Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Missouri Survives Scare, Louisville And Marquette Roll

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.

Star-divide

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:

  1. (#20) Cap Anson (1871-1897) — 99.2 WAR
  2. (#29) Roger Conner (1880-1897) — 87.1
  3. (#114) Jack Glasscock (1879-1895) — 58.6
  4. (#118) Bid McPhee (1882-1899) — 57.8
  5. (#156t) Buck Ewing (1880-1897) — 51.8
  6. (#179) King Kelly (1878-1893) — 48.4
  7. (#195t) Harry Stovey (1880-1893) — 46.8
  8. (#207) George Gore (1879-1892) — 45.9
  9. (#209) Mike Ternan (1887-1899) — 45.6
  10. (#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.

Comment 16 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

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

by JinAZ on Feb 12, 2010 11:13 PM EST reply actions  

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  

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

by JinAZ on Feb 13, 2010 2:37 PM EST up reply actions  

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.

by adarowski on Feb 13, 2010 11:38 PM EST up reply actions  

1. Welcome!

2. I have an idea for a chart. But imma need some data.

by Justin Bopp on Feb 13, 2010 2:42 AM EST reply actions  

A chart, eh?

Would this be to show relative talent levels by era, per chance?

by adarowski on Feb 13, 2010 1:51 PM EST up reply actions  

It looks like Pujols—if he can play another 14-17 years without injury, is probably the best player of all time. Ever.

by Justin Bopp on Feb 13, 2010 7:06 PM EST up reply actions  

*according to WAR

which is obviously dependent upon the level of competition.

by Justin Bopp on Feb 13, 2010 7:06 PM EST up reply actions  

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.

by adarowski on Feb 13, 2010 11:33 PM EST up reply actions  

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 adarowski on Feb 14, 2010 2:42 PM EST up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

We use numbers and stuff.
Community Guidelines
Why be a member?

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

Small
Free Agent Compensation
Img_0001_small
Value of Various Plate Approaches
Strike_three2_small
Effect of Foul Area on Strikeouts: AL 1954-68: Erratum
Small
Baseball on a stick
Small
Player Evaluating Statistic
Baseball_small
Rays Outfield: Cheap but Extremely Productive
Small
A new xBABIP
Small
Jack Morris "pitching to the score"
Strike_three2_small
Foul Area and Differences in SO: AL vs NL
Baseball_small
Is there a Kuroda and Oswalt Alternative?

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Follow us on Facebook!

Follow us on Twitter!

SaberGraphics

MLB Daily Dish

Get the latest MLB Trade Rumors, Transactions, and News at MLB Daily Dish!


Managing Editor:

Jbopp-kc_small Justin Bopp

Columnists:

Adam_small adarowski

Dme_small Satchel Price

Closeup4_small J-Doug

Carlosicon_small Julian Levine

Billy_and_daddy_4th_of_july_small Bill Petti

Featuring:

Dayton_small Jeff Zimmerman

12475953_small Jacob Peterson

Picture-6_small Chris St. John

Btbpro_small Dave Gershman

229331_10150183361996591_674441590_6760167_6637860_n3_small Lewie Pollis

Img_3830_small David Fung