scenario A
gyb .375 average
skIp .374 average

scenario B
gyb .375 average
skIp .320 average

should gyb get the same amount of points for both? shouldn't the league average be factored in? etc etc etc

[Batman]

scenario A
gyb .375 average
skIp .374 average

scenario B
gyb .375 average
skIp .320 average

should gyb get the same amount of points for both? shouldn't the league average be factored in? etc etc etc



gyb -- A couple of points re. league leaders:

1) It’s an expanded detail of the player’s whole career; other components of that picture that I’m working through include OBA, OPS, league runs per game throughout the player’s career -- e.g. Ruth 4.67, Bonds (through ‘02) 4.44 -- and other stuff.

2) League leadership is exclusionary, which is exactly why I’m looking at it. In a single season gyb’s .375 compared with skIp’s .374 is a wash, but gyb gets the title. Fair or not, that’s how the number fall. But if gyb’s title was a one-season wonder, and skIp was consistently up there throughout his career, then that will be reflected in skIp’s career overview.

Say gyb = Mattingly, skIp = Boggs and we’re looking at 1983-88:

Boggs titles: ‘83 .361; ‘85 .368; ‘86 .357; ‘87 .363; ‘88 .366

Mattingly title: ‘84 .343 (Boggs hit “only” .325)

In the allocation of batting average titles over these six years, it’s Boggs 5-1 over Mattingly. (BTW, I’m not saying Mattingly’s a one-season wonder.)

Does that make Boggs the better player? Not necessarily. For example Bonds and Ruth have each caught only one batting average title. (By that criterion alone, does Mattingly equate to Bonds or Ruth? Umm, not quite.)

But does that make Boggs the better batting average hitter than Mattingly? Of course it does...

...which leads to the next question: What value is a batting average title in respect to, say, a slugging title? (less) -- or a doubles title? (more). By assigning values to these league titles we can get a fix not only on a player’s dominance within a category, but, if a more valuable category, his dominance in the game over his career. This becomes part of his stat profile.

-- Tom

.

[Wolf Hopper]

...which leads to the next question: What value is a batting average title in respect to, say, a slugging title? (less) -- or a doubles title? (more).

At work, we have a guy who, when we review our productivity stats, always says "Yeah, this tells us what our batting average is - but, what's out slugging percentage?" (I always thought this was insightful and cool.)

His point: The stats say that we performed 95% of our transactions in an acceptable manner.

Which, at first blush, sounds good. But, in fact, we had 95 transactions that were very simple, that a monkey could do, and we had 5 transactions that required a brain to do - - and those were the 5 we got wrong. Not as good as we first thought when we say 95%, eh?

Same deal in baseball. A guy who hits .300 and slugs .500 is a lot more valuable than a guy who hits .340 and slugs .390, to me.

So, I would say that a slugging title is more valuable than a batting title. As far as a doubles title, that's a counting stat. A guy, in theory, could hit 50 doubles, lead the league in two baggers, and still only slug .485 on the season. So, always take the percentage (quality) over the count (quantity).

[Batman]

.

Exploring league leadership let me look at sustained dominance, shown by the sheer number of instances of a hitter being the top guy in one or several categories. I was perplexed as to what Wagner, Cobb, Ruth, Hornsby, Williams and Musial had in common (besides greatness) by which each captured some 40ish-plus titles. Their more modern counterparts, Mays, Mantle, Aaron, Yaz, Rose and Schmidt, rarely caught more than twenty titles apiece. Current HoF-bound players -- with the exception of Bonds (18 and working) -- such as Thomas, Walker and Edgar Martinez, have failed to snag even ten.

Question: Why is the number of titles held by an era’s star in decline?

Hypothesis: Because of the increased number of guys chasing them.

From 1901 to 1960ish, there were 16 ML teams. There were 128 offensive starters vying for 20 titles (64 starters going for 10 in each league). But now, with eight offensive starters for each of 30 ML teams -- plus another 14 DHs in the AL -- there are 254 offensive starters in contention for the same 20 titles.

Because a title is exclusionary, when once 63 other starters in the league were left behind, now there are 127 starters in the NL, and 125 starters in the AL left out of the running.

Therefore the value of a title has increased. The value of more valuable titles has increased more.

Assumption: The best of their day are on the field, whether it’s 1880-something or 2003.

While the assignment of point values to titles is arbitrary, if not according to rank then according to weight, I at least did it the same to each.

That said, I then adjusted each hitter’s cumulative points by a multiplier that was NOT arbitrary, but based upon the incremental increase in the number of starters due to expansion. Whereas Cobb’s and Ruth’s (unadjusted) sub-totals were multiplied by 1.000 (16/16), later guys’ adjustments range from 1.1250 for Mantle (ballparked at 18/16) and 1.250 for Mays (20/16), to as high as 1.875 (30/16) for many current players.

Although I believe this is sound thinking for usage in this narrow league leadership study, I wouldn’t advocate its across-the-board application as an total “era adjuster.” Nothing’s that easy. There are other undoctored stats in baseball history that yield cross-era comparison.

Aside: These expansion-based adjustments are here pretty rough-cut. I think the increments can be more highly refined -- that is, smoothed. An expansion is a release of an increasing pressure in the talent pool. The increase in talent may -- I’m guessing -- be parabolic going back to 1876. But that’s another thread.

As I mentioned earlier, this league leadership study is a greatly expanded DETAIL in my hitters’ stat profiles. More important to me than to try to decipher the meaning or weight of the final Adjusted Values at the far right is the RANKING, which is the metric, one of several.



TOP 50:
LL: SINGLE-SEASON LEAGUE LEADERSHIP

Multipliers: *LL as shown

OBA: Instances x 20

**FL (Fielding): Instance x Pos.: C = 9; SS = 7; 2B = 6; 3B = 5; CF = 4; 1B, LF & RF = 2 each

PS (Post-Seasons): Instances x 1

LL adj.: 1901-1960ish: 16 ML teams = base 1.000 (Fed. excluded)
Multiplier increased by percentage of ML expansion over base
1876-1900: Averaged 13.32 ML teams, varied widely; players credited at base
Note: Unadjusted sub-totals not shown

Adj. Val: Result of all (above) calculations


| * V A L U E S |
*LL in 10 Offensive Categories | R H 2B 3B HR BI BB AV SA SB |
| 3 6 5 4 7 2 9 8 10 1 |
| |
| Tot | O
| I N S T A N C E S *LL | B ** | LL Adj.
Player Played *LL | R H 2B 3B HR BI BB AV SA SB Val | A FL PS | adj. Val
| | |
1 RUTH, Babe 1914-1935 51 | 8 0 0 0 12 6 11 1 13 0 357 | 10 1 10 |1.000 569
2 Bonds, Barry 1986-2002+ 18 | 1 0 0 0 2 1 8 1 5 0 149 | 6 0 6 |1.875 516
3 WILLIAMS, Ted 1939-1960 38 | 6 0 2 0 4 4 8 6 8 0 264 | 12 0 1 |1.000 505
4 HORNSBY, Rogers 1915-1937 40 | 5 4 4 2 2 4 3 7 9 0 262 | 8 1 2 |1.000 430
5 COBB, Ty 1905-1928 51 | 5 8 3 4 1 4 0 12 8 6 291 | 6 1 3 |1.000 418
6 Boggs, Wade 1982-1999 12 | 2 1 2 0 0 0 2 5 0 0 80 | 6 2 6 |1.750 378
7 MUSIAL, Stan 1941-1963 40 | 5 6 8 5 0 2 1 7 6 0 240 | 6 3 4 |1.000 370
8 SCHMIDT, Mike 1972-1989 22 | 1 0 0 0 8 4 4 0 5 0 153 | 3 1 6 |1.625 364
9 YASTRZEMSKI, Carl 1961-1983 18 | 3 2 3 0 1 1 2 3 3 0 117 | 5 1 2 |1.500 332
10 WAGNER, Honus 1897-1917 38 | 2 2 7 3 0 5 0 8 6 5 204 | 4 4 2 |1.000 314
| | |
11 BROUTHERS, Dan 1879-1904 26 | 2 4 3 1 2 2 0 5 7 0 177 | 5 1 2 |1.000 281
12 CAREW, Rod 1967-1985 13 | 1 3 0 2 0 0 0 7 0 0 85 | 4 0 4 |1.625 275
13 Thomas, Frank 1990-2002+ 8 | 1 0 1 0 0 0 4 1 1 0 62 | 4 0 2 |1.875 270
14 MANTLE, Mickey 1951-1968 22 | 6 0 0 1 4 1 5 1 4 0 145 | 3 1 12 |1.125 249
15 MORGAN, Joe 1963-1984 7 | 1 0 0 1 0 0 4 0 1 0 53 | 4 3 7 |1.500 237
16 McGwire, Mark 1986-2001 11 | 0 0 0 0 4 1 2 0 4 0 88 | 2 0 5 |1.750 233
17 Gwynn, Tony 1982-2001 16 | 1 7 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 109 | 1 0 3 |1.750 231
18 GEHRIG, Lou 1923-1939 22 | 4 1 2 1 3 5 3 1 2 0 118 | 5 0 7 |1.000 225
19 MAYS, Willie 1951-1973 21 | 2 1 0 3 4 0 1 1 5 4 123 | 2 0 5 |1.250 210
20 Rose, Pete 1963-1986 19 | 4 7 5 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 103 | 1 4 7 |1.500 207
| | |
21 LAJOIE, Nap 1896-1916 21 | 1 4 5 0 1 3 0 3 4 0 129 | 2 6 0 |1.000 205
22 OTT, Mel 1926-1947 16 | 2 0 0 0 6 1 6 0 1 0 114 | 4 1 3 |1.000 199
23 BRETT, George 1973-1993 14 | 0 3 2 3 0 0 0 3 3 0 94 | 1 0 7 |1.625 197
24 FOXX, Jimmie 1925-1945 17 | 1 0 0 0 4 3 2 2 5 0 121 | 3 3 3 |1.000 190
25 Walker, Larry 1989-2002+ 7 | 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 3 2 0 56 | 2 0 0 |1.875 180
26 Martinez, Edgar 1987-2002+ 6 | 1 0 2 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 31 | 3 0 4 |1.875 178
27 HAMILTON, Billy 1888-1901 16 | 4 1 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 5 76 | 5 0 1 |1.000 177
28 AARON, Hank 1954-1976 23 | 3 2 4 0 4 4 0 2 4 0 133 | 0 0 3 |1.250 170
29 Henderson, Rickey 1979-2002+ 22 | 5 1 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 12 69 | 1 0 8 |1.750 170
30 SPEAKER, Tris 1907-1928 13 | 0 2 8 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 77 | 4 2 3 |1.000 168
| | |
31 DELAHANTY, Ed 1888-1903 20 | 0 1 5 1 2 3 0 2 5 1 122 | 2 0 1 |1.000 163
32 ASHBURN, Richie 1948-1962 12 | 0 3 0 2 0 0 4 2 0 1 79 | 4 0 1 |1.000 160
33 Allen, Dick 1963-1977 9 | 1 0 0 1 2 1 1 0 3 0 62 | 2 0 1 |1.500 155
34 KILLEBREW, Harmon 1954-1975 14 | 0 0 0 0 6 3 4 0 1 0 94 | 1 0 3 |1.250 146
35 ROBINSON, Frank 1956-1976 11 | 3 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 4 0 71 | 2 0 5 |1.250 145
36 ANSON, Cap 1876-1897 16 | 0 1 2 0 0 8 1 4 0 0 73 | 3 5 2 |1.000 145
37 Oliva, Tony 1962-1976 14 | 1 5 4 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 87 | 0 0 3 |1.500 135
38 KINER, Ralph 1946-1955 15 | 1 0 0 0 7 1 3 0 3 0 111 | 1 0 0 |1.000 131
39 VAUGHAN, Arky 1932-1948 12 | 3 0 0 3 0 0 3 1 1 1 67 | 3 0 1 |1.000 128
40 JACKSON, Reggie 1967-1987 10 | 2 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 3 0 66 | 0 0 11 |1.625 125
| | |
41 Cravath, Gavvy 1908-1920 13 | 1 1 0 0 6 2 1 0 2 0 84 | 2 0 1 |1.000 125
42 KLEIN, Chuck 1928-1944 18 | 3 2 2 0 4 2 0 1 3 1 102 | 1 0 1 |1.000 123
43 Hernandez, Keith 1974-1990 5 | 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 28 | 2 2 3 |1.625 122
44 Yost, Eddie 1944-1962 8 | 1 0 1 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 62 | 2 2 0 |1.000 112
45 Thomas, Roy 1899-1911 8 | 1 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 66 | 2 1 0 |1.000 110
46 Mattingly, Don 1982-1995 8 | 0 2 3 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 47 | 0 7 1 |1.750 109
47 McCOVEY, Willie 1959-1980 9 | 0 0 0 0 3 2 1 0 3 0 64 | 1 0 2 |1.250 108
48 Santo, Ron 1960-1974 5 | 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 40 | 2 1 0 |1.250 106
49 Stovey, Harry 1880-1893 20 | 4 0 1 4 5 1 0 0 3 2 102 | 0 1 0 |1.000 104
50 Ramirez, Manny 1993-2002+ 4 | 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 30 | 1 0 5 |1.875 103

[Batman]

TOP 51-100:
LL: SINGLE-SEASON LEAGUE LEADERSHIP

Multipliers: *LL as shown

OBA: Instances x 20

**FL (Fielding): Instance x Pos.: C = 9; SS = 7; 2B = 6; 3B = 5; CF = 4; 1B, LF & RF = 2 each

PS (Post-Seasons): Instances x 1

LL adj.: 1901-1960ish: 16 ML teams = base 1.000 (Fed. excluded)
Multiplier increased by percentage of ML expansion over base
1876-1900: Averaged 13.32 ML teams, varied widely; players credited at base
Note: Unadjusted sub-totals not shown

Adj. Val: Result of all (above) calculations


| * V A L U E S |
*LL in 10 Offensive Categories | R H 2B 3B HR BI BB AV SA SB |
| 3 6 5 4 7 2 9 8 10 1 |
| |
| Tot | O
| I N S T A N C E S *LL | B ** | LL Adj.
Player Played *LL | R H 2B 3B HR BI BB AV SA SB Val | A FL PS | adj. Val
| | |
| | |
51 MIZE, Johnny 1936-1953 15 | 1 0 1 1 4 3 0 1 4 0 94 | 0 2 5 |1.000 103
52 COLLINS, Eddie 1906-1930 8 | 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 22 | 1 9 6 |1.000 102
53 Groh, Heinie 1912-1927 5 | 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 28 | 2 5 5 |1.000 98
54 Smith, Ozzie 1978-1996 0 | 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 | 0 8 4 |1.625 98
55 Evans, Dwight 1972-1991 4 | 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 34 | 1 1 4 |1.625 98
56 MATHEWS, Eddie 1952-1968 6 | 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 50 | 1 1 3 |1.250 98
57 Clark, Jack 1975-1992 4 | 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 37 | 1 0 2 |1.625 96
58 Parker, Dave 1973-1991 8 | 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 2 2 0 54 | 0 0 5 |1.625 96
59 CONNOR, Roger 1880-1897 10 | 0 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 0 65 | 1 4 2 |1.000 95
60 Rice, Jim 1974-1989 9 | 0 1 0 1 3 2 0 0 2 0 55 | 0 0 2 |1.625 93
| | |
61 Ripkin, Cal 1981-2001 3 | 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 | 0 5 3 |1.750 91
62 Butler, Brett 1981-1997 8 | 2 1 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 37 | 0 3 3 |1.750 91
63 Hartsel, Topsy 1898-1911 7 | 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 1 49 | 2 0 2 |1.000 91
64 Browning, Pete 1881-1894 7 | 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 51 | 2 0 0 |1.000 91
65 McGraw, John 1891-1906 4 | 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 24 | 3 0 4 |1.000 88
66 Burns, George 1911-1925 12 | 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 2 62 | 1 1 3 |1.000 87
67 GEHRINGER, Charlie 1924-1942 9 | 2 2 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 41 | 0 7 3 |1.000 86
68 O'Neill, Tip 1883-1892 11 | 1 2 1 1 1 2 0 2 1 0 61 | 1 0 4 |1.000 85
69 Griffey, Ken Jr. 1989-2002+ 7 | 1 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 1 0 43 | 0 0 2 |1.875 84
70 APARICIO, Luis 1956-1973 9 | 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 9 | 0 8 2 |1.250 84
| | |
71 WANER, Paul 1926-1945 12 | 2 2 2 2 0 1 0 3 0 0 62 | 1 0 1 |1.000 83
72 GREENBERG, Hank 1930-1947 14 | 1 0 2 0 4 4 2 0 1 0 77 | 0 1 4 |1.000 83
73 Murphy, Dale 1976-1993 8 | 1 0 0 0 2 2 1 0 2 0 50 | 0 0 1 |1.625 83
74 Rodriguez, Alex 1994-2002+ 8 | 2 1 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 41 | 0 0 3 |1.875 83
75 Raines, Tim 1979-1999 8 | 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 23 | 1 1 5 |1.625 81
76 YOUNT, Robin 1974-1993 6 | 0 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 34 | 0 2 2 |1.625 81
77 THOMPSON, Sam 1885-1906 13 | 0 2 2 1 2 3 0 0 3 0 76 | 0 2 1 |1.000 81
78 Belle, Albert 1989-2000 8 | 1 0 1 0 1 3 0 0 2 0 41 | 0 0 2 |1.875 81
79 Sandberg, Ryne 1981-1997 5 | 3 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 20 | 0 4 2 |1.750 81
80 Fletcher, Elbie 1934-1949 2 | 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 18 | 3 1 0 |1.000 80
| | |
81 BOUDREAU, Lou 1938-1952 4 | 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 23 | 0 8 1 |1.000 80
82 Stanky, Eddie 1943-1953 4 | 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 30 | 2 1 3 |1.000 79
83 O'ROURKE, Jim 1876-1904 6 | 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 37 | 2 0 2 |1.000 79
84 SNIDER, Duke 1947-1964 9 | 3 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 2 0 53 | 1 0 6 |1.000 79
85 ROBINSON, Brooks 1955-1977 1 | 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 | 0 11 6 |1.250 79
86 Thome, Jim 1991-2002+ 4 | 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 37 | 0 0 5 |1.875 79
87 Murray, Eddie 1977-1997 3 | 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 18 | 1 3 4 |1.625 78
88 Wilson, Willie 1976-1994 9 | 1 1 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 38 | 0 1 6 |1.625 78
89 Dunlap, Fred 1880-1891 6 | 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 39 | 1 3 1 |1.000 78
90 Olerud, John 1989-2002+ 2 | 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 13 | 1 1 6 |1.875 77
| | |
91 KELLY, King 1878-1893 7 | 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 32 | 2 0 3 |1.000 75
92 Gore, George 1879-1892 7 | 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 1 0 51 | 1 0 4 |1.000 75
93 DiMAGGIO, Joe 1936-1951 10 | 1 0 0 1 2 2 0 2 2 0 61 | 0 1 10 |1.000 75
94 Bagwell, Jeff 1991-2002+ 7 | 3 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 35 | 0 0 4 |1.875 73
95 Magee, Sherry 1904-1919 10 | 1 1 1 0 0 4 0 1 2 0 50 | 1 1 1 |1.000 73
96 Mayberry, John 1968-1982 2 | 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 18 | 1 2 2 |1.625 72
97 BURKETT, Jesse 1890-1905 8 | 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 48 | 1 0 3 |1.000 71
98 BANKS, Ernie 1953-1971 5 | 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 1 0 28 | 0 4 0 |1.250 70
99 MEDWICK, Joe 1932-1948 13 | 1 2 3 1 1 3 0 1 1 0 65 | 0 1 2 |1.000 69
100 Kuenn, Harvey 1952-1966 8 | 0 4 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 47 | 0 1 1 |1.250 69

[Batman]

.
Oops! The second "1 of 2" is 2 of 2.
.