All-Time Sox vs. the Galaxy: Batters/Fielders

DJnVa · Aug 30, 2018

I was going to make an argument for Vern Stephens 1949 at SS, but a cursory glance shows me that Petrocelli trumps him on offense (although it's close) and basic defensive numbers shows Petrocelli beats him there too.

johnmd20 · Aug 30, 2018

If the fate of the earth hangs in the balance, you simply have to get Big Papi in the game. I don't care how, but he's the one who would save the world.

Spelunker · Aug 30, 2018

As always, any time I see Ted's stats they just don't look real to me. It's like someone playing through a season in a video game with the difficulty turned down.

bankshot1 · Aug 30, 2018

Depends who's pitching for the Aliens.

Junkballer crafty lefty-maybe Rico gets some wind blown pop ups to the Monster seats

But Nomar pre-wrist injury was a better hitter and a better bet to get on base than Rico

5 over 6 for the the guy playing 6

SirPsychoSquints · Aug 30, 2018

For reference, all batting seasons above 6 WAR in Red Sox history, - I've listed the 2 highest at each position:

12.5 Yaz 1967 LF
10.9 Williams 1946 LF
10.6 Williams 1942 LF (DH here I guess)
10.6 Williams 1941 LF (DH here I guess)
10.1 Speaker 1912 CF
10.0 Petrocelli 1969 SS
10.0 Speaker 1912 CF
9.7 Mookie 2016 RF
9.5 Yaz 1970 1B
9.1 Boggs 1985 3B
8.8 (so far) Mookie 2018 RF
8.4 Boggs 1989 3B
8.3 Valentin 1995 SS
8.0 Pedroia 2011 2B
7.6 Foxx 1938 1B
7.3 Fisk 1972 C
7.0 Fisk 1975
6.9 Pedroia 2008 2B

SirPsychoSquints · Aug 30, 2018

SirPsychoSquints said:
For reference, all batting seasons above 6 WAR in Red Sox history, - I've listed the 2 highest at each position:

12.5 Yaz 1967 LF

10.9 Williams 1946 LF

10.6 Williams 1942 LF (DH here I guess)

10.6 Williams 1941 LF (DH here I guess)

10.1 Speaker 1912 CF

10.0 Petrocelli 1969 SS

10.0 Speaker 1912 CF

9.7 Mookie 2016 RF

9.5 Yaz 1970 1B

9.1 Boggs 1985 3B

8.8 (so far) Mookie 2018 RF

8.4 Boggs 1989 3B

8.3 Valentin 1995 SS

8.0 Pedroia 2011 2B

7.6 Foxx 1938 1B

7.3 Fisk 1972 C

7.0 Fisk 1975

6.9 Pedroia 2008 2B

And the list of all seasons with 25 or more batting runs (this ignores defensive, positional & baserunning value) - again, I've listed the strongest seasons for each position

101.1 Williams 1941 LF
86.8 Williams 1946 LF
86.6 Williams 1942 LF (DH here)
82.8 Williams 1947 LF (DH here)
74.0 Foxx 1938 1B
69.1 Speaker 1912 CF
66.3 Yaz 1970 1B
58.5 Boggs 1988 3B
58.1 Boggs 1987 3B
54.5 Lynn 1979 CF
53.5 Williams 1939 RF
51.2 (so far) Mookie 2018 RF
48.6 Rico 1969 SS
45.4 Nomar 1999 SS
38.1 Doerr 1944 2B
35.8 Fisk 1972 C
26.2 Pedroia 2011 2B
25.0 Fisk 1977 C

The problem with looking at either of the two lists I just posted is the conversation we had recently, about modern players likely being much better than their historic counterparts - the above lists are all against their competition.

mwonow · Aug 30, 2018

johnmd20 said:
If the fate of the earth hangs in the balance, you simply have to get Big Papi in the game. I don't care how, but he's the one who would save the world.

Second that - whenever the biggest at-bat of the series comes, I want Papi at the plate

Spelunker said:
As always, any time I see Ted's stats they just don't look real to me. It's like someone playing through a season in a video game with the difficulty turned down.

...or Ted

Plus, FWIW, I'd start Speaker and have Lynn of the bench

Ale Xander · Aug 30, 2018

I've decided I'm going to Proctorize Foulke and Radatz since it's only 9 games in the season, and going with a 9* man rotation. (Papelbon and Uehara my short guys from the other thread. I've soured on Kimbrel, and also dropping Burg).

1. Mookie, RF 2016/2018 (R) (depends how he finishes)
2. Williams, DH, 1941 (L) (good at going opposite way, will be doing H&R's w/ MB to stay out of the DP)
3. Manny, LF, 2002 (R)
4. Foxx, 1B, 1938 (R) (pinch hit for late in games, if necessary, to break up RRR)
5. Garciaparra, SS, 2000 (R)
6. Boggs 3B, 1987 (L)
7. Fisk, C, 1977 (R)
8. Doerr, 2B, 1944 (R)
9. Ellsbury, CF, 2011 (L) (Second leadoff)

Bench:
DOF Evans, 1981 (R)
PR/5OF Speaker, 1912 (L) (A little too much CS for my liking but better hitter than Roberts, will PH for Ellsbury. Mookie moves to Cf, Evans comes in at RF, if necessary, or can keep TS in)
PH/1B Ortiz, 2007 (L). Can pick one of several season, will pick best OBP in the bunch that ended in a ring. Need a LH bat
2B/team mascot, Pedroia, 2008 (R)
SS/3B Petrocelli, 1969 (R)
C/Captain Varitek, 2004 (S)
Swing (P/OF) Ruth, 1918 (L) (I'll take the better pitching year, and he led the league in SLG anyway)

Toughest omissions:
Yaz
Rice

Semi-tough omissions
Beltre
JDM
Lynn
Roberts

Holt (just kidding)

Manager, Francona (subject to change)
Team represented on the WS winning teams from 1912, 1918, 2004, 2007, 2013, and hopefully 2018 if Mookie has 2 more good months

Ale Xander · Aug 31, 2018

The Allented Mr Ripley said:
You leave Yaz's 1967 off, I question whether you know anything about baseball.

HAHA true. I just actually loved to watch Manny play so I am biased there, and there are (un) fortunately only so many LF/DH I can carry on a 25 man roster. Firstworld problem leaving off Yaz. I'm sure things would be different if I was 20 years older.

Ale Xander · Aug 31, 2018

The Allented Mr Ripley said:
Love/bias aside, Yaz's 1967 was better than anything Manny put up, to say nothing of Yaz being a Gold Glove fielder. I wasn't alive for '67, but I know this.

But then again, the thread concept was hopefully supposed to be interesting/engaging, so I don't mean to shout anyone down.

Your team needs more Latin Flava, Rip.

Plus Manny has 57 OPS points on Yaz.

Reverend · Aug 31, 2018

johnmd20 said:
If the fate of the earth hangs in the balance, you simply have to get Big Papi in the game. I don't care how, but he's the one who would save the world.

The Allented Mr Ripley said:
Believe me, I was torn. In fact, going back to the pitching staff construction thread and looking at my choices, I don't think I'd hesitate to drop a reliever to open up a spot for Ortiz*, even though he'd be pretty redundant behind Ted at DH and Foxx at 1B. Foxx hit righties as well as Ortiz did (or better), despite being right-handed himself, so it makes it tough even from a matchup perspective.

*Although in a 9-game series, something tells me I'd want that extra arm.

mwonow said:
Second that - whenever the biggest at-bat of the series comes, I want Papi at the plate

...or Ted

Plus, FWIW, I'd start Speaker and have Lynn of the bench

Without Papi, who gives the "B*d m*therfucker" speech?

reggiecleveland · Aug 31, 2018

I play this game to make myslef fall asleep. Many night the "Ted vs Papi" ends unresolved.

Obviously compared to his contemporaries Ted, Ruth or Mutant Bonds is the best hitter ever.

How do I get Papi into the discussion?
Ted the choker is mostly thrown at him by writers that hated him, but if any case for Papi being not clutch some NY writer would have tried. I assume Shank had a "The only way Papi is clutch is clutching at straws" on his hard drive that went unpublished.
Ted himself spoke about trouble with the slider that was coming into play in the late 50s.
How would the shift in 100% of his at bats affected Ted?
Titles can be overrated but they are not nothing.

Tokyo Sox · Aug 31, 2018

The Allented Mr Ripley said:
With this is mind, these are the position players I will send to do battle against the Intergalacatic All-Stars. I had a 12-man pitching staff in the other thread, so I'm going with a 13-man bench for position players:

C - Carlton Fisk, 1977 season; Jason Varitek, 2003 season (honorable mention: Rich Gedman, 1985)
1B - Jimmie Foxx, 1938 season (honorable mentions: Mo Vaughn, 1996; Walt Dropo, 1950)
2B - Bobby Doerr, 1944 season; Dustin Pedroia, 2008 season
SS - Rico Petrocelli, 1969 season; Nomar Garciaparra, 2000 season
3B - Wade Boggs, 1987 season (honorable mentions: Adrian Beltre, 2010; Eddie Collins, 1901)
LF - Carl Yastrzemski, 1967 season (honorable mentions: Jim Rice, 1978; Manny Ramirez, 2002)
CF - Fred Lynn, 1979 season; Tris Speaker, 1912 season (honorable mention: Jacoby Ellsbury, 2011)
RF - Mookie Betts, 2018 season (honorable mentions: Dwight Evans, 1981; Jackie Jensen, 1958)
DH - Ted Williams, 1941 season (honorable mentions: J.D. Martinez, 2018; David Ortiz, 2016)

My batting lineup (with season stats, league leader in bold):

1. Mookie Betts, RF (.340/.429/.637, OPS+ 182) *through 8/29/18
2. Wade Boggs, 3B (.363/.461/.588, OPS+ 174)
3. Carl Yastrzemski, LF (.326/.418/.622, OPS+ 193)
4. Ted Williams, DH (.406/.553/.735, OPS+ 235)
5. Jimmie Foxx, 1B (.349/.462/.704, OPS+ 182)
6. Fred Lynn, CF (.333/.423/.637, OPS+ 176)
7. Rico Petrocelli, SS (.297/.403/.589, OPS +168)
8. Carlton Fisk, C (.315/.402/.521, OPS+ 138)
9. Bobby Doerr, 2B (.325/.399/.528, OPS +165)

General thoughts: I can't believe that neither Jim Rice's 1978 nor Manny Ramirez's 2002 can make this team, but that's what you get when you have Yaz and Ted in front of you. I could drop either Pedroia or Nomar and carry another OFer, but that leaves me thin in the infield, and Ted is the de facto 5th outfielder already, we don't need 6. Nomar and Pedroia give me bench speed if I need it, too. Nomar/Rico was the closest battle in terms of starting position, I just think Rico's offense was nuts in the context of the 1969 season for his position. The Doerr/Pedroia debate is not far behind, you could make a good argument for Pedroia given the watered-down competition in Doerr's 1944 due to WWII.

Hard to believe Ortiz or JD Martinez won't be on the roster either.

It's hard to quibble too much with your well-researched and constructed OP, but a few minor changes for me:
2B - I'm starting Pedroia, Doerr to the bench. The offensive gap isn't that huge, there is something to the watered-down argument against Doerr, and Pedroia's defense is a difference maker. Doerr is on the bench.

Bench: Sorry Nomah, you're out. I'm making room for Papi. We're not then thin in the IF because Mookie can come in and play 2nd in a pinch. And I'm dropping Tris Speaker because dafuq I know about Tris Speaker, and letting my recency bias make room for 2018 JD Martinez, who is as complete a hitter as the game has right now. Now off the bench you've got peak Papi as your LHH and peak JDM as your RHH.

Lineup: I'm flipping Betts and Boggs -- Boggs with the higher OBP leading off, Mookie with more pop in the 2-hole. Also prevents you from having three straight LHH. Lastly it just seems like Ted should hit 3rd but hard to go wrong either way with that one.

Devizier · Aug 31, 2018

It still blows my mind that Mookie is going to displace Babe Ruth on the all-time greatest list of Red Sox outfielders.

Red(s)HawksFan · Aug 31, 2018

Devizier said:
It still blows my mind that Mookie is going to displace Babe Ruth on the all-time greatest list of Red Sox outfielders.

To be fair to Ruth, he wasn't really an outfielder until his last couple years with the Red Sox (170 total games played in the OF). In fact, his 1916 season as a pitcher has some merit to be considered for the pitching staff on this all time team...23-12, 1.75 ERA, 323.1 IP, 1.075 WHIP, 9 SHO in 40 starts.

Ale Xander · Aug 31, 2018

The Allented Mr Ripley said:
Which season is this?

2002
1.097 v. 1.040 for Mr. 1967

SirPsychoSquints · Aug 31, 2018

Ale Xander said:
2002
1.097 v. 1.040 for Mr. 1967

In 1967, teams averaged 3.8 runs per game. In 2002, they averaged 4.6.

Manny's 2002 season, converted to the 2018 run environment, is .335/.435/.619 - OPS 1.055
Yaz's 1967 season, converted to the 2018 run environment, is .333/.425/.636 - OPS 1.061

And Yaz had around 1/3 more PA's than Manny.

Edit: Added links

Ale Xander · Aug 31, 2018

SirPsychoSquints said:
In 1967, teams averaged 3.8 runs per game.

Probably because they wasted too many outs bunting.

SirPsychoSquints · Aug 31, 2018

Ale Xander said:
Probably because they wasted too many outs bunting.

ha

Edit: Because I bothered to look it up, in 2002, teams had .14 MORE SB per game (34% more) and .03 fewer CS (9% fewer), plus .12 fewer SH (26% fewer).

Edit2: It went from a 59% SB rate to 68%.

williams_482 · Aug 31, 2018

SirPsychoSquints said:
In 1967, teams averaged 3.8 runs per game. In 2002, they averaged 4.6.

Manny's 2002 season, converted to the 2018 run environment, is .335/.435/.619 - OPS 1.055
Yaz's 1967 season, converted to the 2018 run environment, is .333/.425/.636 - OPS 1.061

And Yaz had around 1/3 more PA's than Manny.

Edit: Added links

Taken straight Manny's line would be better (10 points of OBP vs 17 points of SLG), but a good chunk of that is intentional walks. Yaz drew 91 walks (11 of them intentional) in '67, while Manny drew 73 total, 14 intentional in '02.

if we look at wRC+, which is park and league adjusted and ignores IBBs, Yaz beats Manny 194 to 185.

And then we move on to defense...

Reverend · Aug 31, 2018

The Allented Mr Ripley said:
An interesting wrinkle would be to include Babe Ruth as both a pitcher and a position player to clear up a roster spot, but to do that, you'd have to use the same season for both his batting and pitching stats. During his Sox career he was pretty clearly dominant in one area or the other, not both, so to me it's not worth the gymnastics (1919 comes the closest: he won the Triple Crown of slash stats, but his ERA+ was 102).

Argue away!

Red(s)HawksFan said:
To be fair to Ruth, he wasn't really an outfielder until his last couple years with the Red Sox (170 total games played in the OF). In fact, his 1916 season as a pitcher has some merit to be considered for the pitching staff on this all time team...23-12, 1.75 ERA, 323.1 IP, 1.075 WHIP, 9 SHO in 40 starts.

So yeah, this is a quandary--like @The Allented Mr Ripley implied, there is an issue of stats and player. And we see this on the board all the time when stats and quality are interchanged and conflated.

We're getting Ruth the player, right? Not his stats line. And the control of the Earth hanging in the balance, we want the best player. That statistics are what we use to gauge quality, but what if we have additional information to include along with the stats?

In September 1918, it is argued that Ruth wanted to be a two-way player and provides evidence that he may well could have succeeded for a time (even Ruth said he'd only be able to pull it off while he was young and is quoted as such) but old school manager Old Man Barrows* wouldn't have it--too wild and crazy, or maybe his enduring ego war with Ruth.

Fate of the Earth. Are we gonna keep Ruth off the team along with the increased roster flexibility he brings--to say nothing of the guy, as much as I hate to say it, could give the Bad Motherfucker Speech--just because his manager was a retrograde jerk?

*It's worth noting that Barrows was, apparently, a disciple of the H. Montgomery Burns School of Baseball Management (later renamed "Wharton"):

Tokyo Sox said:
Lineup: I'm flipping Betts and Boggs -- Boggs with the higher OBP leading off, Mookie with more pop in the 2-hole. Also prevents you from having three straight LHH. Lastly it just seems like Ted should hit 3rd but hard to go wrong either way with that one.

I completely agree with your reasoning.

One caveat: Betts and Boggs don't. Boggs was especially annoyed that his RBI totals were depressed by being a lead off guy. And Betts seems to be sold on being awesome lead off guy.

Can they get over their shit for the good of the planet? I feel confident about Mookie. Boggs was my favorite player growing up, but man... it might be easier to keep him happy and work around it.

uk_sox_fan · Aug 31, 2018

Before we get into a serious discussion on the pitching, I would be remiss if I didn't point out the obvious advantages that having Spaceman Bill Lee (73 version) on the roster against the Aliens.

BrazilianSoxFan · Sep 1, 2018

We should be careful not to overvalue defense. 9 games is not enough for it to come close to normalizing, so, while we should put some weight to it, offense should carry the choices.

And do both teams pick blind, or one presents their team first and the other responds? If we're the first to choose we must be careful not to leave big weaknesses that could be exploited. On the other hand, picking second we could tailor the team to crush their deficiencies.

williams_482 · Sep 1, 2018

BrazilianSoxFan said:
We should be careful not to overvalue defense. 9 games is not enough for it to come close to normalizing, so, while we should put some weight to it, offense should carry the choices.

Defensive metrics take time to stabilize, but that doesn't mean established defensive talent is inherently less valuable over a smaller span of games.

Sure, over 9 games it's possible that you will have an unusually small number of "contested" balls in play where good defenders make a difference, but you could just as easily have a disproportionately large number.

Reverend · Sep 1, 2018

Point of information:

Does our drafting Ruth preclude the aliens from drafting Ruth?

williams_482 · Sep 1, 2018

Reverend said:
Point of information:

Does our drafting Ruth preclude the aliens from drafting Ruth?

This is a huge question.

If yes, you have to include him somewhere. It also makes Roger Clemens, Cy Young, Jimmie Foxx, Wade Boggs, and Pedro all the more worthy of inclusion.

jaytftwofive · Sep 4, 2018

Didn't Ted win two triple crowns???

Reverend · Sep 4, 2018

The Allented Mr Ripley said:
Yes, he did.

I think this exercise is more interesting than it initially appears to be.

AB in DC · Sep 4, 2018

But there's been little discussion about possibly the most important part of Ripley's scenario:

The Allented Mr Ripley said:
But they stack the deck, of course: through their alien technology, they can summon any ballplayer from any given year to play for their side. Their one concession is they'll leave us the entire Red Sox roster throughout history for our side.

Think about it. Does everyone really think that a 1912 Speaker or a 1938 Foxx or a 1944 Doerr would be able to hit 21st century pitching? Suppose the aliens were throwing something like 2002 Randy Johnson, 2013 Kershaw, 2017 Scherzer, and 2018 deGrom. Maybe 1995 Greg Maddux for a change of pace. Would any pre-modern hitter even have a prayer?

SirPsychoSquints · Sep 4, 2018

AB in DC said:
But there's been little discussion about possibly the most important part of Ripley's scenario:

Think about it. Does everyone really think that a 1912 Speaker or a 1938 Foxx or a 1944 Doerr would be able to hit 21st century pitching? Suppose the aliens were throwing something like 2002 Randy Johnson, 2013 Kershaw, 2017 Scherzer, and 2018 deGrom. Maybe 1995 Greg Maddux for a change of pace. Would any pre-modern hitter even have a prayer?

Unfortunately, using that lens makes every pick a more recent one. Give a 1% discount rate per yet, and your WAR leaders in Sox history are:

Mookie 2016
Mookie 2018
Ellsbury 2011
Yaz 1967 (wow, 12.5 WAR reduced to 7.5)
Pedroia 2011
Beltre 2010
Valentin 1995
Boggs 1985
Gonzalez 2011
Yaz 1968
Mookie 2017
Boggs 1989
Pedroia 2008
Nomar 2000
Boggs 1988

Less recency than I expected. You bump that discount rate higher or lower, and it makes a big impact. But you need a half a percent to get Ted into the top 10 and a tenth of a percent discount rate to get Speaker into the top 10, and I don't think those are realistic.

Reverend · Sep 4, 2018

SirPsychoSquints said:
Unfortunately, using that lens makes every pick a more recent one. Give a 1% discount rate per yet, and your WAR leaders in Sox history are:

Mookie 2016

Mookie 2018

Ellsbury 2011

Yaz 1967 (wow, 12.5 WAR reduced to 7.5)

Pedroia 2011

Beltre 2010

Valentin 1995

Boggs 1985

Gonzalez 2011

Yaz 1968

Mookie 2017

Boggs 1989

Pedroia 2008

Nomar 2000

Boggs 1988

Less recency than I expected. You bump that discount rate higher or lower, and it makes a big impact. But you need a half a percent to get Ted into the top 10 and a tenth of a percent discount rate to get Speaker into the top 10, and I don't think those are realistic.

I thought this was a really interesting way to think about this. I played with it a bit, though, and have another way of thinking about the same thing.

Do we believe that players are 65% better than they were in 1967? Because that's what 1% would entail.

I'm not sure how you would quantify it, since they're all playing each other--how much better are the players, collectively, at baseball?

SirPsychoSquints · Sep 4, 2018

Reverend said:
I thought this was a really interesting way to think about this. I played with it a bit, though, and have another way of thinking about the same thing.

Do we believe that players are 65% better than they were in 1967? Because that's what 1% would entail.

I'm not sure how you would quantify it, since they're all playing each other--how much better are the players, collectively, at baseball?

I don’t know how to quantify it. I know the “timeline adjustment” has been calculated before, but I couldn’t find any articles using google.

But yes, at a gut level, to say an extraordinary performance in 1967 would merit downballot mvp support in 2018 is reasonable. To me.

Reverend · Sep 4, 2018

SirPsychoSquints said:
I don’t know how to quantify it. I know the “timeline adjustment” has been calculated before, but I couldn’t find any articles using google.

But yes, at a gut level, to say an extraordinary performance in 1967 would merit downballot mvp support in 2018 is reasonable. To me.

I agree. But what I mean is, if you use 1967 as a base, at 1% per year--which I found reasonable when you proposed it--that would yield an overall level of play on a per individual basis (there could even be greater team effects from having better individuals, but bracket that) that is 65% better than 1967.

So the 1% sounded reasonable. The 65%... I'm not so sure about. And yet, they are aspects of the same function, just looked at from different angles. So buying one and not the other is a contradiction.

So now... I dunno.

So I asked you.

Reverend · Sep 4, 2018

Thank you for the terminology!

Edit: Some stuff in Baseball Between the Numbers.

SirPsychoSquints · Sep 4, 2018

Reverend said:
Thank you for the terminology!

Edit: Some stuff in Baseball Between the Numbers.

View attachment 22967

I own that book! Thanks for pointing me in the right direction.

I think for purposes of our discussion, the "time machine adjustment," the harsh one that penalizes players for not only their competition, but also their lack of access to modern training & diet, would be the appropriate one - rather than the "timeline adjustment," which is only for competition and assumes the players can improve their diet and training and bats and such.

I can't find any up to date listings of league difficulty out there, so I'll use an example from the book. It suggests the league difficulty in 1941 AL was .969, and in 2005 AL it was 1.159. If I'm reading the book and doing my math correctly, that implies a quarter percentage point (28 basis points) per year. I'm a little surprised it came out that slow.

If you apply that discount rate, then we're talking about:

Yaz 1967
Mookie 2016
Yaz 1968
Mookie 2018
Ted 1946
Rico 1969
Ted 1942
Ted 1941
Yaz 1970
Boggs 1985
Ted 1957
Ellsbury 2011
Ted 1947
Lynn 1979
Pedroia 2011

Of course, it might not be appropriate to apply the league adjustment designed for EqA to WAR. Not sure.

Reverend · Sep 4, 2018

SirPsychoSquints said:
Of course, it might not be appropriate to apply the league adjustment designed for EqA to WAR. Not sure.

Well, surely if each are accurate measures of true player quality as aggregated over the performance of all players, then it shouldn't matter, eh?

All-Time Sox vs. the Galaxy: Batters/Fielders

holden

Dorito Dawg

mad dog

Member

holden

Member

Member

Member

Member

Hamilton

holden

Hamilton

holden

Hamilton

for king and country

sublime

holden

Baka Gaijin

Member

Member

Hamilton

Member

Hamilton

Member

Member

for king and country

Member

Member

Member

for king and country

Member

New Member

holden

for king and country

OG Football Writing

Member

for king and country

Member

for king and country

for king and country

Member

for king and country