The coronavirus can take away our games, for a while anyway, but it can't take away our debates. The baseball portals of the internet have continued to buzz over the past few weeks, with age-old discussions carrying on more loudly than ever. What else do we have, except the nagging anticipation of a season that can't get here soon enough?
We've tried to get in the spirit of things this week by hashing out some of the more typical disagreements you might find between fans of different teams. Do we think those mini essays are the final word in those arguments? Of course! OK, we're more realistic than that, but perhaps some of the entries have given everyone some fresh enthusiasm for those discussions, even for the deadest-horse arguments such as whether Pete Rose should be in the Hall of Fame.
Since that collaboration already has me in hot water with the fan clubs of Rose, Clayton Kershaw and the St. Louis Cardinals, we might as well keep on in that vein. This time, I'm dipping into a more fundamental sort of debate: Who's better? I don't imagine there is any actual data on this, but I suspect this type of debate is the most common of them all. It's my favorite, anyway.
There have been around 20,000 players in the major leagues, so there are endless combinations of players for which you could advocate. We narrowed it down to 10, but even that process was rough. We wanted to get in a few classic arguments (Mantle vs. Mays) and some that pit recent or current players against antecedents of a similar style. We looked for players on the same performance tier, so there would actually be a debate. For example: Stylistically, the current pitcher who is most reminiscent of Hall of Famer Greg Maddux is probably Zack Greinke. But while Greinke may someday join Maddux in Cooperstown, his numbers just aren't strong enough to really put up much of a fight when stacked up against Maddux's. We didn't want these to be no-brainers.
There are many more debates we could have done. Maybe we'll do some of those someday. This shutdown provides plenty of opportunity to dip into such thought exercises. We could have done Rose vs. Ty Cobb, for example. Derek Jeter against Cal Ripken Jr. would have been a good one, but I kind of tipped my hand on that one when I ranked the all-time shortstops a few months ago. I badly wanted to do Bob "The Hammer" Hamelin against "Super" Joe Charboneau, but ultimately decided it was too esoteric.
Anyway, we dwindled the list to 10. Whether or not they are the best 10, they are pretty good.
The tool kit: AXE
Over the past couple of years, I've used a metric I derived from other metrics to analyze the MLB awards races. The shutdown has given me a chance to finally finish adding some bells and whistles to the system and back-calculate it for past seasons. The goal of AXE is simply to look at performance through a cross-section of bottom-line metrics. I put them on the same evaluative scale by converting them into standard scores, which tell you how many standard deviations a given result is above or below the average of a data set.
I've been pretty pleased with how the system works. The purpose of it stems from a mild dissatisfaction with the variety of all-inclusive metrics that have been popularized over the past two decades. There are things about all the bottom-line metrics that I like, but others that I don't like, especially in the areas of defense and how defense affects the ratings of pitchers. Using several of these leading metrics and combining them into a consensus score helps smooth out some of the differences between systems, and the confusion that comes with inconsistent results.
One tweak I've made to my previous metric is to change the way it is expressed. Before, I just used the consensus standard score, and called that the awards index. So Christian Yelich last season, for example, had an awards index of plus-5.27 to lead the majors. At the opposite end of the scale was Edwin Jackson, at minus-1.48. It's a wonky way to present the metric.
After seeing how Bill James handled this issue in a recent series he posted at billjamesonline.com, I adopted his presentation. Using 100 as league average, the metric is converted into an integer that I'm now calling AXE points (stands for Awards indeX Estimate). Yelich's AXE in 2019 was 153; Jackson's was 85. This still means that Yelich was 5.3 standard deviations better than the big league average; Jackson was 1.5 standard deviations below. This presentation is a lot easier on the eyes and is considerably easier to work with.
Here is the distribution of AXE points through history. Well, back to 1893. When I was back-calculating, I decided to stop with that year because that's when the pitching rubber was moved back to its current distance. It's debatable whether I should have even gone back that far, but there were a number of stars from that time who played well into the 20th century, and I wanted their career AXE scores to reflect as many of their best years as possible.
I also created a method of turning AXE points into individual winning percentages, wins above average and yet another version of WAR (xWAR, in this case). I might refer to some of these measures on occasion, but I will focus on AXE as my primary metric. As I updated the system, I also captured the component parts of each system and converted them into AXE scores. So I now have AXE scores for hitting, baserunning, fielding, positional value and pitching.
Finally, I added the version of WAR housed at thebaseballgauge.com, which I'll call gWAR. The defensive component of gWAR is based on the excellent work of Michael Humphreys, who analyzed the whole of fielding history in "Wizardry." So gWAR joins bWAR (from Baseball-Reference.com), fWAR (from FanGraphs), win shares (a James metric, but my data comes from Baseball Gauge) and two situational statistics: win probability added and championship probability added. Both of the latter were taken from Baseball Gauge as well. Data on win probability and championship probability was not available before 1921, so I created a method for estimating these figures for the seasons between 1893 and 1920.
Together, these are the components of AXE. Obviously the folks behind the creation of those other systems did the heavy lifting, and for that I am grateful.
Let the debates begin:
1. Mickey Mantle vs. Willie Mays
To a New York hardball fan of a certain age, this probably looks like a very 21st century perspective on a classic 1950s debate. That's because at the time, it wasn't Willie vs. the Mick, it was Willie vs. the Mick vs. the Duke. No disrespect to the great Duke Snider, but the way it worked out, this was really a two-player argument. And it's still a good one: Do Mays' two decades of dominance outstrip Mantle's outstanding career that contained some of the highest peaks a player has ever ascended to?
If I were to rank players' careers strictly by using this system, the number I'd turn to would be HALL AXE. That's the harmonic mean between the player's AXE points for his 10 best seasons and his career total. Mays' 1,970 HALL AXE points rank third of all time, behind the HALL AXE totals of Barry Bonds and Babe Ruth. Mays is close enough that if he had not missed two years during the Korean War, he might well be No. 1.
Mantle has always inspired romantic visions, not just because of what he did on the field, but how he did it. And also because of the tragedy of what he might have been. You can see that at work in this comparison. Mantle's best seasons are as good as anything a player not named Bonds or Ruth has ever done. But Mays was almost as great even when Mantle was at his best, and was greater overall for a longer period of time.
Even if the career numbers were a little closer, Mays would probably get the edge because of his all-around play, particularly when it comes to his defense. So while few players have ever been better than Mickey Mantle, Mays is one of them. And if you sometimes wonder what Mantle would have become had he stayed healthy and taken care of himself, the answer may simply be that he would have been as good as Willie Mays.
VERDICT: Edge to Mays
2. Roberto Clemente vs. Al Kaline
Clemente was a bigger-than-life personality whose fame has remained amazingly vivid nearly 50 years after his death. Kaline, who recently died, was a much-loved figure who epitomized baseball in Detroit for more than two decades. In a strictly baseball context, it's a great comparison: Two right fielders who did it all, but beyond tales about Clemente's arm, there wasn't any one facet of their game that sticks out on the historical stat sheet.
You can see why these two greats were so often compared to each other. Both were so consistent yet didn't have the kind of soaring seasons that marked Mantle, Mays and other stars. They were just really good, year in and year out. Kaline comes up with the edge in career numbers, but you can see Clemente held the edge on a per-season basis. He was still going strong when he died in that plane crash so many years ago.
You can also see how well Clemente and Kaline measure up when considering the all-around game. Clemente has the edge on defense, but Kaline was excellent. Clemente also gets a boost from his postseason probability metrics, largely because of his dominant showing in the Pirates' 1971 World Series win over the Baltimore Orioles. Clemente gets the win, but any team would have loved to have either one of them.
VERDICT: Slight edge to Clemente
3. Albert Pujols vs. Lou Gehrig
Two beloved players, generations apart, who typified excellence on and off the field during their careers. I feel like we can't remind people of Pujols' greatness often enough, given his lackluster decline years. Eventually, when we're able to examine the totality of his career, we'll remember just how good and unique he has been. Gehrig tragically never got to have a decline phase, and in some ways his own legendary play has become overshadowed by the disease that took his life and bears his name. In Jay Jaffe's JAWS system, these are the two best first basemen of all time.
This was really close. You take Pujols' 10 best seasons and stack them against Gehrig's best 10, and you have a virtual dead heat. I'm not sure whom that validates here, but it does underscore why we wanted to take a closer look at these two in comparison to one another. Pujols grades out a little better all-around, while Gehrig's stick comes out ahead.
Of course, Gehrig never had that decline phase, even though we badly wish he would have. That may prop up his per-season scores. Also interesting to note is just how close -- and excellent -- both Gehrig and Pujols were during the copious opportunities they had to shine in the postseason. It's close, but we'll give the nod to Pujols because of his edge in the cumulative categories.
VERDICT: Slight edge to Pujols
4. The first nine seasons of Mike Trout vs. the first nine seasons of Ken Griffey Jr.
Trout is on a trajectory that might land him atop everyone's best-ever list, but he is only nine seasons into his career. There remains work to be done. And you only have to look at Griffey's Hall of Fame career to see how an early best-ever pattern can be very hard to maintain. As historic as Trout's play has been, did Griffey stack up in a similar way at the same point of their respective careers?
I mean, how many ways can you explain just how historically good Mike Trout is? Before I ran the numbers, I fully expected this to be relatively close. While Griffey had excellent years in his 10th and 11th seasons, zeroing in on his first nine still captures his very best campaigns. Also, while Trout's defensive metrics have been up and down during his career, Griffey was an all-time star with the glove during the first decade-plus of his career.
Still, it's not close. Griffey indeed has a decisive advantage on defense, but it does little to close his overall deficit to Trout. Griffey's best AXE score on this board (143) would be Trout's eighth-best season. Scan back up and look at Mays' list of 10 seasons. He had nine AXE scores of 144 or better. That's a special number. Trout already has seven.
VERDICT: Clear edge to Trout
5. Jose Altuve vs. Joe Morgan (through age-29 season)
This comparison was suggested to me, and off the top of my head, I thought it wouldn't be worth doing. Morgan is arguably the best second baseman ever, after all. But after looking at it, I realized that comparing Morgan's career to Altuve's at the age the latter is right now yields a closer race than anticipated. Still, keep in mind that Altuve has much work to do to reach Morgan's career level. And he has to do it at the keystone, where careers often nosedive once the player hits his 30s. That's what made Morgan so special -- he actually got better in his 30s. And, yeah, they are both diminutive second basemen who started their careers with the Houston Astros.
Since we went with age, not years of experience, as our cutoff in this comparison, it skews some of the numbers a bit. Morgan reached the majors at 19, two years younger than Altuve. So the latter doesn't have 10 seasons under his belt. Morgan's average AXE is only slightly ahead and much of that is driven by a huge advantage with his legs. Morgan had five 40-steal seasons by age 29. Altuve had one.
As mentioned, from here Morgan only took off. There are a couple of 150-AXE monster seasons in his future. Still, Altuve doesn't embarrass himself at all in this matchup. But he'll have to have another half-decade that few second basemen have ever had to reach Morgan's overall level.
VERDICT: Edge for Morgan
6. Ichiro Suzuki vs. Tony Gwynn
David Schoenfield came up with this one and I loved it. Ichiro and Gwynn were a pair of throwback, high-average hitters who played during the years when baseball offense came to be nearly subsumed by the long ball. Subjectively, Suzuki was a better all-around player and certainly had a better arm. Gwynn was a better basketball player and hit for more average. Both were a joy to watch. So who stacks up better in a head-to-head career comparison?
Gwynn is probably lucky that Ichiro played his first few years in Japan. Even with the latter not debuting in the majors until age 27, this is a close call. Gwynn ran well in his younger years, but didn't stay in the kind of shape that Suzuki does to this day. And so the overall run gap in favor of Ichiro is considerable, as is his edge with the glove.
Still, Gwynn hit more and did more in the postseason. While the list of how their best seasons stack up against each other is close, Gwynn's 1984 campaign far outstrips Ichiro's MVP/Rookie of the Year turn in 2001. We'll give the nod to Gwynn, even while acknowledging that Ichiro would get the advantage if we included his numbers overseas.
VERDICT: Very slight edge for Gwynn
7. Chipper Jones vs. George Brett
After trying to keep my Royals fandom and Brett hero worship under my hat for my first few years as a baseball scribe at ESPN, I've probably let all that slip out a bit too much in recent weeks. Mostly, that was due to our simulation project, when Brett's 1977 Royals made it to the World Series round. It stirred a lot of memories. Anyway, what's interesting about this comparison is that while Brett contemporary Mike Schmidt is a pretty clear pick as best-ever third baseman, there isn't really a consensus No. 2. Brett, Jones, Adrian Beltre, Eddie Mathews and Brooks Robinson all could plausibly be part of that conversation. We'll go with Chipper against George today. Luckily, this is a numbers-heavy analysis, so I shouldn't be accused of favoritism.
One of the things that always works against Brett in all-time best third baseman arguments is that he moved off the position at a fairly young age. He logged seven seasons with first base and, later, DH as his primary spots. And you see that here with Jones' edge in positional value.
That said, Brett had four seasons of at least 140 AXE points, while Jones had just one. Their overall 10-year peak values and career values are close, but Brett had higher heights. Both players saw a good amount of postseason play, but Brett came up big more often that time of the year. It's close enough that I can't bring myself to pick against Brett. Sorry.
VERDICT: Slight edge for Brett
8. Randy Johnson vs. Lefty Grove
You've heard a lot the past couple of years about how players from previous eras might have stacked up against today's athletes. These are too often time-shifted arguments. In other words, they usually are premised on the idea of, say, Babe Ruth being plucked straight off a Pullman car in 1923 and dropped into Guaranteed Rate Field in 2019. The more pertinent question is whether Ruth, if he were born in 1992, would tower above his peers to the degree that he did back in the 1920s. Probably not -- ballplayers are better than ever, and there are more good ones, too -- but there is no doubt in my mind that he'd be a superstar and a household name.
ESPN Daily Newsletter: Sign up now!
There are a few pitchers from Ruth's era whom I would not mind seeing pulled straight from that time into today's majors to see how they'd fare. One of those would be Grove, who threw hard, possibly as hard as many of today's velocity gluttons. As for Johnson, there is no doubt if he were time-ported back to Grove's time, he probably would have convinced half the league's batters to retire. Anyway, this is a fascinating look at the two best power lefties in baseball history.
Grove's career numbers are lower than what they might have been. He didn't reach the majors until age 25 even though he was winning dozens of games per year for the then-minor league Baltimore Orioles. The Orioles' owner, the legendary Jack Dunn, simply didn't want to part with his star lefty. That was an option for minor league owners back in that time. Grove was still wild when he finally got to the Athletics, but then again, the Big Unit had some early control issues as well.
Per season, Grove grades out as better. Johnson lasted longer and has a sizable edge in career value. Grove's best cherry-picked decade still doesn't stack up to Johnson's. Both pitchers came up big in October and won championships. Johnson's career edge carries the day. A better argument might be: Who had the better best season? For Johnson, that 164 was his 1995 season, when he went 18-2 with a 2.48 ERA. (Johnson had a career-low FIP that season so in context, it stands out more than his later epic seasons with Arizona.) Grove's top-graded year was 1931, when he went 31-4 with a 2.06 ERA.
VERDICT: Edge to Johnson
9. Ted Williams vs. Joe DiMaggio (only for seasons in which they both played)
These two were compared to each other for their entire lives, or at least once Williams reached the majors. Both exploded onto the national hardball scene after putting up huge numbers in the Pacific Coast League. DiMaggio had three years under his belt with the Yankees before Williams reached Boston, including his historic 1937 campaign. But once Williams got going, they went head-to-head in several MVP races, with -- perhaps -- DiMaggio unjustly doing better in that voting than he should have. Because DiMaggio retired fairly young and both players missed seasons to World War II, Williams comes out well ahead in most career numbers. However, there were actually just 10 seasons in which they both played. How do they stack up if we look at just those seasons?
You have to love how Williams' obsession with hitting shines so thoroughly in these metrics. He finished his career five standard deviations better than the average hitter of his time. DiMaggio ran the bases better, fielded far better and, because he always played center field, he held a big edge in positional value. But Williams could hit and he did it better than anyone ever has. During their 10 concurrent years, DiMaggio's best season (145 AXE) would have tied Williams' sixth best. And even if you go back and drop in DiMaggio's 148 from 1937, Williams still had better seasons.
VERDICT: Edge to Williams
10. Bob Gibson vs. Justin Verlander
This was another suggestion and I liked it. Gibson and Verlander are two classic, right-handed aces who must be counted among the most durable pitchers of their respective eras. Of course, the definition of pitcher durability was very different in Gibson's era. Both pitchers logged a good number of postseason innings as well. For Verlander, the comparison might clarify something most of us already know to be true. That is, if he stacks up well with Gibson, then he's almost assuredly a future Hall of Famer.
Barring some sort of calamity, this one is going to swing Verlander's way. Right now, we'll stick with Gibby, but it's debatable. Both have had some big postseason moments, but Gibson's World Series dominance in 1967 largely accounts for his big edge in championship probability. Still, Verlander's 139 last season was his third-best campaign. He is not just tacking on career value, he might still be improving his peak value. So we go with Gibson, if only not to make him mad, even though we know Verlander will eventually pull away.
VERDICT: Very slight edge to Gibson