Top 32 tournament CF Speaker vs DiMaggio

[obxyankeefan]

Top 32 players ranked by BRWAR(as of 6/18/15).

Centerfield Bracket is:

1 W Mays 9
32 M Cameron 0

16 J Wynn 8
17 C Lemon 3

8 C Beltran 10
25 E Burks 1

9 D Snider 9
24 F Lynn 0

4 M Mantle 9
29 E Averill 0

13 W Davis 5
20 C Cedeno 4

5 K Griffey JR 13
28 B Williams 0

12 A Jones 9
21 J O' Rourke 0

3 T Speaker 6
30 D White 0

14 J Edmonds 12
19 V Pinson 1

6 J DiMaggio 4
27 B Butler 0

11 B Hamilton 2
22 K Puckett 7

2 T Cobb 9
31 T Leach 0

15 J Damon 7
18 M Carey 6

7 K Lofton 12
26 L Doby 3

10 R Ashhburn 6
23 T Hunter 1

1 W Mays 8
16 J Wynn 0

8 C Beltran 0
9 D Snider 9

4 M Mantle 11
13 W Davis 0

5 K Griffey JR 11
12 A Jones 0

3 T Speaker 10
14 J Edmonds 0

6 J DiMaggio 12
22 K Puckett 1

2 T Cobb 12
15 J Damon 0

7 K Lofton 7
10 R Ashburn 3

1 W Mays 5
9 D Snider 0

4 M Mantle 11
5 K Griffey JR 1

3 T Speaker
6 J dmaggio

2 T Cobb
7 K Lofton

1 W Mays
4 M Mantle

 

[obxyankeefan]

Tris Speaker Statistics and History | Baseball-Reference.com
Beat Devon White and Jim Edmonds 16-0

Joe DiMaggio Statistics and History | Baseball-Reference.com
Beat Brett Butler and Kirby Puckett 16-1

 

[obxyankeefan]

This was closer than I thought it was. I went with Speaker in the end because of longevity.

 

[calsnowskier]

OPS+ (DiMaggio/Speaker)
120 - 12/18
130 - 11/16
140 - 10/16
150 - 8/13
160 - 6/10
170 - 4/9
180 - 2/4

This APPEARS to be a slam-dunk for Speaker. But Joe D lost 4 years right in the prime of his career to the war. Speaker still wins this analysis, but it is actually much closer than it looks when put in context.

Base Running - Speaker has a ton of SBs, but he was not a good base stealer. He was typically only at about a 50% success rate. DiMaggio did not run, but he was also not caught. Because of Speaker's bad rates, I consider this a wash.

Accolades
The ASG did not exist in Speaker's day, so it is hard to compare that. For the record, though, DiMaggio was an all-star EVERY YEAR. That is impressive and needs to be mentioned.

DiMaggio won 3 MVPs and finished top 10 a total of 10 times. Speaker won 1 MVP and was top 10 a total of 3 times.

Summary
I discount some of DiMaggio's accolades because of the "NY Effect". Not that he was unworthy of praise, but that he got additional praise because of the team he was on and where he played. Speaker was an absolute stud, but played in Cleveland (and Boston, granted) and in an era where there weren't as many accolades getting handed out.

In a VERY close one, I am going with Speaker.

 

[UK Cowboy]

I went Speaker because he was simply amazing offensively and defensively, but Joe D missing prime years is tough to discount. It would be interesting to see the numbers if guys like Joe D, Bob Feller and Ralph Kiner if they had the benifit of uninterrupted careers

 

[Cedrique]

Dimaggio had an amazing career considering he came back after 3 years of military service and had 5 more very solid years is impressive. But Speaker was amazing. He averaged 7 hrs a year and still had a lifetime .500 slugging pct. He played in an era when fielding was atrocious compared to today so the object was to keep the ball in play. And in 22 years he struck out 394 times. That's like 3 years worth of K's for Reggie Jackson (or a year and a half for Ryan Howard or Mark Reynolds)

 

[StanMarsh51]

OPS+ (DiMaggio/Speaker)

DiMaggio won 3 MVPs and finished top 10 a total of 10 times. Speaker won 1 MVP and was top 10 a total of 3 times.
.

Not sure if Seaker would've won more MVPs (since he was in a league with Ruth and Gehrig), but from 1915-1921 there were no MVPs awarded in baseball, and from 1922-1929 there was a silly rule where players can only win MVPs once.

 

[calsnowskier]

Not sure if Seaker would've won more MVPs (since he was in a league with Ruth and Gehrig), but from 1915-1921 there were no MVPs awarded in baseball, and from 1922-1929 there was a silly rule where players can only win MVPs once.

I never heard the "only once" rule, and I was too lazy to look up the exact year the MVP started and when it disappeared for a few years. I figured he was effected by some of that but did not mention it since I was not certain.

 

[StanMarsh51]

I never heard the "only once" rule, and I was too lazy to look up the exact year the MVP started and when it disappeared for a few years. I figured he was effected by some of that but did not mention it since I was not certain.

Yea, if it weren't for those two situations Ruth might've won 10 MVPs instead of 1.

 

[calsnowskier]

Yea, if it weren't for those two situations Ruth might've won 10 MVPs instead of 1.

They were also only giving one per year back then. And there were not as many teams. And the game was segregated. And...

 

[Cedrique]

They were also only giving one per year back then. And there were not as many teams. And the game was segregated. And...

Yeah, but you gotta admit-if you look at the year he had in 1916, if the MVP award existed that year and he wasn't even in the top 10 or 15 something was wrong with the voting.

 

[calsnowskier]

Yeah, but you gotta admit-if you look at the year he had in 1916, if the MVP award existed that year and he wasn't even in the top 10 or 15 something was wrong with the voting.

I was not trying to minimize your argument. I was just taking it to the next level.

Basically, judging a guys accolades for that era is a next to worthless endeavor.

 

[Cedrique]

I was not trying to minimize your argument. I was just taking it to the next level.

Basically, judging a guys accolades for that era is a next to worthless endeavor.

Actually, the argument/discussion was with a different guy. I just jumped in because I was reading it and looked at Speaker's stats and noticed the year he had in 1916 where he led the league in a ton of offensive categories and it didn't show any MVP votes so I figured that was a year when they didn't have the MVP. Yeah, you're right it is kind of pointless to judge based on accolades (or lack of accolades) in the early years since they didn't always have them. Even in the modern era I pay more attention to whether a guy was getting MVP votes than whether he won or came in 2nd, 3rd or 10th, because the voters can be biased, sentimental, or misled by stats like RBI, which isn't always a great indicator.

 

[calsnowskier]

Actually, the argument/discussion was with a different guy. I just jumped in because I was reading it and looked at Speaker's stats and noticed the year he had in 1916 where he led the league in a ton of offensive categories and it didn't show any MVP votes so I figured that was a year when they didn't have the MVP. Yeah, you're right it is kind of pointless to judge based on accolades (or lack of accolades) in the early years since they didn't always have them. Even in the modern era I pay more attention to whether a guy was getting MVP votes than whether he won or came in 2nd, 3rd or 10th, because the voters can be biased, sentimental, or misled by stats like RBI, which isn't always a great indicator.

The awards are just glorified lists. And as in the case with lists, the actual order gets too much weight. In general, there is next to zero difference between spots 4, 5 and 6. The reader should look at the list more as a starting spot to begin their own research.

But when I look at how many times a guy finished top 10 in MVP voting, it is an admitted arbitrary value (just like 200 hits or 100 RBI are arbitrary levels), but it gives an idea of how many "special" seasons a guy had. That just doesn't work in the old days because the MVP was consistently given and, as you educated me on, players could only collect 1 MVP in their career.

 

[Howie115]

Speaker played through an era where there were several .400 hitters, yet he only hit 20 points higher than DiMaggio. Joltin' Joe lost three prime years to military service, and still hit 361 home runs playing half of his games in a ball park that was very tough on right-handed hitters. I've gotta go with Joe.

 

[wood20ks]

In a very close call Speaker....... Not sure why either.(I guess cause was the higher seed)