By Dan “Chas” McCloskey
Last week on the Pine, Wally showed an interest in an advanced statistical analysis of the most productive offensive players in baseball history. Of course, I took the idea and maybe got a little carried away with it. But, I’ll try to be brief.
I decided to base this analysis on the metric that I’m most familiar with, Wins Above Replacement (WAR). But, since this is supposed to be about offense, I needed to look at just the offensive component of WAR, Offensive Runs Above Replacement (oRAR).
However, oRAR includes a positional adjustment, based on the concept that, if a team was to get the exact same production out of its catcher as from its first baseman, the catcher would be far more valuable. This makes sense, but since we’re trying to determine the position-independent most productive offensive players, I subtracted out the positional adjustment.
Lastly, since we’re talking about who was/is the most productive, I decided to rank the players on a per plate appearance basis. So, let’s cut right to the chase and present the 50 most productive offensive players in baseball history, among those with a minimum of 6,000 career plate appearances, based on position-independent oRAR per plate appearance:
1. Babe Ruth
2. Lou Gehrig
3. Ted Williams
4. Barry Bonds
5. Dan Brouthers
6. Mickey Mantle
7. Ty Cobb
8. Albert Pujols
9. Rogers Hornsby
10. Joe Jackson
11. Billy Hamilton
12. Jimmie Foxx
13. Joe DiMaggio
14. Ed Delahanty
15. Willie Mays
16. Tris Speaker
17. Stan Musial
18. Frank Thomas
19. Hank Greenberg
20. Mark McGwire
21. Hank Aaron
22. Johnny Mize
23. Mel Ott
24. Alex Rodriguez
25. Frank Robinson
26. Roger Connor
27. Dick Allen
28. Manny Ramirez
29. Jeff Bagwell
30. Sam Thompson
31. Edgar Martinez
32. Eddie Collins
33. Harry Heilmann
34. Honus Wagner
35. Jim Thome
36. Elmer Flick
37. Jason Giambi
38. Cap Anson
39. Jesse Burkett
40. Eddie Mathews
41. Nap Lajoie
42. Ralph Kiner
43. Rickey Henderson
44. Mike Schmidt
45. Duke Snider
46. Chipper Jones
47. Joe Morgan
48. Willie McCovey
49. Gary Sheffield
50. Lance Berkman
If you’re interested in the actual numbers, you can view the spreadsheet here.
A few observations from me:
Among the top eight, none of them peaked in the same decade. This may be an indication of this particular metric’s effectiveness at adjusting for era. For example, taken at face value, Dan Brouthers’s numbers can’t possibly compare to Bonds’s. Bonds hit over 650 more home runs than Brouthers, had a higher on-base percentage and twice as many stolen bases, yet Brouthers–who played in the power-deficient 19th century–lands right behind him on the list.
The list seems fairly representative of all eras, including modern players, with 14 having played at least part of their careers in the 21st century.
Other than the 19th century players, who most of us aren’t as familiar with, I’d say the list comes pretty close to reinforcing our pre-conceived notions about how these players stack up against each other. Obviously, we’d all probably have a list that would differ somewhat, but by how much? Do any of these rankings seem significantly out of whack?
I’m certainly not trying to say we should all accept that this is the way we should evaluate players. But, at the same time, there’s really no way to compare players who played in different eras without using statistics that are park and era-adjusted. Statistics such as Wins Above Replacement, and its components, provide us with an excellent starting point for being able to make such comparisons.
Wow … Great work, Chas! Double Helmet sticker for sure!
Look at Frank Thomas up there in the Top 20! I knew he was very efficient with his ABs and this proves it. Of course he’s got Mr PEDs right behind him (McGwire). Interesting that Hank Aaron “only rates out at #21” … most people including me woulda thought higher, but I suppose longevity really propped him up statistically.
Certainly supports Dick Allen for some HoF votes.
OK, I will take some more time to digest. Thanks again for putting this together!
I’m not that surprised at Aaron’s placement, Wally. He did have over 3000 more plate appearances than Babe Ruth.
Here’s an interesting (hopefully) breakdown by primary position:
C – 0
1B – 15
2B – 4 (Hornsby, Collins, Lajoie, Morgan)
SS – 2 (Rodriguez, Wagner)
3B – 3 (Mathews, Schmidt, Jones)
LF – 9
CF – 7
RF – 8
DH – 2 (Thomas, Martinez)
Obviously, there are two reasons for the complete lack of catchers: the demands of the position and the defensive emphasis. The shortage of 2B and SS is mostly due to the historical defensive emphasis of the position.
But, what would you make of the lack of 3B? I guess it’s pretty consistent with the lack of 3B in the Hall.
Chas —
Great question on 3rd Basemen. I suppose it’s kinda of a “tweener” position where folks expect great defense, or at least moreso than at 1B, but still expect very good offensive output. Maybe that’s unfair? 3B is a lot harder to play than 1B … heck, you’ve really got to be able to throw and often throw on the run and you need pretty good range, not to mention great reflexes. Maybe we should really view 3B “more similarly” to Catcher or SS than we typically do.
I’m still kinda surprised that Ricky Henderson (#43) is that far down the list with all those runs scored. The object of the game, afterall, is to “go home safely”.
Other things that pop out:
— No wonder the Murderers Row Yankees are held as one of the most formidable teams EVER with Ruth and Gehrig at #1 and #2
— Nice career, Jeff Bagwell!
— Shoeless Joe Jackson is in the Top 10 … can MLB continue to ignore that???
— Too bad Bonds is tainted with the PEDs issue … I suspect he’d still be neat the Top 10 or 15 if he was never tempted with the stuff.
— Where’s Pete Rose??? Singles are over-rated and statisticians dig the long ball 🙂
— Lastly … Albert Pujols …. do we really appreciate we’re watching one of the all-time greatest players???
Chas, again, this is great stuff. Now I’m gonna ask about “Value” … as in the “Most Valuable Players” from a statistical standpoint. So if we brought position played into the equation, how well they played defense, and combined that with the offensive stats … what would the list look like??? I appreciate that this is much harder analysis, and offer apologies upfront for being so inquisitive. Thanks again for your work!!
Wally, I’m kind of surprised that Henderson is so far down too. But, let’s not forget that he stuck a while beyond his prime, which would obviously hurt his rate stats. Also, the actual runs he scored aren’t part of the calculation, since that’s also dependent upon his teammates (except when he hits a home run).
Power and ability to reach base are the two most important factors. Relative to the other guys on this list, Rickey’s power is below average and his OBP is high, but there are plenty of guys better. He scores high in base running, but as far as I can tell, this is not weighted as heavily as the other two factors.
Pete Rose also stuck around a long time in order to accumulate the stats he did. Beyond that, while he’s a great player, of course, he didn’t have much power at all and his OBP wasn’t exceptional.
I’ll start thinking about the most valuable analysis. In a way it’s easier, because I can base it purely on WAR without having to subtract any component from it. The question of cumulative vs. rate stats still comes into play, though.
Chas, as always you are a stats whiz. Nice stuff. Based on your first comment in the original post, I believe you have developed another new stat; “margin of era”!
Thanks Pete. Please help me… how would I define “margin of era?”
Hey Chas, is there a good site that explains all the stat terms?
Good idea, Bill. I provided a couple links in the post on WAR I did about a month ago, but I neglected to this time.
This is a different version of WAR than the one I used, but these are better explanations:
WAR (Position Players): https://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2009/6/12/906943/war-lords-of-the-diamond-position
WAR (Pitchers): https://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2009/6/20/919602/war-lords-of-the-diamond-pitchers
I used the statistics that are available on baseball-reference.com. Their explanation starts here: https://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/6063
That doesn’t give you formulas, but outlines the basis for the statistical measures. I guess it all depends on how much detail you’re looking for. Personally, I like to see the formulas but rely on the experts to do the actual calculations.
Thanks Chas. I mean, I can punch in “baseball stats” in google and get a million different hits. I’ll commence to reading now.
Re: “margin of era”; no idea how to define’ Just using a little play on words off “margin of error”. It’s what happens in senility!
Chas —
If Teddy Ballgame hadn’t missed a few key years in his prime to serve in WWII and the Korean War, do you think he would have been rated #1 on this list ??? He’s often referred to as the “greatest hitter who ever lived” and I’ve often heard or read baseball historians say that. And of course I’m the proud owner of his book “The Science of Hitting”.
I’m also saying it’s no coincidence that most of the top 10 sluggers are left-handed hitters. Mantle was a switch-hitter. Pujols and Hornsby are righties. Wonder what Brouthers was?
Hornsby is often referred to as “the greatest RH hitter ever”. Looks like Pujols may supplant the Rajah for that particular designation.
Brouthers was a lefty.
This is a rate stat, and Ruth is so far ahead of everyone that I don’t think Williams gaining back a few more years of his prime would do it. But, Williams would have a good shot at getting to #2.
Babe Ruth was the greatest hitter who ever lived.
No argument from me on that, Chas. Others might debate it … I guess it might depend on what type of stats one is looking at.