ESPN Top 100

[Touch'EmAll]

I googled "Bill James top 100 All Time", up came the list and the highest ranked player that is a pitcher is Walter Johnson at #8. The second highest ranked pitcher is Satchell Paige at #17.

I honestly have never seen any meaningful accurate season by season/career stats for Paige. I figured they simply don't exist. Maybe I haven't scoured the internet deep enough to see what I am looking for.

So how does Bill James arrive at #17 for Paige (2nd best pitcher of all time)? From where is he getting his stats?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Touch'EmAll

I googled "Bill James top 100 All Time", up came the list and the highest ranked player that is a pitcher is Walter Johnson at #8. The second highest ranked pitcher is Satchell Paige at #17.

I honestly have never seen any meaningful accurate season by season/career stats for Paige. I figured they simply don't exist. Maybe I haven't scoured the internet deep enough to see what I am looking for.

So how does Bill James arrive at #17 for Paige (2nd best pitcher of all time)? From where is he getting his stats?

Not saying he's wrong, but it's interesting that a statistician like James put so many Negro League players in his top 100 and relied mostly on anecdotal evidence.

[nat]

Bill never really was a statistician. (As he'd be the first to tell you.) His real strength as a baseball writer was his willingness to ask questions, and to be open to unexpected answers. He used numbers to answer questions when he could, but it would be a mistake to include him in the list of genuine statisticians (Tom Tango, Michael Litchman, and so on) who study baseball.

Somebody said: "it is the Negro Leagues that were probably filled with a significantly higher percentage of non-MLB talent than the white, segregated major leagues ever were."

One thing to keep in mind is that Negro League teams often had smaller rosters than AL/NL teams. Looking at the 1943 Kansas City Monarchs (grabbed a team from the middle of Paige's career): they only had eight players who got >100 at bats. Only four other position players managed to get even 10 at bats. They only had seven pitchers who appeared in more than one game. It looks like the entire team was the starting nine, a bench bat or two, and a couple spare pitchers.

Comparing them to the 43 Yankees. The Yanks had, by my count, 13 position players who appeared in a substantial number of games, to go along with 10 pitchers who made more than a cameo appearance or two. Almost twice as many players on the roster.

Negro League competition wasn't all that diluted, compared to AL/NL competition, because there weren't as many guys on each roster.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I thought Bill James was heavily involved in developing sabermetrics.

[John1941]

Bill James was a statistician. Probably the best proof of that is his development of Win Shares, which was WAR before WAR.

[nat]

He was instrumental in developing sabermetrics, but that's his "using numbers to answer questions when he can". His actual mathematical acumen is limited. In various places throughout the Abstracts he denies being a statistician, and says that he's only interested in mathematics as it helps him understand baseball better. You'll notice that his work involves very little in the way of actual statistics - there're very few regression analyses to be found. And a lot of his work had nothing to do with numbers at all: short biographies of notable players take up a significant chunk of several of the Abstracts.

Win Shares is James' uberstat, but it's not WAR before WAR. It's premised on dividing actual team wins between players. Philosophically, it's the opposite of WAR. The question James wants his stat to answer is "who deserves credit, and how much credit, for each team win?". The question that WAR tries to answer is "how many additional wins would you expect from a team, if this player were to join it?" Win Shares is thus much more context-dependent than is WAR. It provides an interesting record of what happened, but, analytically, it's much less useful. It doesn't tell you much that's of much use for analyzing a trade, or for predicting a player's performance, and so on.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by nat

Bill never really was a statistician. (As he'd be the first to tell you.) His real strength as a baseball writer was his willingness to ask questions, and to be open to unexpected answers. He used numbers to answer questions when he could, but it would be a mistake to include him in the list of genuine statisticians (Tom Tango, Michael Litchman, and so on) who study baseball.

Somebody said: "it is the Negro Leagues that were probably filled with a significantly higher percentage of non-MLB talent than the white, segregated major leagues ever were."

One thing to keep in mind is that Negro League teams often had smaller rosters than AL/NL teams. Looking at the 1943 Kansas City Monarchs (grabbed a team from the middle of Paige's career): they only had eight players who got >100 at bats. Only four other position players managed to get even 10 at bats. They only had seven pitchers who appeared in more than one game. It looks like the entire team was the starting nine, a bench bat or two, and a couple spare pitchers.

Comparing them to the 43 Yankees. The Yanks had, by my count, 13 position players who appeared in a substantial number of games, to go along with 10 pitchers who made more than a cameo appearance or two. Almost twice as many players on the roster.

Negro League competition wasn't all that diluted, compared to AL/NL competition, because there weren't as many guys on each roster.

I was the one who said the Negro League stats were diluted down. I'm not arguing or disagreeing with your figures and statements, but you're using the wrong numbers.

I did some online research and am relying upon facts and figures I got off various sites. So if something I ended up using is wrong, I apologize, but blame the online sources.

So, since the National League was first formed in 1876, there have been 19,969 recognized MLB players through 2/17/2022, none of which appear to be solely Negro League players. And as of the end of 2020, MLB recognized approximately 3.400 Negro League player's stats as now being official MLB stats. These were taken from seven different Negro Leagues that operated during the period 1920-1948. And it appears that about 45 of those newly added Negro League player stats were for players that eventually made it into the majors, so I'll reduce the number of added Negro League player stats down to 3,355 (3,400 - 45) so as not to double count those players that did get into the majors also. Currently, depending on where you look, the black population in the US is at about the 12%-14% range. Back during the 1920-1948 period the Negro League stats were taken from, the black population in the US was even lower, at only about 10%. And finally, in 1956, Jackie Robinson's last year in the majors, the percentage of black players on MLB rosters was 6.7%. At the start of the 2020 season, the percentage of black players on MLB rosters had risen to 7.8%, still below the percentage of blacks overall in the US population.

Now without even adjusting for the increased number of teams and players over the past 60 years, starting with MLB's expansion that began back in 1961, if you take the overall total number of recognized MLB players in history and divide that by the number of years MLB has existed, you come up with an overall average of 136.8 new MLB players (19,969 / 146 Yrs) being recognized and added each year. Now if we do the same calculation for the Negro Leagues, we end up with them adding an average of 115.7 new MLB level players (3,355 / 29 Yrs) being recognized and added each year. The problem is, blacks accounted for only about 10% of the overall US population back then, and have historically represented an even lesser percentage of MLB rosters over a long period of time.

So based on those numbers and percentages, you would expect the average number of new black MLB level players being added from the Negro Leagues to be more like 13.7 players each year (136.8 MLB average X 10% black population), versus the 115.7 new MLB level players that were actually being added from the Negro Leagues annually. The 102 player difference (115.7 - 13.7) between these expected and actual average MLB level players being recognized and added each year by the Negro Leagues between 1920-1948 is most likely made up of players, the vast majority of which, that do not have MLB level talent, and are only playing at this level because Negro League teams needed to fill out their rosters with somebody. So as a result, it would seem logical to assume those Negro League stars that did have MLB level talent were able to feast on and pad and embellish their stats by playing a lot less MLB talent level players. Much, much, much more so than their white counterparts in the segregated major leagues. So to now take these Negro League stats and compare them straight across the board against everyone else in MLB is, I feel, totally unfair to all the regular MLB players, as they likely played against much higher overall MLB level talent throughout their careers, as opposed to their Negro League counterparts.

So if you want to go back and tell me again how the Kansas City Monarchs team having small rosters explains away the ridiculously disproportionate number of Negro League players that got their stats added onto MLB's records, and can do so with some actual facts, figures, and logical arguments, I'm all ears. Just promise you won't come back with some crap about how the black athletes just want to all play football and basketball now, and that's the best explanation you can give to explain how those Negro League players were all legit MLB level players back then. And so you know, I made sure to skew some of the numbers I was using so they'd actually go against the argument I was making. In other words, the numbers are likely even more ridiculously disproportionate than I was putting forth.

[nineunder71]

Throwing Zimmer was more impressive than the bat at Piazza, nod goes to Pedro over Clemens for this reason only.....

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by nineunder71

Throwing Zimmer was more impressive than the bat at Piazza, nod goes to Pedro over Clemens for this reason only.....

One of my favorite Pedro moments was during a Red Sox Indians game that was escalating in the 7th as Pedro threw a brushback pitch and then Nagy retaliated by drilling Jose Offerman. All hell breaks loose, the umpires warn both benches, and so on. Pedro then somehow persuades Jimy Williams to put him back out for the 8th and of course he immediately drills Alomar hard and he and Williams get tossed. Pedro protected his hitters and was unapologetic about it. His comment was something like things happen.

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by BobC

And finally, in 1956, Jackie Robinson's last year in the majors, the percentage of black players on MLB rosters was 6.7%. At the start of the 2020 season, the percentage of black players on MLB rosters had risen to 7.8%, still below the percentage of blacks overall in the US population.

It's worth noting that this is true, but there was also a 40 year stretch from 1968-1998 that the % of black players was more like 14-19%.

https://sabr.org/bioproj/topic/baseb...ics-1947-2016/

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

It's worth noting that this is true, but there was also a 40 year stretch from 1968-1998 that the % of black players was more like 14-19%.

https://sabr.org/bioproj/topic/baseb...ics-1947-2016/

Great point--when baseball was popular with black athletes, they made up a sizeable portion of MLB rosters relative to their population in the country as a whole.

I am still not sure what BobC is trying to get at by saying the % of blacks in the major leagues is not currently high. Is he not aware of the fact that it has a lot to do with baseball becoming less popular among black athletes compared to football, basketball or other professions?

If his point is that black athletes are not capable of playing in the majors, then he needs to do a better job presenting that case.

[Deertick]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Great point--when baseball was popular with black athletes, they made up a sizeable portion of MLB rosters relative to their population in the country as a whole.

I am still not sure what BobC is trying to get at by saying the % of blacks in the major leagues is not currently high. Is he not aware of the fact that it has a lot to do with baseball becoming less popular among black athletes compared to football, basketball or other professions?

If his point is that black athletes are not capable of playing in the majors, then he needs to do a better job presenting that case.

Jackie Robinson signing did not magically open up the floodgates for black athletes, or latino athletes for that matter. It wasn't until well into the latter part of the 50's that percentages combined reached 12%. I have no doubt that the lack of representation that BobC is alluding to has little to do with the overall quality of play of the Negro League. Besides the fact that the league ended shortly after the barrier was broken, so by the time the opportunities were more forthcoming, any feeder effect would be non-existent.
BTW, the fact that latino athletes are represented in MLB in roughly DOUBLE their demographic percentages is astounding to me. Coupled that with the 1300 roster spaces in the NBA and NFL occupied by black athletes and it is not so surprising the MLB representation is as low as it is.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Great point--when baseball was popular with black athletes, they made up a sizeable portion of MLB rosters relative to their population in the country as a whole.

I am still not sure what BobC is trying to get at by saying the % of blacks in the major leagues is not currently high. Is he not aware of the fact that it has a lot to do with baseball becoming less popular among black athletes compared to football, basketball or other professions?

If his point is that black athletes are not capable of playing in the majors, then he needs to do a better job presenting that case.

So you're basically just saying that I'm wrong because all blacks are overall so much better athletes than whites could ever be at pretty much every major sport, and the only reason for them not dominating over whites in any particular sport is simply because they aren't really so interested in that particular sport and therefore, choose not to play it. That about right?

Assuming so, it is senseless to waste my time trying to debate you as I've seen how discussions go with others of such thinking and understanding. Suffice it to say then that you are of the opinion that had baseball not been segregated back during the time of the Negro Leagues, from 1920-1948, that because all the black athletes back then were not yet so enamored with football and basketball that all the major league baseball teams from then would have most likely been made up of 50%, 60%, or maybe even 70% or more of black players then. I'm obviously so wrong for ever thinking to look at historical trends and percentages in trying to project or estimate likely numbers of a particular group's participation, and success, in certain sports. Thank you.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

It's worth noting that this is true, but there was also a 40 year stretch from 1968-1998 that the % of black players was more like 14-19%.

https://sabr.org/bioproj/topic/baseb...ics-1947-2016/

Doesn't really matter or affect the Negro League situation and questions as the numbers I was pointing out were so disproportionate back then that even if we take into account the higher % of black MLB players at certain times in history, as you pointed out, and double the expected average annual number of black players to be recognized as MLB level players each year from 13.7 to 27.4, it still comes nowhere near the actual 115.7 Negro League players they began calling major leaguers each year. The Negro Leagues were basically a few major league players spending their years playing in the minors, and padding their numbers against weaker overall talent. And is why to me, any Negro League player on any all-time records or lists is suspect, and likely may not fully deserve the acclaim, ranking, and standing they are being afforded. I am not saying anyone was not a great player, but there is evidence that if people are basing at least some of their opinions on stats, they may not be as accurate and comparable as one would hope, and otherwise expect, due to the reduced overall level of talent they were primarily playing against.

[molenick]

I think it is great that earlier rankings (and the ESPN list) included Negro League players, because we know some of them would have been stars if they could have played in what were then the Major Leagues. But I think after deciding that they should be included, people didn't have that much to go on except anecdotal evidence, some apocryphal stories, sketchy statistics, and in some cases earlier rankings (which themselves relied on anecdotal evidence, stories, etc.). Paige was the best pitcher, Gibson the best catcher, Charleston the best outfielder, Leonard the best first baseman, etc. It was just a matter of deciding how to rank them among the non-Negro League players.

Now that we have some statistics, in many cases they justify our "gut" rankings. In some cases, the stats are superhuman and clearly have to be taken in context...Josh Gibson's 162 game average .is 374/.458/.719 with 46 HRs, 166 Runs and 196 RBIs. I think we can agree he would not have done that in an integrated major leagues in the 1930s. But I think we can also agree that he certainly lives up to the hype (if not exceeding it). No one can look at those stats and say, I guess he really wasn't as good as they said he was.

But Paige's stats do not hit me in the same way. They are very good, his 162 game average is 14-9 with a 2.70 ERA and 169 strikeouts in 199 innings. His ERA+ is 152 and his lifetime WAR is 46.3 in 1695 innings (36.6 innings per WAR).

Then I look at Bill Foster: 162 game average 19-9 with a 2.63 ERA and 156 strikeouts in 253 innings. His ERA+ is 164 and his lifetime WAR is 47.0 in 1499.67 innings (31.9 innings per WAR).

Bullet Rogan: 162 game average 22-10, 2.70 ERA, 161 ERA+, 168 strikeouts in 275 innings.

Ray Brown: 162 game average 22-8, 3.02 ERA, 149 ERA+, 126 strikeouts in 271 innings.

Except for strikeouts, these players appear to be statistically better than Paige.

Now, there might be reasons for this. For example, Paige was used primarily as a reliever in the integrated Major Leagues, so his 162 game average was watered down for W-L. And pitching in the integrated Major Leagues also worsened his career ERA and W-L pct. There may also be statistics from games that have not been discovered yet.

But let's say Bill Foster was the traditional #1 ranked Negro League pitcher, and say there were stories about him taking the outfielders off the field when he was pitching, and throwing strikes over a bubble gum wrapper.

And then say we were presented with all these statistics we didn't have before. I think we would say, well, yeah, that just shows we got it right, like we do (or I do, anyway) with Gibson (and Charleston, Leonard, and others).

I don't think we would look at Paige's stats and say, no, really he should have been number one all along, it's obvious, can't you see that he has a worse W-L pct., higher ERA, lower ERA+, lower WAR, lower WAR7, lower WAR/162, and lower JAWS and that proves he was better than the guy we always said was number one.