Biggest WAR Gaps Between First and Second Best Player by Position

[Omar 382]

I looked at the biggest difference between the WAR's of the first and second best player by position to get a gauge of how deep the position is. See if this list surprises you at all. Why is there such a difference at some positions yet very little at others?

1. Left Field- (Barry Bonds- Ted Williams): 34
2. Right Field- (Babe Ruth- Hank Aaron): 32.1
3. Short Stop- (Honus Wanger- Alex Rodriguez): 27.2
4. First Base- (Stan Musial- Lou Gehrig): 10.5
5. Third Base- (Mike Schmidt- Eddie Mathews): 10.4
6. Second Base- (Rogers Hornsby- Eddie Collins): 9.8
7. Catcher- (Johnny Bench- Gary Carter):5.4
8. Pitcher- (Roger Clemens- Cy Young): 2.2
9. Center Field- (Willie Mays- Ty Cobb): 0.6

 

[tducey]

Thanks for sharing this, lots of gaps there especially in left field which surprised me.

 

[Howie115]

Why is there such a difference at some positions yet very little at others?

PEDs for Bonds.

Ruth was simply that much better than other hitters in his era. He was hitting 50+ home runs when some entire TEAMS couldn't hit 50.

 

[SlinkyRedfoot]

PEDs for Bonds.

It's sad too, because he would have been a clear HOFer without the PEDs. Of course, then he became a fucking monster.

 

[Howie115]

It's sad too, because he would have been a clear HOFer without the PEDs. Of course, then he became a fucking monster.

I completely agree. If he kept it clean, he was a shoo-in for the HOF anyway.

 

[Omar 382]

He still should be a first-ballot Hall of Famer today

 

[night]

You kind of need to be pretty well-rounded offensively and defensively to be an elite catcher and center fielder. Right and left field are where teams put their defensive liabilities who can hit.

 

[Villain]

Barry Bonds should be in the hall of fame.

 

[Cedrique]

Maybe he'll get in as a hitting coach in a few years

 

[Cedrique]

I looked at the biggest difference between the WAR's of the first and second best player by position to get a gauge of how deep the position is. See if this list surprises you at all. Why is there such a difference at some positions yet very little at others?

1. Left Field- (Barry Bonds- Ted Williams): 34
2. Right Field- (Babe Ruth- Hank Aaron): 32.1
3. Short Stop- (Honus Wanger- Alex Rodriguez): 27.2
4. First Base- (Stan Musial- Lou Gehrig): 10.5
5. Third Base- (Mike Schmidt- Eddie Mathews): 10.4
6. Second Base- (Rogers Hornsby- Eddie Collins): 9.8
7. Catcher- (Johnny Bench- Gary Carter):5.4
8. Pitcher- (Roger Clemens- Cy Young): 2.2
9. Center Field- (Willie Mays- Ty Cobb): 0.6

I think there is less variance at catcher just because it's such a demanding position and they have a shorter career. I'm sure Bench and Carter's total WAR is much lower than outfielders or first basemen that played for 20 years so the gap will not be as big.

 

[molsaniceman]

many variables why these differ
Hank had 3000 more PAs than Ruth
Bonds used peds and teddy missed his prime years
etc etc

 

[The Q]

PEDs for Bonds.

Ruth was simply that much better than other hitters in his era. He was hitting 50+ home runs when some entire TEAMS couldn't hit 50.

Exactly, he was basically hitting the equivalent of over 100 homers in todays game.

 

[The Q]

I'm curious what the SS gap would've looked like if Derek Jeter wasn't so selfish.

 

[soxfan1468927]

Exactly, he was basically hitting the equivalent of over 100 homers in todays game.

It's even more than that. In 1920 he hit 33% more HRs than the average of every team in baseball. The equivalent of hitting 218 home runs last year.

 

[Villain]

I have to apologize in advanced for what you're about to read. I'm drinking and I made a short post into a long one. Enjoy reading my drunken baseball brainstorming.

This would be more interesting if it was of players in the same season/era versus other players in their own single-season/era. Like, how much better was Mike Trout than all the other CF when he last to Miggy? Or how much better was Kershaw than Dickey when Dickey won? That's single season, but what is the WAR gap for Trout versus all the other outfielders since his debut? Kershaw and other starters? Chapman? Kimbrel? Pujols as a Cardinal. Cano as a Yankee. Derek fucking Jeter as a shortstop. How much better was Eric Gagne than the next best closer versus x-closer in y-year?

I think this thread would take off big time if we all grabbed a few names and time frames and showed just how good (or mediocre) these guys were in terms of their position and time frame.

Here's one I'd like to see: Pedro Martinez versus Clayton Kershaw. Pedro, and how much better he was than everyone else, versus Kershaw, and how much better he was (is?) than everyone else. Maybe that's the one I should do since it's my idea.

Anyways, let's use this thread that way (or make a series of threads?). Compare the dominance of Mike Trout in the outfield today against a dominant outfielder of yesteryear (spoiler alert: Bonds was the best, is the best, and we all just need to stop drinking the haterade and admit it. Bonds was the greatest offensive outfielder to ever play the game of baseball and if you disagree it's because you're wrong. Steroids probably helped, but they probably didn't help "holyshitthatguyisthegreatestever" much. Don't be stupid. Bonds was the best. Shut up, I'm a Dodger fan and I fucking hate that guy. Stop being wrong and making me defend him.)

Anyhooo.....

Back to the idea of the thread: It's fun to look back and remember these dudes when they were at the peak. We get so jaded by fandom, homerism, and eye-rollingly stupid contracts that we discount things.

I'm not a baseball historian, but I'm sure I'd be interested if some of you guys when and thought of dominant guys from back in the day and compared them in single-season or 5, 7, 10 year samples to their competitors. Like, how does Jackie Robinson stack up with all the other 2nd baseman for his day versus today's dominant 2nd baseman (and his competition)? Ted Williams? Babe Ruth? Honus Wagner? Mickey Mantle? Willie Mays?

Was the best 1st baseman of all time the most dominant 1st baseman of all time (Stan or Lou?), the most dominant in terms of WAR gap between him and his era? Let's find out.

I'll do Clayton and Pedro. Spoiler alert: I haven't looked anything up, but I'm expecting Pedro to win. We'll see....

Thanks for reading that gibberish!

 

[DragonfromTO]

I have to apologize in advanced for what you're about to read. I'm drinking and I made a short post into a long one. Enjoy reading my drunken baseball brainstorming.

This would be more interesting if it was of players in the same season/era versus other players in their own single-season/era. Like, how much better was Mike Trout than all the other CF when he last to Miggy? Or how much better was Kershaw than Dickey when Dickey won? That's single season, but what is the WAR gap for Trout versus all the other outfielders since his debut? Kershaw and other starters? Chapman? Kimbrel? Pujols as a Cardinal. Cano as a Yankee. Derek fucking Jeter as a shortstop. How much better was Eric Gagne than the next best closer versus x-closer in y-year?

I think this thread would take off big time if we all grabbed a few names and time frames and showed just how good (or mediocre) these guys were in terms of their position and time frame.

Here's one I'd like to see: Pedro Martinez versus Clayton Kershaw. Pedro, and how much better he was than everyone else, versus Kershaw, and how much better he was (is?) than everyone else. Maybe that's the one I should do since it's my idea.

Anyways, let's use this thread that way (or make a series of threads?). Compare the dominance of Mike Trout in the outfield today against a dominant outfielder of yesteryear (spoiler alert: Bonds was the best, is the best, and we all just need to stop drinking the haterade and admit it. Bonds was the greatest offensive outfielder to ever play the game of baseball and if you disagree it's because you're wrong. Steroids probably helped, but they probably didn't help "holyshitthatguyisthegreatestever" much. Don't be stupid. Bonds was the best. Shut up, I'm a Dodger fan and I fucking hate that guy. Stop being wrong and making me defend him.)

Anyhooo.....

Back to the idea of the thread: It's fun to look back and remember these dudes when they were at the peak. We get so jaded by fandom, homerism, and eye-rollingly stupid contracts that we discount things.

I'm not a baseball historian, but I'm sure I'd be interested if some of you guys when and thought of dominant guys from back in the day and compared them in single-season or 5, 7, 10 year samples to their competitors. Like, how does Jackie Robinson stack up with all the other 2nd baseman for his day versus today's dominant 2nd baseman (and his competition)? Ted Williams? Babe Ruth? Honus Wagner? Mickey Mantle? Willie Mays?

Was the best 1st baseman of all time the most dominant 1st baseman of all time (Stan or Lou?), the most dominant in terms of WAR gap between him and his era? Let's find out.

I'll do Clayton and Pedro. Spoiler alert: I haven't looked anything up, but I'm expecting Pedro to win. We'll see....

Thanks for reading that gibberish!

The problem you run into with that type of comparison is that it tends to overrate the player it's focusing on, because that player's career overlaps perfectly with the time frame being looked at.

 

[night]

PEDs for Bonds.

Ruth was simply that much better than other hitters in his era. He was hitting 50+ home runs when some entire TEAMS couldn't hit 50.

Are you sure it's only PEDs for Bonds? Today's hitters are coddled. Compared to Ruth's era the fences are closer, the strike zone is smaller (to the letters my ass), pitchers can't intentionally throw the ball at the batter, and they didn't have body armor to hang over the plate with. The other stuff doesn't seem so bad compared to being able to hang over the plate with elbow pads and stuff. That shouldn't be allowed at all.

 

[Omar 382]

Are you sure it's only PEDs for Bonds? Today's hitters are coddled. Compared to Ruth's era the fences are closer, the strike zone is smaller (to the letters my ass), pitchers can't intentionally throw the ball at the batter, and they didn't have body armor to hang over the plate with. The other stuff doesn't seem so bad compared to being able to hang over the plate with elbow pads and stuff. That shouldn't be allowed at all.

But then Ruth only faced caucasian players, never faced pitchers on PED's, and was sandwiched right into one of the greatest lineups of all time

 

[Villain]

PEDs for Bonds.

Ruth was simply that much better than other hitters in his era. He was hitting 50+ home runs when some entire TEAMS couldn't hit 50.

He never faced 100mph heaters from the Caribbean either.