Quality of Competition Factor

[Jim Rice]

I think Bill James' calculation in his Willie Davis commentary of The New Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract is great at leveling hitters numbers across eras and ballparks. It's easy to calculate and the results are very valuable becuase they are in traditional stats that HOF voters can understand.

That said, I think there are two holes in it, one easy to fix and one not-so-easy. The easy fix is a leveler that accounts for varying season length. Players in the expansion era got 8 extra games each season, about a half-season worth of games over a 10-year (Hall-eligible) career. Other situations (player strikes, rainouts never made up, ties, etc.) could also have an effect, some trivial and some fairly heavy. That could matter in some counting stats, so it's easy to project all player's stats to 162-games seasons. (Note - It becomes a bit hard for early-19th Century players who played "all" 50 of their teams' games. Kinda hard to project that he would have played all 162.)

The not-so-easy adjustment is for competion level, particularly in regard to two events - segregation and WWII.

I believe all numbers from players who played during 1943-1945 should be discounted to account for the fact that almost all of the top players were in the service. I also believe that all numbers from players before 1947 should be discounted to account for the fact that they didn't have to face any of the outstanding African-American players (and damn few of the Latin American players too).

So, I'm asking two questions here:

1. How many of you agree with this view?

AND

2. If you do, what kind of discount should be applied in each case? 1? 5? 10? 20?. Personally, I put the discount at 10% for each event, with steadily decreasing discounts for segregation for each year after 1947, as baseball became more and more integrated (9% in '48, 8% in '49, etc.).

All commentary appreciated.

[gyb13]

1. I agree that you have to account for context when making cross-era comparisons. However,

2. I think arbitrary discounts only adds bias and you can use them to prove any point you like....why use 10%? why not 1.3% or 25%?

[Ytown Tribe fan]

Agree with gyb, and for the reasons stated.

[Jim Rice]

Originally posted by gyb13
I think arbitrary discounts only adds bias and you can use them to prove any point you like....why use 10%? why not 1.3% or 25%?

I agree, which is why I asked for input. Without creating some mammoth calculation (as if I could) I settled on 10% because it seemed fair. Since 1962, the year Jackie Robinson was inducted, the Hall has inducted 123 players from the majors. Almost 20% of them - 24 to be exact - were either black or dark-skinned Latin American players who wouldn't have been allowed to play pre-integration. So, if that ratio is valid, players before integration didn't have to face one-fifth of the top talent in the game. A 10% discount doesn't seem unreasonable in light of this. But if someone knows of a fair means of putting a non-arbitrary number on this, I'd love to hear it. If the entire point of leveling is to make fair cross-era comparisons, specifically to evaluate players' worth and "greatness", then I think this is something that should be researched. I'm hoping someone out there knows of someone doing research on finding that non-arbitrary discount.

[JamesI]

Obviously stats during World War II are not up to par. And there is a point that Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig and many others didn't face the best pitchers. But its hard to discount stats for that.

Then again, stats should only be comapred within a generation. Comparing ARod, Nomar, Jeter, Tejada to shortstops of 15+ years ago is pointless.

[Wolf Hopper]

Originally posted by Jim Rice
I believe all numbers from players who played during 1943-1945 should be discounted to account for the fact that almost all of the top players were in the service. I also believe that all numbers from players before 1947 should be discounted to account for the fact that they didn't have to face any of the outstanding African-American players (and damn few of the Latin American players too).

So, I'm asking two questions here:

1. How many of you agree with this view?

AND

2. If you do, what kind of discount should be applied in each case? 1? 5? 10? 20?. Personally, I put the discount at 10% for each event, with steadily decreasing discounts for segregation for each year after 1947, as baseball became more and more integrated (9% in '48, 8% in '49, etc.).

1. I agree.
2. It's a complicated formula - - you have to discount for the lack of full talent opposition - - but, the discount is then offset by the dilution of talent in post-expansion baseball. Sure, Ruth and Co. never played against blacks - - but, they never faced the near AAA-talent pitching and older-hanger-ons that say, McGwire and Co. faced.

But, then too, you have to factor in changes in the game - - turf, night baseball, plane travel, RP specialists, etc.

Really, it's more than a complicated formula - it's darn near impossible to figure out, IMHO.

[Wolf Hopper]

Originally posted by JamesI
Then again, stats should only be comapred within a generation.

Good idea for a website (http://www.netshrine.com) - grouping the stars and icons by the specific era in which they played............ ;)

[Ytown Tribe fan]

Peter Fishman of Duke U. did a study on the decrease of competitive balance during the free agent era, after decades of increased competitive balance.

http://www.econ.duke.edu/Journals/DJE/dje2002/fishman.pdf

Among the factors he takes into account are the number of FA's declaring each year, the amateur draft, the number of ML roster positions as a percentage of the US population (expanded for Latin American populations), expansion, number of games played per year and number of teams per year.

[pwdennis]

More to the point - pre-1947 nearly ALL of the best white athletes went into baseball as basketball and football were minor professional sports. Since then the additional of black and latino players have helped offset the players lost to other sports. I might be willing to discount WW2 competition but not otherwise make such concessions

[Wolf Hopper]

Originally posted by pwdennis
More to the point - pre-1947 nearly ALL of the best white athletes went into baseball as basketball and football were minor professional sports. Since then the additional of black and latino players have helped offset the players lost to other sports. I might be willing to discount WW2 competition but not otherwise make such concessions

Interesting point.

[Ytown Tribe fan]

Originally posted by pwdennis
More to the point - pre-1947 nearly ALL of the best white athletes went into baseball as basketball and football were minor professional sports.

I wonder though -- does that mean that the best potential baseball players are going into other sports since 1947, or just the best athletes.

Michael Jordan was a bust as a baseball player, and Cecil Fielder can't jump. Deion could hit, but he couldn't hit.

As John Kruk once told a reporter, "Lady -- I ain't an athlete, I'm a BALLPLAYER."

[JamesI]

Originally posted by Ytown Tribe fan
I wonder though -- does that mean that the best potential baseball players are going into other sports since 1947, or just the best athletes.

Michael Jordan was a bust as a baseball player, and Cecil Fielder can't jump. Deion could hit, but he couldn't hit.

As John Kruk once told a reporter, "Lady -- I ain't an athlete, I'm a BALLPLAYER."

I would bet many atheletes in Football and Basketball would have been good baseball players if they started that path early enough. But not all.

[KCBOOMER]

This just seems too complicated to me. I always get concerned when we start fumbling with the numbers without understanding what we are doing. When we look at "dominance" (defined as performance better than the league average) we are easily seduced into thinking "dominance" means "better". For an example (and only as an example), when Pedro throws up these ridiculous better than the league numbers we are tempted to conclude he is one of the best of all-time when you could just as easily conclude that the league sucks compared to other times.

[sweaver]

Originally posted by JamesI
I would bet many atheletes in Football and Basketball would have been good baseball players if they started that path early enough. But not all. Jim Thorpe comes to mind as a tremendous athlete who was definitely not a baseball player, even in the bygone era. I don't know that Michael Jordan would have been a baseball star even if he had only played with the horsehide.

Baseball Prospectus has done some work with "difficulty," which accounts for this to some degree, but I don't know how they arrive at it.

[pwdennis]

Originally posted by sweaver
I don't know that Michael Jordan would have been a baseball star even if he had only played with the horsehide.


I saw Michael play when the Birmingham Barons came to Orlando - I think he would have developed into a major league player although perhaps not a star. He had a good arm, was fast and his basic instincts were good

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Originally posted by pwdennis
More to the point - pre-1947 nearly ALL of the best white athletes went into baseball as basketball and football were minor professional sports. Since then the additional of black and latino players have helped offset the players lost to other sports. I might be willing to discount WW2 competition but not otherwise make such concessions

That makes sense. A stronger case could be made for putting the stats during WW2 under a study but not the pre 1947 stats. Many of the best hitters and pitchers were not on the scene during WW2. If memory serves me right, I believe Nick Etten led the AL with 22 home runs in one season during the war years. No doubt if Joe Dimaggio, Ted Williams and a few other big bats were not off to war, Etten's 22 home runs would be way down on the list. Add to that, if Bob Feller and some of the other good and great pitchers were not off to war, Etten might not have even hit 22 home runs.

Pre 1947 is a different case. There is no doubt that the level of the game was raised, in general with integration in 1947 and even more in the last 20 seasons with more Latin Americans and in recent years with the influx of Asian players. Still, the problem is how do we compare pre and post 1947 players and stats. I have seen some who totally omit 1947 stats which is silly, not fair to some of the past greats. The debate goes on, was the pitching that poor in the Ruth era. There are others who say if not for expansion there would be a good number of pitchers in MLB today who would still be in the minors. There are too many variables, changes in equipment, rule changes, park dimensions, mound height, the ball and other differences which make comparing different era's a tough job.

There is no debating that the game overall is at a higher level today than ever. With that said I doubt if Cobb, Hornsby, Ruth, Gehrig and some other greats would not more than hold their own in todays game. Ruth may not dominate as much because of todays competition but I can't see him having any more dificulty hitting todays pitching than any of todays hitters. Put Bonds, Carew or Tony Gwynn back in the 1920s and they can hit. Bring some of the past great hitters in todays game and they will hit. Good and great hitters hit in any era with some difference in degree, but they will hit

[SmedIndy]

The elite will stand out no matter what the competition is. Sliding Billy would still be an ideal leadoff hitter (in fact, his remains may be more effective leading off than Tony Womack, but I digress...). However, when you get to the Jerry Dennys and Silver Flints of the world, then you have the separation. Denny and Flint would good players FOR THEIR ERA. Hamilton is an elite player IN ANY ERA.

There are more good players now, but that doesn't, IMHO tarnish the work of the elites of the past.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Originally posted by SmedIndy
The elite will stand out no matter what the competition is.
There are more good players now, but that doesn't, IMHO tarnish the work of the elites of the past.

Pardon my partial deletion of your post, but I want to zero in on the above. Your thinking along my lines on this subject. There is always the back and forth in debating this subject. The points made are usually the same, past greats played all day games, no relief pitching, inferior pitching and no integration. Then the other side, today there is a lower mound, smaller strike zone, expansion and a more live ball. I probably left out some points that could go for either side but you get the idea.

Your first sentence in reference to "the elite" wraps it all up, the top players in any era could play in any other era. Since I don't see a time machine in the near future, we will never know with certainty how any player would perform if we could transport them to different era's. The best argument I ever saw for the elite playing in any era was in an article in the Sporting News, years ago. The author made the point that no matter what the level of play was in any era, if you took the top 5% from any era and put them into another era, they would still shine.

[WiredTiger]

Originally posted by Ytown Tribe fan
I wonder though -- does that mean that the best potential baseball players are going into other sports since 1947, or just the best athletes.

Michael Jordan was a bust as a baseball player, and Cecil Fielder can't jump. Deion could hit, but he couldn't hit.

As John Kruk once told a reporter, "Lady -- I ain't an athlete, I'm a BALLPLAYER." I think that if Jordan had focused on baseball from when he was 18 he probably would have been a pretty good ball player. Cecil Fielder could jump... he could dunk a basketball and was actually a good athlete before the age of 30. If Deion had concentrated on baseball he would have been a pretty decent ball player. Of course Drew Henson is disproving that theory as we speak.