It is difficult to compare the two associations, but there has been a lot of research done in this space the past few years. I've linked to a database put together that calculates/estimates the Major League Equivalencies for what a Negro League performance would have looked like statistically within MLB.
Josh Gibson would likely place higher than Bench if taken into consideration. Guys like Oscar Charleston and Willie Wells likely wouldn't crack these starting lineups, but would fall under your Players of Note category.
So I would go with Williams over Mays
due to the steroid/HGH issue which would have made Williams the starter in LF.
you state. Whether he deserves to be in the HOF is an argument separate from the WAR number question.
If you don't count any of Bonds' numbers after the 1998 season (assuming he started steroids before the 1999 season), his WAR per plate appearance would still finish seventh overall, ahead of Gehrig, and just barely a hair behind Mays and Williams. Obviously we don't know how Bonds' last few years would have gone, but he's still up there.
C Bench
1B Gehrig
2B Hornsby
3B Schmidt
SS Wagner
LF Williams
CF Trout
RF Ruth
DH Mays
I'd fudge a bit and put Mays in CF, move Trout to LF and have Williams DH.
Order
1 Hornsby
2 Trout
3 Ruth
4 Mays
5 Williams
6 Schmidt
7 Gehrig
8 Bench
9 Wagner
1 Mays
2 Hornsby
3 Williams
4 Ruth
5 Gerhig
6 Trout
7 Schmidt
8 Bench
9 Wagner
I tried to split up the three lefties Ruth, Williams, and Gehrig.
Williams lost his age 24, 25, 26 seasons to WWII and 33 and 34 to Korea. 4.5 seasons of his prime. He might have finished 2nd in WAR per PA.
If for no other reason than to reduce double play chances. I agree that mixing righty lefty is probably best, I was trying to mix power and average more.
a bit too much imo. I could see hitting him 7th.
Consider Bond’s WAR sans steroids. It would be a lot less.
Alternatively
1 LF Williams
2 CF Trout
3 RF Ruth
4 2B Hornsby
5 1B Gehrig
6 DH Mays
7 3B Schmidt
8 C Bench
9 SS Wagner
Ruth and Gehrig hit very well against lefties in their career.
Whats interesting to me is that while I understand creating a lineup based on who had the best WAR per position, I much rather have Ty Cobb or Rickey as my leadoff hitter if you are trying to create a perfect lineup.
I'm not sure baserunning has much value in a lineup with so many thumpers.
Bench and Schmidt might be the weakest runners and I don't think they'll gum up the base-paths.
Overall, I think you are correct that all of the lefties Ruth, Gehrig and Bons/Williams weren't hurt too much by lefties but only Bonds really ever saw the lefty relief specialist so splitting them up doesn't diminish the lineup much if at all. Leaving them in also doesn't hurt much even if the lefty specialist has a greater effect than a lefty starter.
Bobby Grich has a WAR almost the same as Frank Thomas.
I’m sorry, that’s insane. One has a career OPS of .794 and one has a career OPS of .974. I don’t think I have to tell you which is which.
I’m not denigrating Grich as a player, in fact I think he likely does merit a plaque in Cooperstown. I’m just not enamored of WAR.
It tells a story that can be informative and also deceiving
The basic raw information, such as wins/losses, fielding average, RBI, even batting average) doesn't tell the whole story. So new statistics such as WAR were invented (for and by pencilheads) to try and remove variables like park dimensions/altitude, aberrational years (1930, high pitching mounds etc.). differences in time periods, strength of opponent to allow comparisons between players in a neutral environment and across the years. More sophisticated fielding and other measures were introduced to reward players for getting to balls and penalizing those with limited range.
One can justly argue that WAR is a comparison that is best done for players in the same time period. That a player from 1920 has the same WAR as a modern player doesn't mean that someone with the same skills as that 1920 player would have the same success in modern baseball. One could also argue that (like politics) using modern-day criteria to judge players from a previous generation emphasizes different qualities.
Apparently Bill James opposes using WAR as the ultimate decision point in close MVP races and thinks other data (late game/close game performance for one)should be factored into new statistics. He also believes WAR overrates older era players, since there was much more of a disparity in the statistics of top players from average players than would be found today. Sports data, even advanced metrics, can be beneficial, but also can tell the wrong story IMO.
while they may reveal a lot, they rarely show you what you really want to see.
Thomas 10075 PA 404 Win Shares = 24.938 PA per Win Share
Grich 8220 PA 330 WIn Shares = 24.909 PA per Win Share
NUTHIN!
Grich likely makes up a lot of ground by playing defense and running the bases. The WAR defensive metrics are not quite right but they do give us an idea.
For positional players, I'd say their potential value is 60% hitting, 30% fielding and 10% baserunning.
And particularly for first basemen. Keith Hernandez's career dWAR? 1.3. Don Mattingly? -6.2. Both are considered to be the two best defensive first basemen of all time and neither crack the top-1000 in dWAR. The all-time leader in dWAR, Roger Connor at 6.3, ties him for 502nd amongst all players.
I tend to look more at FanGraphs for defensive metrics because they include defensive runs saved, range, and zone ratings. But those only go back 20 years or so, which makes it tough to compare.*
*It is helpful to know that Derrick Jeter has the lowest Defensive Runs Saved of all time at -165.
And when one has a higher slugging percentage obviously he’s getting more extra base hits.
Fielding, fine, Grich was a very good fielder in a middle infield position while Frank was a mediocre first baseman and then was a DH.
But I truly don’t think that alone is what should make up the difference in player value when there is such a large difference in offense. My God, Frank had a higher OPS than Willie Mays and Hank Aaron. His OPS is a mere .002 lower than Stan Musial’s.
12 Mickey Mantle
14 Joe DiMaggio
15 Eddie Collins
16 Hank Aaron
17 Dan Brouthers
18 Nap Lajoie
19 Stan Musial
20 Arky Vaughn
21 Mel Ott
22 Alex Rodriguez
23 Jimmie Foxx
24 Johnny Mize
25 Roger Connor
Larry Walker at 29 Just ahead of Joe Morgan at 30
but I have never heard of Dan Brouthers.
Left hand hitting 1st basemen in the National League from 1879 to 1896. Attempted a comeback with the New York Giants in 1904 at age 46.
Clearly his moustache reflects the high caliber hitter he was and caused many a pitcher to crap his pants.