Inevitable in 2010: Alex Rodriguez and 100 WAR
Wait, who's this guy? Yup, I'm new here and this is my very first post. I'm Adam and I blog at BaseballTwit and tweet as @baseballtwit. I've written about baseball off and on for years, but something got me into it again. What did it? It was Wins Above Replacement and the work that Sky did with it here. The way I see it, there are basically two types of baseball research: projection of the future and analysis of the past. I'm all about analysis. That's right, I'm here to talk about the past.
I love a good Hall of Fame debate and I love comparing players (regardless of position and era). Those debates were fun when all you had were offensive counting stats. Now that we have something like WAR at our disposal, it is even more compelling. WAR has given me the opportunity to do things like see whether or not the Hall of Famers elected (primarily) for their defense really were that good with the glove.
So now that I've told you how much I enjoy writing about the past, let me start by writing about something that will happen this year. The first time I ever had anything appear on this site was when Dan Turkenkopf posted a few milestones I had tweeted. For me, the most compelling milestone set to occur in 2010 has nothing to do with home runs, hits, or victories.
According to Rally's historical WAR leaderboards, Alex Rodriguez will pass Cap Anson to move into 20th all time in career WAR among position players. By doing so, Rodriguez will become the 20th position player to accumulate 100+ WAR in a career. What struck me about this was not that Rodriguez was joining even more elite company, but the fact that Anson was able to put up that kind of WAR, considering the era he played in.
Cap Anson, of course, played his entire career in the 19th century. He became the first player to collect 3000 hits and finished his career with a .333 average, a 141 OPS+, over 3400 hits, and over 11,000 plate appearances in his record 27 seasons. Anson's longevity would be considered remarkable even today. But think about all the factors he had going against him, playing in the 19th century:
- Shorter schedule. Anson played in all of his team's games in 1871. All 25 of them. He was 32 before he played 100 games in a single season. It wasn't becuase of injury—it was because his team didn't play 100 games until that year. He still managed to play in over 2500 games, good enough for 46th all time.
- Volatile alignment. Back then, you didn't have the same franchises year after year. After Anson's rookie year with Rockford, he signed on with Philadelphia and Rockford folded. He stuck with Philly for a few years until signing with Chicago of the National League (as the National Association disbanded). He then stayed with Chicago for the rest of his career, but the rest of the league was still rapidly evolving.
- Lack of conditioning. I'm not saying 19th century players were out of shape. They just didn't train like athletes do today.
- Primitive medical services. There weren't any Tommy John surgeries back then. Heck, there wasn't a Tommy John yet. Often, if you got hurt you were done. Anson managed to play in 93% of his team's games over those 27 years.
All of the above makes Anson's 99.2 career WAR even more remarkable. How did other 19th century stars fare? I'm glad you asked. Here are the top ten (exclusively) 19th century position players by career WAR:
- (#20) Cap Anson (1871-1897) — 99.2 WAR
- (#29) Roger Conner (1880-1897) — 87.1
- (#114) Jack Glasscock (1879-1895) — 58.6
- (#118) Bid McPhee (1882-1899) — 57.8
- (#156t) Buck Ewing (1880-1897) — 51.8
- (#179) King Kelly (1878-1893) — 48.4
- (#195t) Harry Stovey (1880-1893) — 46.8
- (#207) George Gore (1879-1892) — 45.9
- (#209) Mike Ternan (1887-1899) — 45.6
- (#212t) Mike Griffin (1887-1898) — 45.1
Anson ranks 20th all time while Conner is 29th all time. Then, there's a huge dropoff. Opening up the list for guys who played most of their careers in the 19th century, we add Jesse Burkett (#62 all time, 1890-1905, 67.7 WAR) and John McGraw (#175t, 1891-1906, 49.1 WAR). Still nobody who comes close to Anson and Conner.
As a Red Sox fan, it pains me a bit to see A-Rod moving into the WAR Top 20. Alas, it's not like Cap Anson was a guy you could feel all warm and fuzzy about either.
0 recs |
16 comments
|
Comments
Welcome aboard
Good points on Anson. The counter to the pro-Anson arguments, of course, are that he played in a league with vastly inferior competition. WAR is a statistic judged relative to the given league. But the depth of those leagues was vastly inferior to what we have today, or even what was present by the 1930’s or so. Here’s one demonstration of this, though there are many others:
http://biblemetrics.blogspot.com/2007/10/long-term-league-quality-indicators.html
So, Anson was handicapped by the factors you described, but was also lucky to be beating up on lousy competition.
-j
I write at:
Beyond the Boxscore | Red Reporter | Basement-Dwellers.com | Twitter: @jinazreds
Good points as well, but...
While the talent may have been inferior, the NL was still THE major league. It’s not like he could move to a more competitive league. He succeeded against the best available opponent. Sure he wouldnt be as good if we transplanted him into today’s game. But he’d also be missng over 100 years of baseball evolution.
Abraham Limcoln was a giant in his day. If you transported him to today, he’d still be tall, but not a giant. Should that detract from how he was perceived in his day?
Give Anson a gym membership, a training staff, a diet, good equipment, and supplements and I’m sure he’d do quite well today.
If he’d agree to get on the damn field.
by adarowski on Feb 13, 2010 12:02 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
Ada
I like baseball.
I write for Beyond the Box Score and The Hardball Times Fantasy
by Satchel Price on Feb 13, 2010 1:05 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
I'm sure Cap could improve his performance with better training/medicine
But a major factor that is driving today’s game isn’t just conditioning and technology. It’s sheer population size. The pool of players from which the major leagues draws from today is massively bigger than that from which they drew in Anson’s day. We’re not just talking about larger pools in the USA (which is certainly true). We’re talking about the international reach of today’s game: latin american countries, asian countries, etc, etc.
I’m not saying that Anson would be a lousy player in today’s game. I’m sure he’d still be very good. I’m just saying that if you’re judging player skill, Cap had it easier because he was playing against a lot of guys who might struggle to keep a job in AAA or even AA today. That may be a big part of the reason that he was able to remain a competent player for so long.
If you want to judge a guy against his contemporaries without concern for quality of competition, I have no problem with that. But it does affect the specific claims one might make.
-j
I write at:
Beyond the Boxscore | Red Reporter | Basement-Dwellers.com | Twitter: @jinazreds
Fair enough
I’ll admit, I’m learning here. Very good points, particularly about population size. I suppose the number of teams in the league could make up some of that, but probably not enough.
1. Welcome!
2. I have an idea for a chart. But imma need some data.
See Data Differently.
beyondtheboxscore.com | Twitter: @ justinbopp
Exciting.
Also, welcome aboard Adam!
Marlin Maniac, a Florida Marlins blog
Come attend Intro to Sabermetrics 101!
Check me out at Beyond the Box Score as well.
It looks like Pujols—if he can play another 14-17 years without injury, is probably the best player of all time. Ever.
See Data Differently.
beyondtheboxscore.com | Twitter: @ justinbopp
*according to WAR
which is obviously dependent upon the level of competition.
See Data Differently.
beyondtheboxscore.com | Twitter: @ justinbopp
The key is obviously if he manages to stay healthy over that time period and how he ages
I compared Pujols’ career with the historical top elites last week in a slightly unrelated post and that sentiment is definitely true. Pujols has had the best beginning to a career minus Williams, Ruth, and Cobb, and his most comparable players are Aaron, Mays, and A-Rod. Pretty great company, but if you look at where all of those players ended up according to WAR, the variety of outcomes is still pretty wide. While still all incredible, they range from 125 WAR to 140 WAR to 170 WAR.
"I never threw an illegal pitch. The trouble is, once in a while I toss one that ain't never been seen by this generation." - Satchel Paige
by Steve Slowinski on Feb 13, 2010 8:49 PM EST up reply actions
Man, it'd be tough.
Albert is 29 and has averaged 8.5 WAR per year throughout his career.
Go reach Ruth’s career WAR as a hitter, Pujols would need to average 8.5 WAR per year for another—wait for it—TWELVE years. Twelve more years of 8.5 WAR.
Then think about the fact that Ruth also has 18.0 pitching WAR on top of that? Holy crap.
I'd be shocked if Pujols could do it
Not only would it be an astonishing feat given the degree of difficulty, but frankly, Pujols would have to get really, really damn lucky to stay healthy and age well enough to actually accumulate that kind of production. I mean, is it remotely realistic to expect that Pujols can actually maintain being 60-70 runs above average offensively while having TotalZone put him at 10-20 runs above average, year after year?
In recent years, the only guys who have shown the ability to be that good that late into their careers are guys that have admitted or are suspected of taking PEDs. Obviously Pujols has proven to be a freak of sorts (in a good way), but it would take something truly special for him to pass Cobb and Mays and get into Ruth/Bonds territory.
I like baseball.
I write for Beyond the Box Score and The Hardball Times Fantasy
by Satchel Price on Feb 14, 2010 11:42 AM EST up reply actions
Not only that
…a baseball player could actually die from infection. Penicillin wasn’t discovered until after Anson’s retirement.
And I suspect that, even in the context of 19th century schoolyards, Jack Glasscock was made fun of.
Bettman's Nightmare: A Blog Where Hockey Aficionados Dismantle That Mighty Empire, One Balsillie at a Time
http://bettmansnightmare.blogspot.com/
by Bettman's Nightmare on Feb 14, 2010 11:06 AM EST reply actions
Exactly
It’s Anson’s longevity that I find more incredible than his performance. Just so happens that his performance was damn good too.
Anson retired in 1897 at age 45. The U.S. life expectancy of white males in 1900 was 46.6. Anson lived to be 69.

by 


























