Top WAR of all time

[Can_of_corn]

That makes more sense. A 5.00 ERA pitcher can't possibly be considered a net positive to wins but a 2.50 ERA pitcher most certainly is. I would argue that the fact that the 5.00 ERA pitcher has negative value in terms of wins and even more negative value because he pitched 200 innings.

Could be, depends on what the current replacement level performance would be.

You can have negative WAR.

[DrungoHazewood]

What would constitute replacement level in 1883 I wonder?

I'd take those early values with a couple pounds of salt. No doubt they're somewhat accurate based on some fairly reasonable assumptions that apply for much of baseball history. But I'd expect things to break down in several ways in 1883 baseball. A few bullet points:

1. The MLB's quality of play in 1883 was probably about, I dunno, A-ball today. Maybe more like college. Or if you're feeling charitable, Cuba. Some players like maybe Keefe who could have been good MLBers a century later with some training, luck, diet, exercise, etc. Playing alongside guys who'd be okay high school players. On fields you'd find at your local fairground. With no gloves.

2. The 1875-1890 period saw almost annual rules changes, including stuff like "how to pitch". '83 was one of those years in between throwing underhand without being able to snap your wrist, and throwing overhand anyway you wanted. Stuff like K and BB rates varied almost comically. In 1875 Al Spalding went 54-5 with 1.2 K/9. In 1886 Matt Kilroy had 516 Ks for the O's. It would be 1893 before 60'6" and a mound happened.

3. I'm not at all convinced 1870-1900 WAR has the pitching/defense breakdown right. When you can throw 600 innings in a 80-game season chances are you're relying on your defense a lot.

4. In that era fielding percentages were mind-bendingly low compared to today. Keefe allowed 244 runs, 166 earned. And you can bet many things that would be an error today were a hit then. And many things a modern fielder would have no problem with fielders of that era just got out of the way of.

5. Keefe's 1883 was in the American Association's second year. Imagine the NL as A-ball, then another league showed up with 8 new expansion teams. I'd guess 15-20 of the 200ish MLBers that year were as good as Ryan Flaherty.

So... sure, Tim Keefe might have been 20 wins better than 1883 replacement level. But that might be -2? 0? 2? 3? wins better than 2016 replacement level. What would Chris Tillman's record look like playing in the Frontier League with no gloves and finding out the pitching rules for the year when he showed up to spring training?

[JimDH]

JJ Hardy ranked at 960 and counting.

[DrungoHazewood]

JJ Hardy ranked at 960 and counting.

I think it's cool to see just how few players have had productive, long careers. Brady is in a tie for 638th place. Boog at 531. Adam Jones at 922. Markakis at 928. What are there... 300 Hall of Famers?

[Number5]

Peloponnesian?

I'll be here all week. Try the veal.

[yark14]

I'm surprised Ken Griffey Jr is at #57 and Joe Dimaggio is at #68.

[DrungoHazewood]

I'm surprised Ken Griffey Jr is at #57 and Joe Dimaggio is at #68.

DiMaggio missed three peak years because of WWII, that would probably push him up into the top 30. He also retired with something left in the tank, but he couldn't stand the idea that a kid might see him as anything but an all time great. Which always kind of rubbed me wrong.

Griffey is probably in the top 20 for WAR through age 30. But he was worth more in 1996 than he was in his 30s.

[Redskins Rick]

DiMaggio missed three peak years because of WWII, that would probably push him up into the top 30. He also retired with something left in the tank, but he couldn't stand the idea that a kid might see him as anything but an all time great. Which always kind of rubbed me wrong.

Griffey is probably in the top 20 for WAR through age 30. But he was worth more in 1996 than he was in his 30s.

Not sure why, his felt his skills had declined and wanted to go out a champion, whats wrong with that?

In an era of genuine heroes, DiMaggio was the epitome of the genre. Such was his unique status that he retired after a mediocre 1951 season, in which he hit only .263 with 12 homers and 71 RBIs in 113 games (after hitting .301 with 32 homers and 122 RBIs in 139 games the previous year). Joe DiMaggio did not want to become an average player, playing out his string. He wanted to go out a champion, and he did.

[DrungoHazewood]

Not sure why, his felt his skills had declined and wanted to go out a champion, whats wrong with that?

I prefer people who see themselves as ballplayers rather than gods.

[Redskins Rick]

I prefer people who see themselves as ballplayers rather than gods.

That, I can understand, I know I am old as dirt, I just don't remember him, when he was playing.

I never got the impression from reading about him, that he thought he was a god, but maybe, this is just a perception thing. His retirement words said all the right things.

I feel like I have reached the stage where I can no longer produce for my club, my manager, and my teammates. I had a poor year, but even if I had hit .350, this would have been my last year. I was full of aches and pains and it had become a chore for me to play. When baseball is no longer fun, it's no longer a game, and so, I've played my last game.

[DrungoHazewood]

That, I can understand, I know I am old as dirt, I just don't remember him, when he was playing.

I never got the impression from reading about him, that he thought he was a god, but maybe, this is just a perception thing. His retirement words said all the right things.

I could be wrong, I'm way too young to have seen DiMaggio play. But I did see him poke his head out of the dugout at an oldtimer's game and waive to the crowd. I was too young to remember if he was announced as "The Greatest Living Ballplayer" which he apparently had written into every contract he had for an appearance. I've also heard of people remarking in the pressbox, sarcastically "oh, I didn't hear Willie/Mickey/Ted/(insert name here) had died."

[Redskins Rick]

I could be wrong, I'm way too young to have seen DiMaggio play. But I did see him poke his head out of the dugout at an oldtimer's game and waive to the crowd. I was too young to remember if he was announced as "The Greatest Living Ballplayer" which he apparently had written into every contract he had for an appearance. I've also heard of people remarking in the pressbox, sarcastically "oh, I didn't hear Willie/Mickey/Ted/(insert name here) had died."

Being the first baseball player to break 100,000 was sure to bring some criticism to himself. I remember my father and uncles loudly discussing this with my grandfather who was the better player, Joe, Willie or Ted.

[atomic]

I don't know why anyone would question Cy Young stats. Yes a guy pitching 400 innings a year at 1.36 ERA is worth more than twice as much as a guy pitching 200 innings at a 1.36 ERA.

Anyway when Cy Young was 41 he had a 1.26 ERA and 9.6 WAR. He only pitched 299 innings that year but the rest of his pitching staff had a WAR of 7.5 combined. He also had a WHIP that year of .89

Give the guy some credit. 14 years he led the league in fewest BB for 9 innings.

[DrungoHazewood]

I don't know why anyone would question Cy Young stats. Yes a guy pitching 400 innings a year at 1.36 ERA is worth more than twice as much as a guy pitching 200 innings at a 1.36 ERA.

It all depends on the context. What if your first pitcher posted that line with Belanger, Brooks, Grich, Blair behind him in a pitcher's park in 1968 while striking out 3.0 per nine, while the latter pitcher threw his 200 innings in Denver in 1996 and struck out 330 batters?

Anyway when Cy Young was 41 he had a 1.26 ERA and 9.6 WAR. He only pitched 299 innings that year but the rest of his pitching staff had a WAR of 7.5 combined. He also had a WHIP that year of .89

Give the guy some credit. 14 years he led the league in fewest BB for 9 innings.

1908 was one of the most extreme pitcher's years in baseball history. The median MLB era that year was about 2.30. That year Cy was about 80 innings behind Big Ed Walsh, he was 85 Ks behind Rube Waddell, and was 3rd in the majors in fWAR behind Mathewson and Waddell. 13 pitchers on the 16 teams threw 300+ innings.

Young was a great pitcher, no doubt. But he really was the Warren Spahn of the 1890-1910 era. Very durable, and among the better pitchers in the league for 20 years. But not often in contention for his namesake award, had it existed then and been judged by something above and beyond W/L record. He led the league in wins five times, but ERA only twice and Ks only twice, well behind pitchers like Walter Johnson, Pedro or Clemens or Lefty Grove.

I suppose Cy isn't a bad guy to name the award after, but it's certainly more for durability and longevity and a fascination with feats that are impossible in today's stronger leagues than for being the consensus best pitcher ever.

[25 Nuggets]

I suppose Cy isn't a bad guy to name the award after, but it's certainly more for durability and longevity and a fascination with feats that are impossible in today's stronger leagues than for being the consensus best pitcher ever.

Yeah -- Walter Johnson is probably still most often mentioned as the best pitcher of all time, and even he comes with some tags: deadball era, pre-integration.