Monthly Archives: January 2023

2023 Franchise Review [Number 1]: Los Angeles Dodgers (2022 Record: 111-51)

January 25, 2023

One of these things is not like the others. One of these things just doesn’t belong – Jay Asher

Part A: The Unique 2022 Los Angeles Dodgers

A common cognitive puzzle is to pick out what makes something in a series different from all the other selections. For example, which of these 4 states does not belong in this list: Alaska, Connecticut, Minnesota, and Ohio? Two obvious answers would be: 1) Alaska because it is not part of the Continental United States or 2) Connecticut because it does not end with a consonant like the other choices. The 2022 Los Angeles Dodgers, who won 111 games and lost only 51, are an example of this type of mental enigma. The 111 victories are tied for 4th on the all-time list with the 1954 Cleveland Indians [111-43]. Since Major League Baseball began in 1871, only 3 teams have ever won more games in a single season: the 1906 Chicago Cubs [116-36]; the 2001 Seattle Mariners [116-46]; and the 1998 New York Yankees [114-48]. Of course, there are quite a few other teams that have come close to 111 victories in a season: the 1909 Pittsburgh Pirates [110-42]; the 1927 New York Yankees [110-44]; the 1961 New York Yankees [109-53]; the 1969 Baltimore Orioles [109-53]; and the 1970 Baltimore Orioles, the 1975 Cincinnati Reds, the 1986 New York Mets, & the 2018 Boston Red Sox [all with a 108-54 record]. Another five teams have won 107 games [including the 2019 Houston Astros & the 2021 San Francisco Giants], seven more won 106 [including the 2019 & 2021 Los Angles Dodgers plus the 2022 Houston Astros], and yet another 5 finished with 105 triumphs. So what makes this 2022 Los Angeles Dodgers team so different from all the other super-teams that won well in excess of 100 games during a season?

The 2019-2022 Los Angeles Dodgers Super-Team Streak

For one thing, the 2021 Los Angeles Dodgers club went 106-56. In the entire history of the Major Leagues, no team has ever won that many games in one season and then improved in the next. But the 2022 Dodgers did, going 111-51, and improving by 5 whole games. More interestingly, it could be argued that these Dodgers were the only 100+ wins super-team that was just having a regular year. The Dodgers won 106 games in 2019 and 2021. In the Co-vid pandemic shortened 2020 season, the Dodgers went 43-17. At that pace, the 2020 Dodgers would have finished with a 116-46 record. In other words, the Dodgers, from 2019 to 2022, could have finished with 106-116-106-111 wins. The Dodger’s great 2022 season of 111 wins may not have been a peak year at all. It could have been just a fluctuation in the team’s normal talent level. The 2022 Los Angles Dodgers, with just a little luck, could have been an even better team than they were. Trevor Bauer, arguably the team’s best pitcher, was suspended for the entire 2022 season after his predilection for beating up women was revealed. Walker Buehler, probably the team’s 2nd best pitcher, did not pitch up to his 2021 standard. His 2022 season ended on June 10th with a sore elbow that resulted in his 2nd Tommy John surgery. Buehler will not return until 2024. Several regulars had off-years. Max Muncy fell from 36-94-.249-.527 (HR-RBI-BA-SA) to 21-69-.196-.384. Chris Taylor went from 20-73-.254-.438 to 10-43-.221-.373. Justin Turner went from 27-87-.278-.471 to 13-81-.278-.431. No player had a career year. The 2022 Dodgers did add the excellent Freddie Freeman and serviceable closer Craig Kimbrel as free agents. But they also lost Corey Seager and even better closer Kenley Jansen to free agency. On the bright side, center fielder Cody Bellinger went from brutally awful with the bat in 2021 to just terrible in 2022; and Mookie Betts was, once again, Mookie Betts. So why were the 2022 Los Angeles Dodgers five games better than their 2021 team?

Probably the best answer to that question is that a bunch of arbitrary pitchers (Tyler Anderson, Tony Gonsolin, and Andrew Heaney) performed much better than expected. But this was just random luck. The 2022 Dodgers, as a whole, were no better than their 2021 squad. Every other 100+ win super-team was surely peaking (possibly excepting the 1969-1970 Baltimore Orioles). Perhaps the best historical comparison for the 2019-2022 Los Angeles Dodgers super-team run is the 1906-1910 Chicago Cubs.* From 1902-1905, the Cubs steadily improved with 68-69, 82-56, 93-60, and 92-61 records [the Dodgers went 92-70 in 2018 but had won 90 or more games every year from 2013-2018 with a peak 104 win year in 2017]. The Cubs improvement could be traced directly to Frank Selee, their manager [elected to the Hall of Fame in 1999]. Hired in 1902, the no-nonsense Selee led the Cubs until stepping down due to illness during the 1905 season [and passed away in 1909]. Frank Chance, the Cubs star first baseman, replaced Selee as the manager. The 1905 Cubs performed better under their new manager, and then exploded on the National League in 1906 with a 116-36 record. The primary factors behind the increase from 92 victories in 1905 to 116 wins in 1906 were: 1) the maturation of Mordecai “Three Finger” Brown into a superstar; 2) a deep pitching staff that got even better; 3) the acquisition of two stars, Harry Steinfeldt and Jimmy Sheckard; 4) career years from Frank Chance and new acquisition Steinfeldt; and 5) great or good years from everyone else. After their 1906 peak, the Cubs remained an excellent team from 1907-1910: finishing 107-45, 99-55, 104-49, and 104-50. Then the Cubs, from 1911 to 1915, began a slow decline towards mediocrity (92-62, 91-59, 88-65, 78-76, and 73-80). Will the 2023 Los Angeles Dodgers team fall off this same precipice, or will they be able to continue to win 100 or more games per season?

*If they had won 116 games in 2020, the LA Dodgers would hold the record for most victories over four seasons with 439. Without really checking, the second best total would almost surely have been the 1906-1909 Cubs with 426 wins.

Rebuilding on the Fly

For the 2023 season, the Los Angeles Dodgers are attempting to rebuild their club on the fly. They released the repellent Trevor Bauer, despite having him under contract for 2023, while still owing him over 22 million dollars. The club replaced star free agent shortstop Trea Turner with the stopgap Miguel Rojas. They let the struggling Cody Bellinger and aging Justin Turner leave; and then signed the aging and struggling J.D. Martinez. The Dodger’s two lottery ticket winner pitchers, Tyler Anderson and Andrew Heaney, cashed in their winnings by signing elsewhere. Craig Kimbrel and Chris Martin were allowed to wander off. The Dodgers practiced addition by subtraction by letting David Price and Joey Gallo go. In the end, nine 2022 Los Angeles Dodger pitchers and players signed contracts worth over 10+ million dollars annually with other teams for the 2023 season. The Dodgers did resign their long-time ace pitcher Clayton Kershaw and purchased two new lottery ticket pitchers, Noah Syndergaard & Shelby Miller. And the club has stated that it wants to let some rookies have an opportunity to shine. Of course, this will help the 2023 Dodgers get under the luxury tax threshold and reset the penalties to a lower level for when they once again violate it (if they ever do). If all goes right and the team peaks, the 2023 Los Angeles Dodgers could win 100 or more games again: Mookie Betts has an MVP season; Gavin Lux becomes a star player; Max Muncy bombs 40 home runs; Freddie Freeman continues to be himself; Will Smith has a career year; Noah Syndergaard and Shelby Miller punch their own lottery tickets, etc. etc. But the much more likely scenario is that some players have good years and other players do not. It looks the Dodger super-team streak will reset.

2023 Los Angeles Dodgers Prediction: 90-95 wins [not bad for a reset].

Part B: Where is the Big Bopper?

The Los Angeles Dodgers’ franchise has never had a player hit 50 (or more) home runs in a season. Of course, many teams can claim this dubious honor. But the Dodgers are the National league equivalent of the New York Yankees and they used to play in a bandbox named Ebbets Field.* The Yankees have, of course, had multiple players whack 50 plus home runs in a single year. The very first Dodger to hit 40 home runs was Gil Hodges in 1951 (with exactly 40, breaking Babe Herman’s 1930 team record of 35). Hodges was one of three Boys of Summer Brooklyn Dodgers to hit more than 40 in a season before the club moved to Los Angeles [Hodges: 40 in 1951 & 42 in 1954; Duke Snider: 42 in 1953, 40 in 1954, 42 in 1955, 43 in 1956, and then 40 more in 1957; and the great catcher Roy Campanella with 41 in 1953]. Snider’s 43 home run in 1956 remained the club record for a very long time. In 1997, Mike Piazza hit exactly 40 bombs to become the first Dodger to reach that threshold since the 1950s. Then, in 2000, the great but peripatetic slugger Gary Sheffield tied the Dodger record with 43 taters of his own. The very next year, 2001 the long & lanky Shawn Green crushed 49 home runs to break the record. Green followed up with 42 more HRs in 2002 before shoulder issues robbed him of his power. In 2004, Adrian Beltre, having an enormous fluke season, bashed 48 home runs, just falling short of tying Green’s record or even becoming the first Dodger to reach 50 homers. It certainly seemed that the Dodgers would finally get their 50 HR hitter when Cody Bellinger arrived. In 2017, he hit 39 HRs as a 21-year-old rookie. In 2018, he slumped to just 25 Homers. Then Bellinger, now 23-years-old, crushed 47 Home runs, the third most ever hit be a Dodger. Cody seemed sure to eventually break the record. Unfortunately, Bellinger’s career was derailed by shoulder issues, just like Shawn Green (oddly, both men were long & lanky as players). From 2020 to 2022, Bellinger could not even crack 20 home runs in any given year. The Dodgers have finally given up on him, let him go as a free agent. A Dodger hitting 50 HRs in a year will have to wait a while longer.

*Fans of the St. Louis Cardinals may claim, with some justification, to be the National League’s version of the New York Yankees (and their seasonal home run record is, of course, held by Mark McGwire with 70.)

Of course, if history had flowed down a different channel, the Dodgers may have already had a slugger who could have hit 50+ homers for them. From 1958 to 1964, Frank Howard played for the Dodgers. Listed at 6 feet 7 inches tall and 255 pounds, Howard was the Aaron Judge of his time. Playing in the pitching dominated and offensively starved 1960s, Howard played his career at an awful time to hit. The Dodgers, showing no faith in Howard, platooned him from 1960-1964 and then simply traded him away. The Dodger parks did Howard no favors either (from 1958-1964, he hit 55 home HRs versus 68 road HRs). With the Washington Senators, Frank Howard came into his own at last from 1968 to 1970 and hit 44, 48 and 44 home runs before age (he turned 32 in August 1968) and injuries washed his career away. If he had played for the Dodgers in the high-octane 1990s (and not been platooned), Howard would have possibly hit at least 50 home runs six times or more. In context, he was probably the most gifted HR hitter that the Dodgers ever had. Unfortunately, the Dodgers recently had a player under contract who could have given big Frank a tussle for that title. In June of 2016, the Dodgers signed a tall skinny, almost 19-years-old, Cuban refugee named Yordan Alvarez for over 2 million dollars. Two weeks after signing Alvarez, the Dodgers traded him away for a middling Major League relief pitcher to the Houston Astros. Why wasn’t the Astros interest in Alvarez not some sort of indication to the Dodgers that they should have looked twice at Alvarez before trading him? It simply seems very odd. If his knees hold up, it is now very likely that the 6 foot 5 inch and 250 pound Yordan Alvarez will hit 50 or more HRs relatively soon. Meanwhile, the Dodgers still wait patiently for their 50 HR man.

Note: This post was the first of 30 individual team post (in order of 2022 winning percentage) to practice writing shorter blog posts. In that sense, it was an abject failure. Hopefully, practice will make perfect eventually.

The 2023 BBWAA Baseball Hall of Fame Election: A Bright Clear Line

Knowledge is the process of piling up facts; wisdom lies in their simplification – Martin H. Fischer

January 11, 2023

Introduction

On January 24th, 2023, the Baseball Writers Association of America (BBWAA) will announce their selection(s), if any, for induction into the Hall of Fame later in July. The ballot, which was released on November 11th, 2022, [presumably to build up some publicity before the coming announcement] has 28 players on it. Fourteen of these players are holdovers from previous elections and 14 others are new to the ballot [which makes for a nice balanced lineup]. Any of the 28 players getting less than 5% of the vote will be thrown off the BBWAA Hall of Fame bus [metaphorically speaking] and will not be listed on the 2024 ballot. This is all pretty straightforward, but also tediously boring. For several years now, there has been a Baseball Hall of Fame Tracker which analyzes any and all published Hall of Fame ballots before the big day. For all intents and purposes, any mystery of who may join Fred McGriff [already voted in by the Hall of Fame’s Veterans Committee] on the podium in July of 2023 is already over. Scott Rolen is probably the only candidate that has any real chance of being elected by the BBWAA this year. The Hall of Fame Tracker [compiled by Ryan Thibodaux] has reduced the suspense of the 2023 Hall of Fame election to the simple question of: Will Scott Rolen make it?

Who Actually Should be Elected by the BBWAA in 2023?

The Hall of Fame Lowest Common Denominator System (LCDS) holds that any players elected should have accrued more career bWAR (Baseball Reference’s Wins Above Replacement formula) than the 244th best eligible player for the Hall of Fame.* In other words, a Hall of Fame player should have accumulated more than 52.7 bWAR [the total accumulated by Hall of Famer Elmer Flick and non-Hall of Famer Babe Adams, both tied at #243]. Using this bWAR number as the baseline, the LCDS 2023 Baseball Hall of Fame ballot would be: 1) Scott Rolen 70.1 bWAR; 2) Andruw Jones 62.7; 3) Todd Helton 61.8; 4) Gary Sheffield 60.5, 5) Bobby Abreu 60.2, 6) Andy Pettitte 60.2, 7) Mark Buerhle 59.1, and 8) Jeff Kent 55.4. Under the LCDS system, Torii Hunter [50.7] and Jimmy Rollins [47.6] just miss the ballot; but would have been Hall of Fame worthy with one more good year. Alex Rodriguez, who finished his all-time great career with 117.6 bWAR, is not considered eligible despite currently being on the ballot. Along with Manny Ramirez [69.3 BWAR], Rodriguez is ineligible for election to the Baseball Hall of Fame due to his suspension for taking steroids during his career. There is no reason for allowing either man to twist in the wind for ten years as the BBWAA is doing. A-Rod’s eventual banishment into steroid limbo is ensured when he inevitably falls off the ballot in 8 years. Ramirez, the other steroid casualty, has 3 years to go. Any review of the steroid ineligible should start with players who were not suspended for using performance-enhancing drugs during their careers [with Mark McGwire at the front of the line]. There is another player, currently getting strong support for the Hall, who is absent from the above list: superstar reliever Billy Wagner. Unfortunately, bWAR may not be the best tool to measure the contributions of a relief ace like Wagner. He only accumulated 27.7 bWAR in his career. Only by virtually doubling his bWAR total does Wagner qualify under LCDS. The BBWAA will almost surely, absent some horrible intervening scandal, elect him quite soon anyways.

*For a better explanation of the LSDS, please see Post #22. There are currently 241 (non-Negro League) Hall of Fame players elected to the Hall of Fame plus 3 more who were elected as executives but who would have qualified as players.

The Hall of Fame Tracker at this very Moment [1-11-23]

Right now the Hall of Fame tracker has collected 154 ballots [Usually there are just under 400 ballots cast].* With 75% of the total votes needed for election, the current count for the top 10 is: 1) Scott Rolen 81.2% [63.2% last year], 2) Todd Helton 79.9% [52.0%], 3) Billy Wagner 73.2% [51.0%], 4) Andruw Jones 69.8% [41.1%], 5) Gary Sheffield 66.4 [40.6%], 6) Carlos Beltran 57.7% [1st year on the ballot], 7) Jeff Kent 50.3% [32.7%], 8) Alex Rodriguez 43.0% [34.3%] and his running mate 9) Manny Ramirez 40.9% [28.9%], and lastly 10) Bob Abreu 20.1% [8.6%]. Unless history is reversed, these percentages will fade away as the ballots from the more neanderthal BBWAA writers are finally counted (the members who refuse to publish their ballots and are unaccountable for their often strange votes). Rolen may be able to hang on and be elected this year. Todd Helton, the only other player currently above the 75% threshold, does not seem to be high enough to fend off the inevitable ebb. But he certainly seems primed to be elected in 2024. It would help Helton if Rolen goes in this year, clearing the path for him. The probably unavoidable elections of Jones & Wagner seem to be on track too. Sheffield, despite his tangential steroid taint, & Carlos Beltran, despite his involvement in the 2017-18 Houston Astros sign-stealing scandal, also seem to be on track for eventual induction. Alex Rodriguez and Manny Ramirez, the convicted steroid pair, are both treading water and waiting for their eventual dismissal from the ballot. Jeff Kent, in his 10th and final year on the ballot, will be getting his dismissal this year. He will have to wait for the Veterans Committee to eventually honor him. There are 2 other players [in addition to Kent and Abreu] who deserve to be in the Hall of Fame by the LCDS system: Andy Pettite 18.8% [10.7%] & Mark Buerhle 10.1% [5.8%]. Both men will surely live to see another ballot but the prognosis for their eventual election by the BBWAA seems grim.

*Apparently 140 published and attributed to a specific eligible Baseball Hall of Fame voter plus 14 more ballots that are unattributed.

A Question of Discussing Progress

In general, the Baseball Hall of Fame Tracker has changed the discussion from: Who will get elected? to Who is making good progress towards being elected? Usually, players go on the ballot, their candidacy gets considered, and then (if they are worthy) their vote totals rise until they are elected. Scott Rolen, Todd Helton*, Billy Wagner, Andruw Jones, and Gary Sheffield are currently making good progress and will eventually be elected to the Hall of Fame. Also, Carlos Beltran is doing so well in his first year that his election is inevitable. There is one very unusual 2023 candidacy. Omar Vizquel’s Hall of Fame vote totals are regressing, not progressing. In 2020, Vizquel’s election was all but inevitable. He had reached 52.6% in only his third year on the ballot (after starting with 37.0% in his first year), despite an underwhelming career total of 45.6 bWAR. But, as the 2021 ballots rolled in, he got accused of domestic violence against his wife and sexual harassment of an (autistic) bat boy. The double whammy of this bad publicity hurt his 2021 vote total a little [49.1%]. Then completely crashed it in 2022 [23.9%] like a plane hitting a mountainside. This freefall is continuing in 2023. His current vote total is a mere 8.7% (and sliding down). At this rate, he will fall off the BBWAA ballot either this year or in 2024. Three other players (Jeff Kent, Alex Rodriguez and Manny Ramirez) are just treading water until they fall off the Ballot. There are five more players (Bobby Abreu, Andy Pettitte, Jimmy Rollins, Mark Buehrle, and Francisco Rodriguez) who are all waiting around at the bottom of the ballot, hoping their Hall of Fame cases catch fire. Abreu, Pettitte and Buehrle are all qualified under the LCDS to be in the Hall and Rollins is close. Francisco Rodriguez, who like Beltran is in his first year on the ballot, was an ace reliever like Wagner. If his bWAR [24.2] is doubled, Francisco Rodriguez still doesn’t qualify under the LCDS. Despite all this, it is probable that his candidacy will survive to see next year. If it does, there is a good chance that he will begin to make some progress.

*The election of both Rolen and Helton, who would then join McGriff in the 2023 Baseball Hall of Fame class, would obviously be the best outcome for the Hall of Fame itself by giving it three, rather than just two, players to honor on July 23, 2023.

The Other Guys On and Off the Ballot

Other than the 15 players mentioned in the above paragraph, there are 13 other players on the 2023 BBWAA ballot. Twelve of these guys are first-time candidates like Carlos Beltran and Francisco Rodriguez. None of these twelve players are going to survive to see the 2024 Ballot. In fact, none of them has even received a single vote so far (with 140 votes currently counted). This is not surprising considering that pitcher John Lackey has the most career bWAR [37.3] of the 12 players. They will all be one and done on the BBWAA Hall of Fame ballot. Despite this, all 12 guys were fine players: Lackey; Jered Weaver; Jacoby Ellsbury; Jhonny Peralta; Jayson Werth; Matt Cain; J.J. Hardy; the great Mike Napoli; R.A. Dickey; Bronson Arroyo; Andre Ethier; and relief ace Huston Street. A very good team could be made from these players in their primes. Probably the greatest “Could Have Been A Contender” for the Baseball Hall of Fame out of these 12 candidates would be Jacoby Ellsbury. Presently, Ellsbury is mostly remembered as a bitter disappointment by New York Yankee fans. He signed a 7 year/153 million dollar contract in 2013 but never lived up to it. However, his career was derailed and eventually destroyed by near constant injuries. The one year that Ellsbury was totally uninjured and in his prime was stunning. In 2011, he scored 119 times, hit 32 HRs, drove in 105 runs, batted .321, and stole 39 bases (finishing 2nd to Justin Verlander in the MVP race). It was a fantastic season. A few more like it would have given Jacoby Ellsbury a very strong Hall of Fame case.* Of course, this leaves one player on the Ballot undiscussed. That would be outfielder Torii Hunter [career bWAR of 50.7]. In 2021, his first year on the BBWAA ballot, Hunter received 10.5% of the vote. In 2022, he was down to 5.3%. Currently, in 2023, Hunter has only 2.0% of the vote. Evidently, the BBWAA voters have decided that 3 years on the Baseball Hall of Fame ballot, but not one more, is enough to honor Torii Hunter.

*After a great 33 game trial in 2007, Ellsbury started his career with two very promising seasons in 2008 & 2009 [3.0 and then 2.8 bWAR]. He was injured basically all season long in 2010. He had his monster season in 2011 [bWAR of 8.3]. A shoulder injury destroyed his 2012 season. He then returned with no power in 2013 [5.8 bWAR]; but got some back in 2014 [3.6 bWAR with 16 HRs]. After a good start to 2015 (.324 BA in 37 games), injuries called off the rest of his career [2015-2019]. He didn’t even play in 2018 or 2019 as the injuries ate what was left of his talent.

A Bright Clear Line

The Lowest Common Denominator System [LCDS] for deciding if a Baseball player is worthy of the Hall of Fame contains an assumption that the Hall of Fame has already elected and inducted the correct number of players [244 to be exact right now]. The only difference is that the LCDS gives a very different answer to who actually belongs. Most baseball fans would agree that the Hall of Fame has done, at times, a pretty shoddy job of selecting its new members. Many baseball writers like to argue that the Hall has elected too many players. Others argue that the Hall of Fame has elected too few. But maybe we should just throw the baby & the bath water out the window and start over? It seems like a bright clear line [ABCL] for electing a player to the Baseball Hall of Fame could be set at 50.0 or more total bWAR during their career. Since the player must play 10 seasons to even qualify for election, this would mean that the potential Hall of Famer would need to average 5.0 bWAR per year for 10 years to get in (5.0 bWAR basically represents an All-Star-type season). This seems reasonable. Perhaps we could even name these types of seasons. Above 5.0 bWAR would be a “Kong.” Above 7.5 bWAR (a MVP-type season) would be a “King Kong.” In honor of Hideki Matsui & Aaron Judge, a season 10.0 bWAR or above would be a “Godzilla.” There are currently 278 Baseball players who are eligible for the Hall of Fame with 50.0 or more career bWAR. This is only a slight increase from the 244 who are currently enrolled. It has the advantage over the LCDS system of being an immovable and fixed line. It will not shift, like LCDS, after the results of future elections. From this point on, the ABCL will be used as the starting point for any Baseball Hall of Fame discussions in this blog.

The 2023 BBWAA Ballot

Using the ABCL, this blog’s uncounted and disregarded ballot for the BBWAA 2023 Baseball Hall of Fame election goes: 1) Scott Rolen; 2) Andruw Jones; 3) Todd Helton; 4) Gary Sheffield; 5) Bobby Abreu; 6) Andy Pettitte; 7) Mark “The Burley” Buerhle; 8) Jeff Kent; and 9) Torii Hunter. With undeniable proof that a relief ace is actually worth twice as much as other players, Billy Wagner would be tied with Jeff Kent at 8th, pushing Hunter down to 10th. But that proof has not been forthcoming yet.

Coming Later: Addendum #1

Relief Pitchers and the Hall of Fame.

Coming even later: Addendum #2

Kongs, King Kongs & Godzillas

Addendum #3

The 28 Players [listed by bWAR] on the 2023 BBWAA Baseball Hall of Fame ballot [14 players held over from 2022 Ballot and 14 new players, who are marked with a + sign]:

1) Alex Rodriguez the doomed 117.6; 2t) Carlos Beltran 70.1+; 2t) Scott Rolen 70.1; 4) Manny Ramirez 69.3; 5) Andruw Jones 62.7; 6) Todd Helton 61.8; 7) Gary Sheffield 60.5; 8t) Bobby Abreu 60.2; 8t) Andy Pettitte 60.2; 10) Mark Buehrle 59.1; 11) Jeff Kent 55.4; 12) Torii Hunter 50.7; 13) Jimmy Rollins 47.6; 14) Omar Vizquel 45.6; 15) John Lackey 37.3+; 16) Jered Weaver 34.6+; 17) Jacoby Ellsbury 31.2+; 18) Jhonny Peralta 30.4+; 19) Jayson Werth 29.2+; 20) Matt Cain 29.1+; 21) J.J. Hardy 28.1+; 22) Billy Wagner 27.7; 23) Mike Napoli 26.3+; 24) Francisco Rodriguez 24.2+; 25) R.A. Dickey 23.7+; 26) Bronson Arroyo 23.4+; 27) Andre Ethier 21.5+; and 28) Huston Street 14.5+.

The 36 Players [listed by bWAR] who qualified for the 2023 BBWAA Baseball Hall of Fame ballot (10 years of service); but were excluded from the ballot by a secret Hall of Fame Committee:

1) Yunel Escobar 26.8; 2) Aaron Hill 24.4; 3) Erick Aybar 22.8; 4) Carlos Ruiz 22.5; 5) Ubaldo Jiminez 20.4; 6) Jeremy Guthrie 18.4; 7) Franklin Gutierrez 18.2; 8) Joaquin Benoit 17.9; 9) Chris Young 17.5; 10) Stephen Drew 15.9; 11) Ricky Nolasco 13.4; 12) Adam Lind 12.7; 13) Matt Garza 12.5; 14) Geovany Soto 12.0; 15) Joe Blanton 11.8; 16) Seth Smith 11.6; 17) Rickie Weeks 11.5; 18) Ryan Hanigan 9.2; 19) Glen Perkins 8.9; 20) Jonathan Broxton 8.7; 21) Scott Feldman 7.9; 22) J.P. Howell 7.8; 23) Alejandro De Aza 7.2; 24) Craig Breslow 6.2; 25t) Mike Pelfrey 5.8; 25t) Chad Qualls 5.8; 27) Mike Aviles 5.7; 28) Brandon Moss 5.0; 29) Jason Grilli 4.6; 30) Kyle Kendrick 4.6; 31) Michael Morse 4.0; 32) Edward Mujica 3.9; 33) Eric O’Flaherty 3.8; 34) Ryan Raburn 3.3, 35t) Andres Blanco 1.6; and lastly 35t) Dustin McGowan 1.6.

Yunel Escobar and Aaron Hill may have a complaint here. Why R.A. Dickey or Bronson Arroyo or Huston Street on the ballot but not them? One wonders whether pitching in the thin Colorado air ruined the career of Ubaldo Jiminez. How much harder did he have to torque his arm to impart spin there? Rickie Weeks is probably, without really checking, the most disappointing player in this group. The second player taken in the 2003 June amateur draft (after the even more disappointing Delmon Young), Weeks seemed to have the talent to be a much bigger star than he turned out to be.

Interestingly, a total of 50 players who retired in 2017 qualified for the 2023 Baseball Hall of Fame ballot after waiting the required 5 years after the end of their careers. Fourteen were placed on the ballot itself and the other 36 were then excluded by a Hall of Fame Ballot Committee. A question for yet another day would be: What is the normal number of players that qualify to be on the Baseball Hall of Fame ballot each year? Were the 50 qualified players in 2023 an abnormal number of guys to qualify? What would be the normal range? If not normal in 2023, is it more or less?

Major League Demographics: 1871

From a small seed, a mighty trunk may grow. Aeschylus

January 1, 2023

Introduction

Anyone who loves Baseball history owes an enormous debt of gratitude to the Society for American Baseball Research (SABR). Founded in 1971,* this group has expanded the available knowledge about Baseball in virtually all directions. In one particular area, SABR continued the work of the late great Lee Allen, historian of the Baseball Hall of Fame from 1959 until he died of a heart attack in 1969. Allen had made it his life’s work to collect biographical information about every Major League player. Without this work, started by Lee Allen and then followed up on by SABR, the detailed demographics of the 115 players who played in the 1871 National Association (NA) would not even be available to analyze. But, thankfully, they are. This post will seek to answer the following questions about those 1871 NA players: 1. how old were they in 1871; 2. how long did they live after their careers ended; 3. how tall and heavy were they in 1871; 4. which was their dominant hand when batting or throwing; and 5. where did these men originally come from? Future posts will answer the exact same questions for other Major League seasons. It will then be possible to compare and contrast this information over the entire timeline of Baseball. Hopefully, something interesting about the always changing demographics of the supposed National Pastime will be uncovered. If not, it will just be good fun for the Baseball obsessed (or perhaps just interested).

*Exactly 100 years after the formation of the first Major League, the National Association. Unless otherwise noted, all basic demographic information comes from the website Baseball Reference.

1. How Old Was the Average NA Player in 1871?

Of the 115 players, 81 men have a full birthdate (day/month/year); 15 have a partial birthdate (month/year); 17 have just a birth year; and only two players (Bill Barrett & Bill Kelly) have no birth information at all. For the purposes of this post, the median will be used to determine any averages. The median is the mid point in any data set (exactly 50% of the data points are greater and 50% of the data points are lesser). Other demographic studies like this use the mean, or the weighted mean, to arrive at their conclusions. The mean, of course, is the average of all data points combined (a weighted mean assigns different values to individual data points such as games played or at bats). In this case, the median seems better suited as the mean can be thrown off by an extreme data point. It is also just less complicated. Of the 81 NA players who have full birthdates, the median would be player #41 (William Johnson), born June 1, 1848. In other words, the median NA player was around 23 years old in 1871 (using 7/1/1871, the season mid-point, to determine player’s age). Of course, the obvious question would be: Does including the data from those players without full birthdates make any difference? There are 32 players with partial data. Using the data from all 113 men with any birth data, the median 1871 age rises to 23 years, 6 months, and 4 days (aka #57, John Sensenderfer, aka “Count” Sensenderfer). Basically, the median age of a 1871 NA player was 23 and a half. This is almost surely the lowest average age of the players for any one season in Major League history [which, considering 1871 was the very first season, makes total sense]. In more recent years, Major League players reportedly averaged around 27 years old in the 1960s and 1970s, which rose to about 29 years old in the 2010s, and has currently fallen back to 28 years old or so in the 2020s.

2. How Long Did the Average 1871 NA Player Live?

Of the 115 NA players, 111 of them have been found dead. Four men (Barrett and Kelly again, plus Edward Beavens and Fred Treacey) have left no trace (so far) of when they shuffled off this mortal coil. But they are definitely dead [or approximately 170 years old]. The first and also youngest of the 1871 players to die was Willard White. He died March 3, 1872, at the very young age of 22 years and 101 days of what was then called the “White Plague” (tuberculosis). Seven players did not see the 1880s. The median age of the 1871 NAL players when they passed on was 61 years and 116 days (#56 out of the 111 players, William Johnson, once again). The median date of death was November 28th, 1908 (a different #56, Thomas Pratt). In an odd twist of fate, the 1871 player who lived the longest was Hall of Famer James “Deacon” White, the cousin of the Willard White who had died first. Jim White lived to the ripe old age of 91 years and 217 days, finally passing away on July 7th of 1939. He was one of 4 players from the 1871 NA who made it to 90 years old. One of them, Al Pratt, died just 2 days after turning 90. Yet another was White’s former teammate & fellow Hall of Famer, George Wright. Wright died in 1937 after living 90 years and 205 days. The only other 1871 player to make 90 was George Bird. Bird was also the last player from the first Major League still living. When he died on November 11th of 1940 at the advanced age of 90 years and 139 days, the last player from the 1871 National Association was laid to rest. Compared to modern times, the players of the 1871 NA lived considerably shorter lives. In the year 2020, the average lifespan of an American male was reportedly 74.5* years, more than 12 years longer than the average 1871 NAL player.

*An average modern American women reportedly lives to be 80.2 years, raising the overall American average to 77.3 years old.

3. How Big Was the Average 1871 NA Player?

Of the 115 NAL players, 13 do not have their height listed. Of the 102 players that do have it listed, the median is 5 feet 8 inches (the average between #51 and #52, though both men are listed as 5-08). Only 13 of the 102 players are listed as being 6 feet or taller (8 men at exactly 6-00, 3 men at 6-01, and just one man, Robert Armstrong, at 6-02). The shortest man listed, at 5 feet and 3 and a half inches, is Dickey Pearce, the long time shortstop. But Pearce is also listed as having weighed a very stout 161 pounds. The next shortest man on the NA list is David Force, also a shortstop, listed as being 5-04 and weighing only 130 pounds. Three other NA players are listed as 5-05 tall. There are 101 players with their weight listed (the 14 missing this info are the 13 without a listed height, plus William Johnson again). The median of these 101 players (#51) weighed 157 pounds (Thomas Foley or Hall of Famer Harry Wright). The heaviest listed player is another Hall of Famer, Adrian (aka “Cap”) Anson. But his listed weight, 227 pounds, is obviously from much later in his career [Cap was the last 1871 NA player active in the Major leagues, retiring in 1897]. The photographic evidence suggests that the 19-year-old Anson weighed about 180 to 190 pounds in 1871. This would still make Anson heavier than Charles Bierman or Gat Stires, next on the list at reportedly 180 pounds.* The lightest listed player was David Birdsall at 126 pounds. However, he was almost surely heavier than that. Birdsall, listed as 5-09 tall, was a thin man. But 126 pounds on a 5-09 frame is emaciated. He was probably, looking at photos, around at least 145-150 pounds. The smallest man on any NA field was probably always the 5-04 short and 130 pounds light Davy Force. Presently, the average Major League player stands 6-01 and weighs around 205 to 210 pounds in 2020. In other words, the average present Major League player would be comfortably the largest man by far on any 1871 National Association team.

*The fascinating Garret “Gat” Stires, listed as 5-08 and a muscular 180 pounds, was probably the strongest man in the NA. An incredibly powerful batter, Stires reportedly swung a 6 pound bat [i.e. 96 ounces, modern bats are 31 to 33.5 oz]. That is basically a log. Unfortunately, 1871 was his only year in the Majors.

One other interesting question related to the height and weight of the 1871 NA players is: Were the pitchers from 1871 bigger, smaller, or the same size as the other 1871 players? For most of baseball history, pitchers have been taller and heavier than other players. Reportedly, in modern baseball, pitchers are 6 feet and 3 inches tall on average and weigh between 210 and 215 pounds. In other words, two inches taller and 5 to 10 pounds heavier than other players. The advantage of a taller pitcher comes from the downward plane which can be attained throwing a ball overhand. But pitchers in 1871 were not allowed to throw overhand. Modern pitching mounds also accentuate the downward plane effect. But pitchers in 1871 did not throw off a mound. The advantage of a heavier pitcher is that he would be able to supposedly throw harder (i.e. by putting his weight behind the pitch). But there has never been a plethora of fat guys with blazing fastballs pitching in the Major Leagues. In any event, 19 men pitched in the 1871 National Association. But 9 of these men were just players who primarily played other positions. One man, William Stearns was primarily a pitcher during his career but only pitched two games in 1871 (during his career, he played 84 Major League games, every one as a pitcher). Stearns threw right-handed but his batting, height and weight are not listed. This leaves just nine other men who really pitched in the 1871 NA. This may seem low, but the 1871 teams ordinarily used just one pitcher. For what its worth, these 9 men were generally bigger than their teammates. The median height and weight of these 9 pitchers was 5-09 and 162 pounds.* Strangely, the only left-handed pitcher was John McMullen (who was also probably the worst pitcher of the nine). Truthfully, there were simply not enough pitchers hurling in 1871 to draw any definite conclusions about their relative size.

*The mean average height of these 9 pitchers was exactly 5 feet and 9 inches [9 men/621 inches] also; but their mean average weight was a slim 155.67 pounds [9 pitchers/1401 pounds]. Basically, the size differential between the 9 pitchers and the batters in 1871 could just be a rounding error.

4. Which Was the Dominant Hand of the 1871 NA Players?

Of the 115 NA players that played in 1871, whether they batted right-handed or left-handed has been recorded for just 48 of them. The breakdown of the batting data shows that 36 of 48 [75.0%] players batted from the right side and 12 of 48 players batted from the left [25.0%]. Whether NA players threw the ball right-handed or left-handed has been recorded for only 60 of them. The breakdown of the throwing data shows that 48 of 60 players threw right-handed [80.0%] and 12 of 60 players threw left-handed [20.0%]. As the right-left percentages of the general population are usually recorded as 90% right and 10% left, the data seems to suggests that the natural advantage of being left-handed in Baseball, especially while batting, was already evident at the beginning. But this data could actually be skewed. As being left-handed is more unusual than being right-handed, whether a player was left-handed is much more likely to have been recorded. The absence of data is too great to definitely claim that baseball’s bias towards the left-handed existed in 1871. Also it is obvious that positional discrimination was not yet set in stone in the beginning [because of the left-handed disadvantages of playing as a C, 2B, SS, or 3B, these positions eventually would be manned only by the right-handed.] It should be noted that one man, the always eclectic Bob Ferguson, has been listed as a switch-hitter in most Baseball databases. However, for this analysis, Ferguson is simply being considered a right-handed hitter. He did not switch sides at the plate to gain a platoon advantage.* Ferguson was basically just a right-handed hitter, but would sometimes switch-hit to gain what he thought was a tactical advantage. In the most widely reported example, Bob Ferguson shifted from right to left in the batter’s box in an attempt not to hit the ball at shortstop George Wright, probably the greatest fielder at that time.

*The platoon advantage occurs because a right-handed pitcher will appear to release the ball at the body of a righty batter and a left-handed pitcher does the same versus a lefty batter. This element of deception (and fear) makes it harder to hit than opposite side confrontations [lefty-righty or righty-lefty].

5. Where Did the 1871 NA Players Come from?

The simple answer to this question is: The players mostly came from New York State or Pennsylvania. As the game of Baseball was invented in New York City; and then spread outwards from there like a fever, this is hardly surprising. All told, the players in the 1871 NA came from only ten states (and the District of Columbia). Of the 115 NA players in 1871, just one player is listed without a birthplace [Pete Donnelly]. Interestingly, thirteen (13) of the players were not born in the United States at all (England 5, Ireland 4, and one each for Canada, Cuba, Germany and the Netherlands). This may be the highest percentage of foreign players in a Major League until over 100 years later (a robust 11.4% of the players). Of the remaining 101 players, 45 of the players were born in NY; 23 in PA, 9 in MD, 8 in NJ, 5 in IL, 4 in OH, 2 in IA and MA, and just one in CT, DC & IN. There were 79 players born in the Northeast [NY-PA-NJ-MA-CT]; 12 players born in the Midwest [IL-OH-IA-IN]; and another 10 players from the southern borders [basically Baltimore MD & Washington DC]. There were no players in the 1871 from the Southern States or the far Western States. There was no one born in either Texas or California [though seven players from the 1871 NA would eventually pass away in CA]. Interestingly, there was only two players from Massachusetts in the 1871 NA. It seems like the Boston area, all by itself, should have contributed many more players than that. However, the game of baseball, as played in Massachusetts, differed from the game played in New York. The “New York” game took quite awhile to catch fire in the New England area (there were no players from Rhode Island, Vermont, Maine, or New Hampshire in the 1871 NA either). Essentially, most players in the 1871 NA came from Northeastern urban centers.

The deeper answer to the question of where the players came from is: They were mostly of English descent. Since baseball evolved out the British game of rounders, this is hardly a revelation. Although the specific ethnicity of every player cannot be exactly determined, the nationality of their surnames can be reviewed. But, [for example] if a player had an Italian or Spanish mother, this process would not pick that fact up. Examining the surnames of the 115 men who played in the 1871 NA, there were 68 players with (presumably) English surnames [59.1%]; there were 24 players with likely Irish (or Gaelic) surnames [20.9%]; there were 13 players with probably German surnames [11.3%], and there were 6 players with seemingly Scottish surnames [5.2%]. There were 2 players of Jewish heritage (Lipman Pike was certainly Jewish but Levi Meyerle was only possibly Jewish). Both of these Jewish men had Germanic last names [interestingly, they were both ferocious hitters and poor fielders]. There was also one surname that was of presumably French origin (Henry Berthrong) & one surname that was definitely Spanish [Esteban Bellan]. Esteban Bellan may actually be the most important historical figure in the 1871 NA. The son of a Cuban father and Irish mother who immigrated to Cuba, Bellan attended St. John’s College (now Fordham University) in New York City from 1866 to 1868. After graduating, Bellan played Baseball in the New York City area from 1868 to 1873. Then he returned home and was one of the founders of the Cuban Baseball Leagues. Finally, there is one group of players that is included only by its absence. There were no players of African-American descent in the NA. They had been banned by the National Association before the first game had even been played.

*Surnames were studied mostly through Google queries and the Surname database on FamilySearch.com [the Mormon Genealogical website].

Conclusion: A League of Young Altuves

The average [median] 1871 National Association [Major League*] player was around 23 and a half years old, stood 5 feet 8 inches tall, and weighed about 157 pounds.* He batted and threw right-handed. The player was most likely born in New York State (if not in New York City itself). He was a white male of northern European ancestry. His parents were probably of English stock. He would live to be 61 and a half years old and died in 1908 or so. Every person that he knew has been dead for over a century. In the current Major Leagues, Jose Altuve of the Houston Astros [2011 to present] is celebrated for his small size. Altuve is listed as 5 feet 6 inches tall and weighing around 166 pounds. Although he is older [presently 32 years of age] and also both slightly shorter and a little bit heavier than the average 1871 NA player, Altuve is basically the exact same size. As players usually gain weight as they age, there is actually a good chance that the average weight of those 1871 NA players was around 165 to 170 pounds when they were 32 too. Another thing that Altuve and the 1871 NA players have in common is that they don’t appear to have any fat on them at all. Pictures of the players in 1871 convey that they were either wiry and muscular or stocky and muscular. Very few of the players appear to have been in need of a diet. Perhaps, the best way to think of the 1871 National Association players is a League of young Jose Altuves (minus the tattoos).

**For those who would rather not use the median, the mean average height of an 1871 NA player was: 5 feet 8.52 inches tall [102 players/6989 inches]; and average weight was: 158.53 pounds [101 players/16012 pounds]. Basically the same statistics.

Addendum #1

Some Baseball historians do not consider the old National Association, which operated from 1871 through 1875, to be a Major League. One reason that they believe the Association should not be considered the Majors is that it let any team that could pay the initiation fees join. Another reason that they cite is one of problematic game scheduling. The Association clubs did not play a balanced schedule (an equal number of games against each opponent). But, in the final analysis, the main problem these historians have with the National Association is that they just don’t think that it was of Major League Caliber. It was an inferior League. However, the National League which followed the NA was basically just a continuation of the NA with different organizational rules. The NA was almost certainly as good as the 1876-1880 NL. The other side of this argument is the assumption that the game of Baseball was [and probably still is] evolving so rapidly that the game improves steadily decade by decade. In other words, Baseball in the 2000s was better than in the 1900s was better than the 1880s which was way better than the 1870s. In other words, the NA was simply inferior due to this evolution. Perhaps the game of Baseball does steadily improve. But the slope of that improvement is probably so gradual that it is almost imperceptible. Adrian Anson played in the Majors from 1871 to 1897. His career path is completely normal, as if the quality of the Leagues did not change over the years, even a little bit. The NA was the top League in the United States from 1871 to 1875, ipso facto it was a Major League.

Coming Attractions: Future Posts in [Hopefully] 2023

1. Short post on the upcoming January 2023 BBWAA Hall of Fame Election. Nothing to see here, move along.

2. Thirty different brief team capsules for every Major League club [including one very long one about aging for the San Francisco Giants, now well over a year in production].

3. The Problem with Major League Player’s Height and Weight Information and a solution that will not be adopted.

4. My personal and provisional All-Time Major League Baseball Top 100 List with WAR modifications and Negro League players included.

5. The tentative 100 Greatest Players from the Negro Leagues List.

6. The Major League Demographics of the 1880, 1900, 1920, 1940, 1960, 1980, 2000 and 2020 seasons. Not necessarily in that order.

7. The history of the Baseball Hall of Fame and Negro League Players; or how to screw up the process and progress of glory.

8. Where’s Winston: Negro League Demographics, Part 1 to start. Adventures in the last frontier of Major League Demographics

9. The Mysterious Career of Will Jackman [Negro League Legend] Revisited.

10. The Biography of Big Bill Smith [forgotten Negro League Legend].

11. The Legendary 1894 season of Grant (Home Run) Johnson: 60 home runs?

12. Career Paths and Injury Cascades (aka Luck of the Draw), Part 1 to start: Probably Pete Reiser or maybe Bob Feller.

13. Little fast fat men: An examination of the worst player in the Baseball Hall of Fame, Tommy McCarthy, and several of his contemporaries.

14. The True Power stat and 500 at bats: How to waste your time with baseball statistics when wondering how many home runs Ty Cobb would have hit if the Major Leagues were using a lively ball during his career.

15. Baby You’re a Rich Man: Modern players and Generational Wealth [with many thanks to Roger Clemens for saying that phrase out loud].

16. An examination of Barry Bonds career path: What if Barry Bonds hadn’t taken any Steroids?

17. Today’s Pitchers: Modern Medical Marvels [or why exactly are so many guys throwing 100 mph].

18. Any other strange topic of Baseball that may consume my time.