Orioles Franchise Four

[TonySoprano]

No. The legacy of a franchise's prior incarnation in another city ought to* remain in that city with the fans who cheered for those players, IMHO. Seeing Johnny Unitas somehow forcibly associated with the Indianapolis NFL franchise has taught me that much.

Besides, does anyone here actually care that much about the St. Louis Browns?

*I say "ought to" but that doesn't necessarily mean it will. Far from it.

Agree. The greatest living former player in Washington.

[25 Nuggets]

While I'm not a fan of WAR (it a bunch hypotheticals wrapped around numbers, IMO) it does have it's purposes...I suppose...& your post got me to thinking of some other stats & how players ranked....soooooo.....I went & checked Career OPS+ (which we all know = 100*(OBP/lgOBP + SLG/lgSLG-1), adjusted to ballparks [another hypothetical], according to the Sabre nerds)...although I'm not sure if you -1 on lg/SLG, or -1 on SLG/lgSLG, or -1 on whole equation in the parenthesis

(bunch of peoples with their OPS+)

I too think OPS+ is a useful tool, but like all statistics it only tells part of the story. Hank Aaron deserves to be one of the all-time greats because while his career OPS+ of 155 is modest by super-duper all-time standards, he sustained it through nearly 14000 plate appearances, third all-time. Try these peak seasons out for size:

Pitcher A: Seven years, 127-53 (.706), 2.15 ERA, 190 ERA+, 0.968 WHIP, 4.78 K/BB, four Cy Youngs

Pitcher B: Five years, 111-34 (.766), 1.95 ERA, 167 ERA+, 0.926 WHIP, 4.57 K/BB, three Cy Youngs

The first pitcher is my vote for greatest living pitcher, Greg Maddux, during his seven-year peak. The second pitcher is Sandy Koufax, the selection by the fans, in his five-year run as ERA title winner. Fairly comparable. But Maddux of course had much more career surrounding that peak, so much more than Koufax that picking Koufax in the top four is laughable IMO.

Career ERA+ (comparable to OPS+) and batters faced

Maddux - 132, 20421

Koufax - 131, 9497

[Redskins Rick]

Agree. The greatest living former player in Washington.

I agree with you there!

[srock]

I too think OPS+ is a useful tool, but like all statistics it only tells part of the story. Hank Aaron deserves to be one of the all-time greats because while his career OPS+ of 155 is modest by super-duper all-time standards, he sustained it through nearly 14000 plate appearances, third all-time. Try these peak seasons out for size:

Pitcher A: Seven years, 127-53 (.706), 2.15 ERA, 190 ERA+, 0.968 WHIP, 4.78 K/BB, four Cy Youngs

Pitcher B: Five years, 111-34 (.766), 1.95 ERA, 167 ERA+, 0.926 WHIP, 4.57 K/BB, three Cy Youngs

The first pitcher is my vote for greatest living pitcher, Greg Maddux, during his seven-year peak. The second pitcher is Sandy Koufax, the selection by the fans, in his five-year run as ERA title winner. Fairly comparable. But Maddux of course had much more career surrounding that peak, so much more than Koufax that picking Koufax in the top four is laughable IMO.

Career ERA+ (comparable to OPS+) and batters faced

Maddux - 132, 20421

Koufax - 131, 9497

That is where fWAR comes in handy. Its cumulative so the value of 14000 plate appearances is built in.

OPS and OPS+ are highly useful when comparing similar sample sizes (PA's) but can be misleading when comparing careers.

For example, Ty Cobb (a raging racist who may have stabbed 2 of his 3 mates in the Tigers 4), has 13084 PA's. But many of those came between the ages of 18-19 and 36-41. While he still had decent numbers in those stretches, he was bringing down his career OPS, but adding to his career WAR.

Somehow he manages a 171 OPS+ at age 37. Before steroids were even invented. He decided to his 12 dingers tying his career high.

[DrungoHazewood]

Somehow he manages a 171 OPS+ at age 37. Before steroids were even invented. He decided to his 12 dingers tying his career high.

One of the telltale signs of a relatively immature league is players being unusually productive when they're very young or very old. In the 1800s there were more players who were regulars in their teens or early 20s. There were a bunch of pitchers who threw seemingly unbelievable numbers of innings at 19 or 20. And cases like Cap Anson staying a semi-productive regular into his mid-40s. I'm sure part of the reason Cobb stayed extremely productive into his late 30s/early 40s was the fact that teams were drawing sporadically and erratically from much smaller effective population base and the opportunity he got to hit off of pitchers who would have been out of the league in later generations. It also helped that the game itself radically changed in 1920, and home runs became far more prevalent.

[Number5]

One of the telltale signs of a relatively immature league is players being unusually productive when they're very young or very old. In the 1800s there were more players who were regulars in their teens or early 20s. There were a bunch of pitchers who threw seemingly unbelievable numbers of innings at 19 or 20. And cases like Cap Anson staying a semi-productive regular into his mid-40s. I'm sure part of the reason Cobb stayed extremely productive into his late 30s/early 40s was the fact that teams were drawing sporadically and erratically from much smaller effective population base and the opportunity he got to hit off of pitchers who would have been out of the league in later generations. It also helped that the game itself radically changed in 1920, and home runs became far more prevalent.

WWI and the 1918 flu pandemic resulted in a smaller player pool. This led to both longer careers for some guys already in the majors and more major league opportunities for lesser players.

[DrungoHazewood]

WWI and the 1918 flu pandemic resulted in a smaller player pool. This led to both longer careers for some guys already in the majors and more major league opportunities for lesser players.

I'm sure there was some effect there. But when compared to modern baseball there were dozens of things that were different that led to lower quality baseball. In Cobb's time if you wanted to option someone to the minors you usually had to negotiate a deal with a semi-independent organization. If you wanted a detailed scouting report on a guy from the PCL it might take six weeks. The league was segregated, drawing from a much smaller country with almost no foreign players. Data we take for granted simply didn't exist so decision making was wildly less informed. I really think one of the primary reasons Cobb and others could hit .350 at the ages of both 20 and 40 is the same reason that a Miguel Cabrera could (presumably) hit .350 in AA at 38 - the average quality of play wasn't there, and he/they would face any number of pitchers that we wouldn't consider MLBers today.

[Ohfan67]

I'm sure there was some effect there. But when compared to modern baseball there were dozens of things that were different that led to lower quality baseball. In Cobb's time if you wanted to option someone to the minors you usually had to negotiate a deal with a semi-independent organization. If you wanted a detailed scouting report on a guy from the PCL it might take six weeks. The league was segregated, drawing from a much smaller country with almost no foreign players. Data we take for granted simply didn't exist so decision making was wildly less informed. I really think one of the primary reasons Cobb and others could hit .350 at the ages of both 20 and 40 is the same reason that a Miguel Cabrera could (presumably) hit .350 in AA at 38 - the average quality of play wasn't there, and he/they would face any number of pitchers that we wouldn't consider MLBers today.

I hear and believe what you guys are saying....but there are also just freaks of nature. Ruth's OPS+ of 218 at age 36 comes to mind. That's insane. Although I guess it's still kind of skewed...when you look at team HR totals, it looks like some clubs were playing in the "modern" ball era and some clubs were still playing in the dead ball era.

[Ohfan67]

I hear and believe what you guys are saying....but there are also just freaks of nature. Ruth's OPS+ of 218 at age 36 comes to mind. That's insane. Although I guess it's still kind of skewed...when you look at team HR totals, it looks like some clubs were playing in the "modern" ball era and some clubs were still playing in the dead ball era.

When you look at HR totals in 1931, I mean.

[DrungoHazewood]

I hear and believe what you guys are saying....but there are also just freaks of nature. Ruth's OPS+ of 218 at age 36 comes to mind. That's insane. Although I guess it's still kind of skewed...when you look at team HR totals, it looks like some clubs were playing in the "modern" ball era and some clubs were still playing in the dead ball era.

Sure, there are players so far above the mean that they'd be very good even if the talent level rose quite a lot. But, over time, the most extreme cases are weeded out as a league matures. You can't dominate a mature league like a more embryonic one. Winning percentages, batting averages, all that kind of stuff migrates towards the middle as quality increases. One recent example - men's soccer as a thing is far more mature than women's, so while we saw Germany's women beat Cote d'Ivorie 10-0 a score like that would never, ever happen in the men's World Cup.

[Ohfan67]

Sure, there are players so far above the mean that they'd be very good even if the talent level rose quite a lot. But, over time, the most extreme cases are weeded out as a league matures. You can't dominate a mature league like a more embryonic one. Winning percentages, batting averages, all that kind of stuff migrates towards the middle as quality increases. One recent example - men's soccer as a thing is far more mature than women's, so while we saw Germany's women beat Cote d'Ivorie 10-0 a score like that would never, ever happen in the men's World Cup.

good points.

[Ohfan67]

Sure, there are players so far above the mean that they'd be very good even if the talent level rose quite a lot. But, over time, the most extreme cases are weeded out as a league matures. You can't dominate a mature league like a more embryonic one. Winning percentages, batting averages, all that kind of stuff migrates towards the middle as quality increases. One recent example - men's soccer as a thing is far more mature than women's, so while we saw Germany's women beat Cote d'Ivorie 10-0 a score like that would never, ever happen in the men's World Cup.

Just to elaborate, Ruth's OPS+ in 1931 really does support your point more than mine. The yankees hit 155 home runs that year with Ruth accounting for 49 of those. The Cincinnati Reds hit 21 home runs AS A TEAM! My mind is officially blown.

[Creamsicle]

No. The legacy of a franchise's prior incarnation in another city ought to* remain in that city with the fans who cheered for those players, IMHO. Seeing Johnny Unitas somehow forcibly associated with the Indianapolis NFL franchise has taught me that much.

Besides, does anyone here actually care that much about the St. Louis Browns?

*I say "ought to" but that doesn't necessarily mean it will. Far from it.

And here I thought we lacked an Eddie Gaedel statue at OP@CY simply because of worry that people would trip over it.

[DrungoHazewood]

Just to elaborate, Ruth's OPS+ in 1931 really does support your point more than mine. The yankees hit 155 home runs that year with Ruth accounting for 49 of those. The Cincinnati Reds hit 21 home runs AS A TEAM! My mind is officially blown.

That's one more data point that says it's easier to dominate a less mature league. Today (relatively) everything has been tried. In 1919 everyone except Babe Ruth "knew" that if you tried to hit home runs you'd just fly out all the time. Ruth was both a pitcher, so nobody cared what he did, and was remarkably stubborn, so he told them to stick it. I think the league has evolved to the point where there are few misconceptions an inefficiencies like that left - they've almost all been tried and tested, so nobody can come along and blow up the old standards anymore.

[DrungoHazewood]

Just to elaborate, Ruth's OPS+ in 1931 really does support your point more than mine. The yankees hit 155 home runs that year with Ruth accounting for 49 of those. The Cincinnati Reds hit 21 home runs AS A TEAM! My mind is officially blown.

Another thing... as a league matures and becomes more stable secondary things fall into place. Like stadiums. In 1890 almost every team played in a wooden park with fences that simply defined the boundary of the land the team owned. So a fence might be 250 feet from the plate, or it might be 550 feet from the plate. I don't recall what Crosley Field was like in the 30s, but it might have had fences that were impossibly far away. That kind of thing started to disappear around 1910 and was done by WWII.