We are pleased to release version 3.1 of our era-adjusted stats, computed via Full House Modeling, for comparing baseball players across eras. This document presents updated all-time rankings and a variety of new findings through the lens of era-adjusted metrics.

What follows is more than numbers: it is a baseball canon, parallel to familiar rankings and stories but grounded in a fuller accounting of context. By re-anchoring debates in era-adjusted WAR and related measures, we aim to present a universe where the greats of every era can be compared on fairer terms, a universe that you can explore and even expand.

Although casual and fun in tone, some sections are more technical and may challenge your intuition. This is not meant to be a quick or polished read; it is best approached in pieces rather than all at once.

List of Topics

Sections on Luis Tiant, Mark Buehrle, and Bob Feller will be better appreciated if read together. Our commentary on the rankings is intentionally minimal. We expand analysis as we explore each topic, beginning with a career exploration on Mike Trout. This presentation builds upon the structure and goals of Version 2.1 of the project.

Note on pitchers: Era‑adjusted WAR for pitchers reflects only their pitching value. On the website, career snapshots at the top of player pages combine pitching and batting value for convenience. The only players treated as dual-role exceptions on our leaderboards are Babe Ruth and Shohei Ohtani, whose full-time work as both a pitcher and a batter justifies their inclusion in both rankings.

We will close with some additional resources including instructions for obtaining our era-adjusted stats, the source code for this document, and a technical primer on Full House Modeling.

Let’s begin!

Era-Adjusted WAR Ranking Lists

We now present new top 25 all-time lists according to ebWAR, efWAR, and eWAR (average of ebWAR and efWAR). Top 100 ranking lists by ebWAR and efWAR are on our website. Back to topics

rank name ebWAR rank name efWAR rank name eWAR
1 Barry Bonds 156.50 1 Barry Bonds 149.50 1 Barry Bonds 153.00
2 Willie Mays 147.26 2 Roger Clemens 139.56 2 Willie Mays 142.92
3 Roger Clemens 143.78 3 Willie Mays 138.59 3 Roger Clemens 141.67
4 Babe Ruth 140.71 4 Henry Aaron 130.72 4 Henry Aaron 134.47
5 Henry Aaron 138.22 5 Babe Ruth 125.83 5 Babe Ruth 133.27
6 Alex Rodriguez 119.95 6 Greg Maddux 119.40 6 Greg Maddux 115.95
7 Stan Musial 119.10 7 Stan Musial 112.35 7 Stan Musial 115.72
8 Ty Cobb 116.90 8 Ted Williams 111.49 8 Alex Rodriguez 115.36
9 Greg Maddux 112.49 9 Ty Cobb 110.88 9 Ty Cobb 113.89
10 Albert Pujols 112.29 10 Alex Rodriguez 110.77 10 Ted Williams 110.97
11 Mike Schmidt 111.45 11 Nolan Ryan 109.82 11 Mike Schmidt 110.09
12 Ted Williams 110.45 12 Randy Johnson 109.13 12 Randy Johnson 108.70
13 Rickey Henderson 109.78 13 Mike Schmidt 108.73 13 Rickey Henderson 107.39
14 Randy Johnson 108.27 14 Lefty Grove 105.22 14 Albert Pujols 105.23
15 Tris Speaker 105.99 15 Rickey Henderson 105.01 15 Lefty Grove 104.41
16 Tom Seaver 104.78 16 Bert Blyleven 101.75 16 Joe Morgan 102.11
17 Joe Morgan 104.30 17 Steve Carlton 101.41 17 Tris Speaker 102.10
18 Lefty Grove 103.61 18 Joe Morgan 99.93 18 Frank Robinson 100.58
19 Frank Robinson 102.65 19 Frank Robinson 98.51 19 Bert Blyleven 100.53
20 Mel Ott 102.21 20 Tris Speaker 98.20 20 Mel Ott 100.13
21 Justin Verlander 100.93 21 Justin Verlander 98.18 21 Justin Verlander 99.56
22 Rogers Hornsby 99.81 22 Albert Pujols 98.16 22 Nolan Ryan 99.25
23 Bert Blyleven 99.32 23 Mel Ott 98.04 23 Tom Seaver 97.98
24 Carl Yastrzemski 99.19 24 Carl Yastrzemski 96.47 24 Rogers Hornsby 97.84
25 Cal Ripken Jr.  98.51 25 Rogers Hornsby 95.86 25 Carl Yastrzemski 97.83

Era-Adjusted JAWS Ranking Lists

We also report a top 25 list of combined hitting and pitching JAWS according to ebWAR, efWAR, and eWAR (average of ebWAR and efWAR). Active players Mike Trout and Justin Verlander make the top 25 career era-adjusted JAWS rankings. Back to topics

rank name ebJAWS rank name efJAWS rank name eJAWS
1 Barry Bonds 111.52 1 Barry Bonds 107.49 1 Barry Bonds 109.50
2 Willie Mays 107.42 2 Roger Clemens 102.49 2 Roger Clemens 104.39
3 Roger Clemens 106.30 3 Willie Mays 101.16 3 Willie Mays 104.29
4 Babe Ruth 102.50 4 Babe Ruth 93.92 4 Babe Ruth 98.21
5 Henry Aaron 96.39 5 Henry Aaron 90.95 5 Henry Aaron 93.67
6 Alex Rodriguez 91.80 6 Greg Maddux 87.89 6 Alex Rodriguez 88.40
7 Stan Musial 88.24 7 Ted Williams 85.58 7 Greg Maddux 86.53
8 Albert Pujols 86.86 8 Randy Johnson 85.10 8 Stan Musial 85.76
9 Lefty Grove 86.36 9 Alex Rodriguez 85.01 9 Randy Johnson 85.45
10 Mike Schmidt 86.06 10 Mike Schmidt 84.11 10 Ted Williams 85.35
11 Randy Johnson 85.80 11 Lefty Grove 84.04 11 Lefty Grove 85.20
12 Greg Maddux 85.16 12 Stan Musial 83.28 12 Mike Schmidt 85.09
13 Ted Williams 85.12 13 Ty Cobb 80.35 13 Ty Cobb 82.35
14 Ty Cobb 84.35 14 Rickey Henderson 79.89 14 Albert Pujols 81.68
15 Rickey Henderson 82.75 15 Steve Carlton 78.71 15 Rickey Henderson 81.32
16 Joe Morgan 82.27 16 Joe Morgan 78.30 16 Joe Morgan 80.28
17 Justin Verlander 80.08 17 Nolan Ryan 77.88 17 Justin Verlander 78.38
18 Mike Trout 79.38 18 Mike Trout 76.88 18 Mike Trout 78.13
19 Tom Seaver 79.21 19 Justin Verlander 76.68 19 Rogers Hornsby 76.72
20 Cal Ripken Jr.  78.22 20 Albert Pujols 76.50 20 Cal Ripken Jr.  76.48
21 Rogers Hornsby 78.21 21 Rogers Hornsby 75.22 21 Bert Blyleven 75.52
22 Tris Speaker 76.89 22 Bert Blyleven 75.17 22 Mickey Mantle 75.19
23 Wade Boggs 76.77 23 Cal Ripken Jr.  74.74 23 Lou Gehrig 74.94
24 Carl Yastrzemski 76.53 24 Mickey Mantle 74.43 24 Wade Boggs 74.92
25 Lou Gehrig 76.17 25 Lou Gehrig 73.70 25 Steve Carlton 74.88

Era-Adjusted Ranking Lists for Batters

Top 10 Batting Careers by ebWAR

name ebWAR ePA
Barry Bonds 156.50 12729
Willie Mays 147.26 12759
Henry Aaron 138.22 14118
Babe Ruth 130.30 10815
Alex Rodriguez 119.95 11884
Stan Musial 119.10 13038
Ty Cobb 116.90 12978
Albert Pujols 112.29 13181
Mike Schmidt 111.45 10250
Ted Williams 110.45 10164

Top 10 Batting Careers by efWAR

name efWAR ePA
Barry Bonds 149.50 12729
Willie Mays 138.59 12759
Henry Aaron 130.72 14118
Babe Ruth 124.57 10815
Stan Musial 112.35 13038
Ted Williams 111.49 10164
Ty Cobb 110.88 12978
Alex Rodriguez 110.77 11884
Mike Schmidt 108.73 10250
Rickey Henderson 105.01 13737

Top 10 ebWAR per 650 PA (minimum 3000 PA)

name ebWARpPA ePA
Aaron Judge 8.22 5103
Mike Trout 8.06 7588
Barry Bonds 7.99 12729
Babe Ruth 7.83 10815
Willie Mays 7.50 12759
Mookie Betts 7.19 7426
Mike Schmidt 7.07 10250
Ted Williams 7.06 10164
Kevin Kiermaier 6.81 4151
Rogers Hornsby 6.77 9576

Top 10 efWAR per 650 PA (minimum 3000 PA)

name efWARpPA ePA
Mike Trout 7.87 7588
Aaron Judge 7.81 5103
Barry Bonds 7.63 12729
Babe Ruth 7.49 10815
Ted Williams 7.13 10164
Willie Mays 7.06 12759
Mike Schmidt 6.90 10250
Fernando Tatis Jr.  6.77 3452
Buster Posey 6.68 5696
Rogers Hornsby 6.51 9576

The New 500 Home Run Club

In this analysis, this is really the 475 home run club. We lowered the threshold to 475 because the common reference era we use (1977–1989 NL, excluding the 1981 strike-shortened season) was harsh on home run hitters. Holding to a strict 500-HR cutoff would understate the accomplishments of players whose power was suppressed by that environment.

name eHR eAB
Henry Aaron 698 12496
Babe Ruth 687 8706
Albert Pujols 660 11420
Barry Bonds 644 10079
Reggie Jackson 590 9975
Willie Mays 576 11064
Mike Schmidt 559 8438
Alex Rodriguez 542 10260
Frank Robinson 540 10185
Willie Stargell 533 7970
Ken Griffey Jr.  520 9856
Willie McCovey 518 8400
David Ortiz 515 8573
Harmon Killebrew 511 8181
Dave Winfield 506 11132
Mickey Mantle 502 8354
Eddie Mathews 501 8611
Eddie Murray 501 11483
Stan Musial 499 11386
Ted Williams 497 8210
Jimmie Foxx 496 7953
Lou Gehrig 485 8013
Mark McGwire 481 6197
Miguel Cabrera 479 10557
Sammy Sosa 477 8796

Top 10 Era-Adjusted ABs per HR (minimum 3000 PA)

name ABpHR eAB
Babe Ruth 12.67 8706
Mark McGwire 12.88 6197
Aaron Judge 13.72 4021
Giancarlo Stanton 14.66 6302
Dave Kingman 14.72 6226
Willie Stargell 14.95 7970
Mike Schmidt 15.09 8438
Gavy Cravath 15.14 3483
Ralph Kiner 15.14 5437
Gorman Thomas 15.62 4703

Top 10 Era-Adjusted Batting Averages (minimum 3000 PA)

name eBA eAB
Tony Gwynn 0.344 9446
Luis Arráez 0.336 3260
Rod Carew 0.331 9630
Ichiro Suzuki 0.327 9605
Jose Altuve 0.324 8109
Roberto Clemente 0.323 9348
Trea Turner 0.320 5499
Ty Cobb 0.320 11616
Aaron Judge 0.319 4021
Joe DiMaggio 0.319 7047

Top 10 Era-Adjusted Batting Averages (minimum 8000 PA)

name eBA eAB
Tony Gwynn 0.344 9446
Rod Carew 0.331 9630
Ichiro Suzuki 0.327 9605
Jose Altuve 0.324 8109
Roberto Clemente 0.323 9348
Ty Cobb 0.320 11616
Miguel Cabrera 0.319 10557
Freddie Freeman 0.317 8374
Wade Boggs 0.316 9299
Ted Williams 0.314 8210

Top 10 Era-Adjusted OBP (minimum 3000 PA)

name eOBP ePA
Juan Soto 0.459 5101
Aaron Judge 0.457 5103
Ted Williams 0.443 10164
Barry Bonds 0.437 12729
Mike Trout 0.436 7588
Joey Votto 0.435 9053
Babe Ruth 0.433 10815
Mickey Mantle 0.419 10163
Lou Gehrig 0.417 9592
Bryce Harper 0.414 8251

Top 10 Era-Adjusted OBP (minimum 8000 PA)

name eOBP ePA
Ted Williams 0.443 10164
Barry Bonds 0.437 12729
Joey Votto 0.435 9053
Babe Ruth 0.433 10815
Mickey Mantle 0.419 10163
Lou Gehrig 0.417 9592
Bryce Harper 0.414 8251
Freddie Freeman 0.413 9852
Edgar Martínez 0.411 8696
Frank Thomas 0.411 10084

Top 10 Era-Adjusted SLG (minimum 3000 PA)

name eSLG ePA
Babe Ruth 0.607 10815
Aaron Judge 0.602 5103
Lou Gehrig 0.575 9592
Mike Trout 0.573 7588
Shohei Ohtani 0.569 4584
Ted Williams 0.566 10164
Barry Bonds 0.565 12729
Joe DiMaggio 0.564 7842
Willie Stargell 0.561 9134
Henry Aaron 0.556 14118

Top 10 Era-Adjusted SLG (minimum 8000 PA)

name eSLG ePA
Babe Ruth 0.607 10815
Lou Gehrig 0.575 9592
Ted Williams 0.566 10164
Barry Bonds 0.565 12729
Willie Stargell 0.561 9134
Henry Aaron 0.556 14118
Willie Mays 0.550 12759
Albert Pujols 0.549 13181
Jimmie Foxx 0.546 9374
Mickey Mantle 0.539 10163

Top 10 Era-Adjusted OPS (minimum 3000 PA)

name eOPS ePA
Aaron Judge 1.059 5103
Babe Ruth 1.040 10815
Mike Trout 1.009 7588
Ted Williams 1.009 10164
Barry Bonds 1.002 12729
Juan Soto 0.996 5101
Lou Gehrig 0.992 9592
Shohei Ohtani 0.973 4584
Mickey Mantle 0.958 10163
Joe DiMaggio 0.951 7842

Top 10 Era-Adjusted OPS (minimum 8000 PA)

name eOPS ePA
Babe Ruth 1.040 10815
Ted Williams 1.009 10164
Barry Bonds 1.002 12729
Lou Gehrig 0.992 9592
Mickey Mantle 0.958 10163
Willie Mays 0.946 12759
Jimmie Foxx 0.942 9374
Albert Pujols 0.939 13181
Henry Aaron 0.937 14118
Manny Ramirez 0.937 9683

The New 3000 Hits Club

name eH eAB eBA
Pete Rose 4247 13708 0.310
Henry Aaron 3889 12496 0.311
Ty Cobb 3717 11616 0.320
Stan Musial 3557 11386 0.312
Albert Pujols 3506 11420 0.307
Willie Mays 3459 11064 0.313
Miguel Cabrera 3364 10557 0.319
Derek Jeter 3357 10875 0.309
Eddie Murray 3354 11483 0.292
Tony Gwynn 3246 9446 0.344
Paul Molitor 3244 10563 0.307
Carl Yastrzemski 3241 11602 0.279
Robin Yount 3238 11105 0.292
Cal Ripken Jr.  3230 11668 0.277
Rickey Henderson 3212 11292 0.284
Dave Winfield 3203 11132 0.288
Rod Carew 3189 9630 0.331
Tris Speaker 3176 10678 0.297
Ichiro Suzuki 3143 9605 0.327
Al Kaline 3095 10526 0.294
Adrian Beltré 3075 10693 0.288
Craig Biggio 3063 10906 0.281
Alex Rodriguez 3016 10260 0.294
Roberto Clemente 3016 9348 0.323
Barry Bonds 3012 10079 0.299
Frank Robinson 3003 10185 0.295

Our rankings place more modern players among the greatest all-time than conventional ranking lists. Mike Trout and Aaron Judge top many of these lists, including era-adjusted WAR on a rate basis, OBP, SLG, and OPS. Interestingly, Freddie Freeman is top 10 in era-adjusted batting average and era-adjusted OBP (minimum 8000 PAs), and Juan Soto leads the pack in career era-adjusted OBP (minimum 3000 PA). That being said, several older players remain elite with Babe Ruth and Ted Williams topping several lists. Back to topics

Era-Adjusted Ranking Lists for Pitchers

Top 10 Pitching Careers by ebWAR

name ebWAR eIP
Roger Clemens 143.78 5371
Greg Maddux 112.49 5571
Randy Johnson 108.27 4671
Tom Seaver 104.78 4505
Lefty Grove 103.61 3808
Justin Verlander 100.93 4376
Bert Blyleven 99.32 4805
Phil Niekro 95.23 5021
Clayton Kershaw 94.71 3657
Gaylord Perry 92.19 4905

Top 10 Pitching Careers by efWAR

name efWAR eIP
Roger Clemens 139.56 5371
Greg Maddux 119.40 5571
Nolan Ryan 109.82 5262
Randy Johnson 109.13 4671
Lefty Grove 105.22 3808
Bert Blyleven 101.75 4805
Steve Carlton 101.41 4916
Justin Verlander 98.18 4376
Gaylord Perry 95.86 4905
Cy Young 95.41 4932

Top 10 Pitching Careers by ebWAR per 250 IP (minimum 3000 IP)

name ebWARpIP eIP
Pedro Martínez 6.85 3208
Lefty Grove 6.80 3808
Roger Clemens 6.69 5371
Clayton Kershaw 6.47 3657
Max Scherzer 5.94 3813
Roy Halladay 5.93 3162
Tom Seaver 5.81 4505
Randy Johnson 5.79 4671
Justin Verlander 5.77 4376
Bob Gibson 5.68 3530

Top 10 Pitching Careers by efWAR per 250 IP (minimum 3000 IP)

name efWARpIP eIP
Lefty Grove 6.91 3808
Roger Clemens 6.50 5371
Pedro Martínez 6.38 3208
Clayton Kershaw 6.31 3657
Randy Johnson 5.84 4671
Justin Verlander 5.61 4376
Bob Gibson 5.51 3530
Max Scherzer 5.49 3813
Greg Maddux 5.36 5571
Bert Blyleven 5.29 4805

Top 10 Pitching Careers by ERA (minimum 1500 IP)

name eERA eIP
Mariano Rivera 2.42 1720
Clayton Kershaw 2.51 3657
Brandon Webb 2.54 1513
Jacob deGrom 2.60 2135
Pedro Martínez 2.63 3208
Johan Santana 2.70 2178
Chris Sale 2.74 2636
Greg Maddux 2.77 5571
Max Fried 2.77 1590
Hoyt Wilhelm 2.78 2189

Top 10 Pitching Careers by ERA (minimum 3000 IP)

name eERA eIP
Clayton Kershaw 2.51 3657
Pedro Martínez 2.63 3208
Greg Maddux 2.77 5571
Roger Clemens 2.81 5371
Roy Halladay 2.84 3162
Tom Seaver 2.88 4505
Justin Verlander 2.89 4376
Max Scherzer 2.89 3813
Bob Gibson 2.91 3530
Randy Johnson 2.91 4671

Top 10 Pitching Careers by Strikeouts

name eK eIP
Nolan Ryan 5986 5262
Randy Johnson 5049 4671
Roger Clemens 4695 5371
Steve Carlton 4313 4916
Walter Johnson 4029 5048
Bert Blyleven 3770 4805
Tom Seaver 3664 4505
Max Scherzer 3613 3813
Don Sutton 3583 5009
Justin Verlander 3432 4376

Top 15 Pitching Careers by Strikeouts per 9 Innings (minimum 3000 IP)

Here we display 15 names so that Walter Johnson is displayed.

name eK9 eIP
Nolan Ryan 10.2 5262
Randy Johnson 9.7 4671
Pedro Martínez 8.6 3208
Max Scherzer 8.5 3813
Bob Feller 8.0 3667
Roger Clemens 7.9 5371
Steve Carlton 7.9 4916
David Cone 7.6 3167
Clayton Kershaw 7.5 3657
Curt Schilling 7.5 3640
Bob Gibson 7.3 3530
Mark Langston 7.3 3009
Tom Seaver 7.3 4505
John Smoltz 7.2 3904
Walter Johnson 7.2 5048

Top 10 Pitching Careers by Innings

name eIP
Greg Maddux 5571
Roger Clemens 5371
Nolan Ryan 5262
Warren Spahn 5106
Walter Johnson 5048
Phil Niekro 5021
Don Sutton 5009
Cy Young 4932
Steve Carlton 4916
Gaylord Perry 4905

Era-adjusted pitching statistics are dramatically different than the raw statistics. The changes to WAR do not fully encapsulate the scope of the changes that era-adjustment produces. ERA, strikeouts, and innings are all materially different. This difference is due to our method accounting for pitching usage which has evolved over time. Starters used to pitch complete games and they used to belong to rotations that consisted of fewer than five pitchers on average. Taking account of both of these changes dramatically changes how pitchers are viewed.

Not only has usage changed over time, but pitching itself and hitting tendencies have changed as well. This is important to note especially for strikeouts. Take Walter Johnson for example. Walter Johnson was the premier strikeout pitcher of his day but he only had a K/9 ratio of 5.3 in his time. This is a reflection of an era in which hitters were insulted to strikeout, pitchers primarily pitched to contact, and several pitches like the slider and cutter either did not exist or were in their infancy. We see that if Walter Johnson were to have his statistics evaluated in a common environment used to compare all pitchers, then his K/9 ratio would be relatively higher. His era-adjusted K/9 ratio of 7.2 ranks 15th all-time (minimum 3000 IP). He also would pitch far fewer innings. Keep in mind that Johnsons’s observed increase in K/9 also includes a relatively steep penalty placed on Walter Johnson for playing in a sparsely populated era of baseball. That is a testament to how far Walter Johnson stood above his peers in his own time.

A new finding in this version of our project is that Lefty Grove is the best pitcher all-time by efWAR on a rate basis and is second only to Pedro Martinez in ebWAR on a rate basis (minimum 3000 IP). He also ranks 5th in both career ebWAR and career efWAR. Lefty Grove is a pitcher who has been slept on. Another fun new finding is that modern pitchers Justin Verlander, Clayton Kershaw, and Max Scherzer abundantly populate these era-adjusted ranking lists despite much more modest standing by traditional metrics. Back to topics

Mike Trout

Mike Trout is one of the greatest players in this current generation. The raw unadjusted WAR rankings suggest that it would be very unlikely for Trout to end his career with more WAR than old time great players like Lou Gehrig and Honus Wagner. However, our era-adjustment method tells a slightly different story if Trout can stay healthy. Through the 2025 season Mike Trout is ranked 32nd in career ebWAR and 34th in career efWAR.

The table below shows Mike Trout’s era-adjusted WAR totals and the 5 players immediately in front of him and behind him. We can see that Trout will likely pass both Gehrig and Trout in 2026, he may have already.

rank name ebWAR rank name efWAR
27 Lou Gehrig 96.64 29 Cal Ripken Jr.  94.58
28 Phil Niekro 95.23 30 Honus Wagner 94.11
29 Clayton Kershaw 94.71 31 Walter Johnson 93.57
30 Wade Boggs 94.45 32 Lou Gehrig 93.15
31 Eddie Collins 94.19 33 Clayton Kershaw 92.28
32 Mike Trout 94.14 34 Mike Trout 91.91
33 Roberto Clemente 93.65 35 Tom Seaver 91.18
34 Adrian Beltré 93.43 36 Wade Boggs 89.81
35 Honus Wagner 93.04 37 Pete Rose 88.04
36 Gaylord Perry 92.19 38 Eddie Mathews 86.98
37 Warren Spahn 90.78 39 George Brett 86.48

Below we see career trajectories for batters, with several all-time greats highlighted for comparison. Only a handful of the game’s greatest players matched Mike Trout’s performance through their first 10 seasons. Even this comparison understates Trout’s peak, as his rookie season was only partial and injuries have cost him substantial playing time in recent years. Those injuries have inevitably diminished his career totals relative to some of baseball’s immortals, but they do little to diminish the extraordinary level at which he performed. Through his first 15 seasons, Trout’s career ranks among the finest in baseball history. On a rate basis, he may have been even more impressive, comparing favorably with anyone in the group.

A natural historic comparison for Mike Trout is Mickey Mantle. Both players are amazing all-around athletes, complete hitters, and play center field. Even one of Trout’s nicknames, the Millville Meteor, is an homage to Mantle’s nickname, the Commerce Comet. By raw, unadjusted, statistics Mickey Mantle is viewed as one of the greatest talents of all-time. Mike Trout has been better than Mickey Mantle so far by era-adjusted statistics.

First 15 seasons aggregated:

name ePA eAB eH eHR eBB eBA eOBP eSLG eOPS ABpHR ebWAR efWAR ebWARpPA efWARpPA
Mickey Mantle 8577 7092 2163 434 1426 0.305 0.420 0.550 0.970 16.34 87.30 85.86 6.62 6.51
Mike Trout 7588 6123 1901 374 1298 0.310 0.436 0.573 1.009 16.37 94.14 91.91 8.06 7.87

Careers:

name ePA eAB eH eHR eBB eBA eOBP eSLG eOPS ABpHR ebWAR efWAR ebWARpPA efWARpPA
Mickey Mantle 10163 8354 2506 502 1735 0.30 0.419 0.539 0.958 16.64 96.91 95.40 6.20 6.10
Mike Trout 7588 6123 1901 374 1298 0.31 0.436 0.573 1.009 16.37 94.14 91.91 8.06 7.87

As it stands right now Mike Trout has been the most productive batter on a rate basis among players with at least as many plate appearances in baseball history according to our era-adjusted versions of WAR. Back to topics

Shotime and Judge: The 2022 Season and Beyond

The historic 2022 seasons for Shohei Ohtani and Aaron Judge were studied in Version 2.1 of the this document. However, focusing solely on that season now misses the bigger picture, as both players have continued to produce some of the greatest baseball seasons ever recorded.

In fact, by era-adjusted OPS (eOPS), which is both park- and talent-pool-adjusted, Aaron Judge has possibly the greatest four year run in history. His 2022–2025 eOPS surpasses many of the best four-year stretches ever produced. The table below contains the results and is sorted by eOPS. While Mike Trout, Barry Bonds, Willie Mays, and Ted Williams exceed Judge in either total or rate-based era-adjusted WAR (or both), no one surpasses him by eOPS.

name years ePA eAB eHR eBA eOBP eSLG eOPS ABpHR ebWAR efWAR ebWARpPA efWARpPA
Aaron Judge 2022-2025 2582 1940 167 0.347 0.503 0.672 1.175 11.62 36.4 35.5 9.16 8.94
Ted Williams 1941-1947 2675 2080 158 0.336 0.483 0.641 1.124 13.16 37.6 37.8 9.14 9.19
Babe Ruth 1920-1923 2476 1869 154 0.308 0.474 0.641 1.115 12.14 32.6 32.4 8.56 8.51
Albert Pujols 2007-2010 2681 2189 173 0.335 0.446 0.651 1.097 12.65 35.2 30.6 8.53 7.42
Lou Gehrig 1934-1937 2738 2211 157 0.331 0.459 0.623 1.082 14.08 32.8 32.4 7.79 7.69
Miguel Cabrera 2010-2013 2663 2242 152 0.355 0.449 0.630 1.079 14.75 28.4 27.0 6.93 6.59
Mickey Mantle 1955-1958 2622 2123 153 0.325 0.447 0.608 1.055 13.88 34.2 33.0 8.48 8.18
Mike Trout 2013-2016 2764 2231 134 0.325 0.445 0.597 1.042 16.65 37.5 36.1 8.82 8.49
Barry Bonds 1990-1993 2558 2038 137 0.314 0.441 0.599 1.040 14.88 36.2 35.2 9.20 8.94
Shohei Ohtani 2022-2025 2726 2292 161 0.316 0.420 0.614 1.034 14.24 27.0 27.3 6.44 6.51
Jimmie Foxx 1932-1935 2644 2220 155 0.318 0.428 0.598 1.026 14.32 31.5 31.9 7.74 7.84
Willie Mays 1962-1965 2646 2307 157 0.325 0.405 0.603 1.008 14.69 40.1 38.5 9.85 9.46

No one is better than Aaron Judge, except for the absurd Barry Bonds in 2001-2004.

name years ePA eAB eHR eBA eOBP eSLG eOPS ABpHR ebWAR efWAR ebWARpPA efWARpPA
Barry Bonds 2001-2004 2397 1719 154 0.353 0.532 0.693 1.225 11.16 38.3 37.6 10.39 10.20
Aaron Judge 2022-2025 2582 1940 167 0.347 0.503 0.672 1.175 11.62 36.4 35.5 9.16 8.94

While Aaron Judge may have the best batting peak ever over a four year window, Shohei Ohtani has put up more value over the 2022-2025 seasons. The tables below show the top 10 seasons all-time by era-adjusted ebWAR and efWAR (for everyone and then batters). We see that Shohei Ohtani’s 2022 season is the second best season ever by ebWAR, trailing a truly underappreciated Bret Saberhagen season.

rank name year ebWAR rank name year efWAR
1 Bret Saberhagen 1989 13.56 1 Steve Carlton 1980 11.20
2 Shohei Ohtani 2022 13.54 2 Greg Maddux 1994 11.05
3 Dwight Gooden 1985 13.04 3 Clayton Kershaw 2015 10.99
4 Roger Clemens 1997 12.71 4 Shohei Ohtani 2022 10.67
5 Justin Verlander 2012 12.60 5 Dwight Gooden 1985 10.62
6 Zack Greinke 2009 12.27 6 Randy Johnson 2004 10.62
7 Shohei Ohtani 2023 12.09 7 Roger Clemens 1997 10.45
8 Zack Greinke 2015 12.01 8 Shohei Ohtani 2025 10.45
9 Lefty Grove 1931 11.99 9 Jacob deGrom 2018 10.40
10 Corey Kluber 2017 11.74 10 Aaron Judge 2022 10.38
rank name year ebWAR rank name year efWAR
1 Shohei Ohtani 2022 13.54 1 Shohei Ohtani 2022 10.67
2 Shohei Ohtani 2023 12.09 2 Shohei Ohtani 2025 10.45
3 Aaron Judge 2022 10.64 3 Aaron Judge 2022 10.38
4 Cal Ripken Jr.  1991 10.57 4 Cal Ripken Jr.  1991 10.30
5 Carl Yastrzemski 1970 10.51 5 Shohei Ohtani 2023 10.16
6 Aaron Judge 2024 10.42 6 Aaron Judge 2024 10.07
7 Willie Mays 1965 10.33 7 Barry Bonds 1993 10.02
8 Babe Ruth 1926 10.32 8 Willie Mays 1965 9.99
9 Cal Ripken Jr.  1984 10.31 9 Babe Ruth 1926 9.99
10 Alex Rodriguez 2005 10.31 10 Cal Ripken Jr.  1984 9.90

On top of that, Shohei Ohtani’s 2022–2025 run ranks second all-time in total ebWAR, trailing only his own 2021–2024 stretch. What is more remarkable is how much better Ohtani is than everyone else has been. For instance, his peak four-year run exceeds Barry Bonds’s absurd 2001–2004 stretch by more than one ebWAR per season. Aaron Judge’s 2022–2025 run also ranks among the top 25 four-year peaks in history. Both players best Babe Ruth’s peak four year run by a substantial margin. Interestingly, Jackie Robinson’s peak four-year stretch ranks immediately ahead of Ruth’s, despite Robinson not reaching the majors until age 28.

name years peak 4yr ebWAR
Shohei Ohtani 2021-2024 44.69
Shohei Ohtani 2022-2025 43.24
Willie Mays 1962-1965 40.08
Randy Johnson 1999-2002 38.35
Barry Bonds 2001-2004 38.29
Joe Morgan 1973-1976 38.20
Lefty Grove 1930-1933 38.06
Ted Williams 1944-1947 37.57
Mike Trout 2013-2016 37.51
Greg Maddux 1992-1995 37.46
Albert Pujols 2006-2009 36.84
Aaron Judge 2022-2025 36.42
Pedro Martínez 1997-2000 36.36
Carl Yastrzemski 1967-1970 35.92
Wade Boggs 1985-1988 35.77
Mike Schmidt 1974-1977 35.36
Roger Clemens 1987-1990 35.26
Roy Halladay 2008-2011 35.25
Bob Gibson 1968-1971 35.00
Clayton Kershaw 2013-2016 34.96
Mickey Mantle 1955-1958 34.25
Jackie Robinson 1949-1952 34.25
Babe Ruth 1926-1929 33.97
Alex Rodriguez 2002-2005 33.56
Justin Verlander 2009-2012 33.43

A similar, albeit less dramatic, story emerges with respect to efWAR. Shohei Ohtani’s 2022–2025 run still stands atop baseball history, although the gap between him and the rest of the field is considerably smaller than it is in ebWAR. Even so, both Ohtani and Aaron Judge comfortably surpass Babe Ruth’s peak four-year run.

name years peak 4yr efWAR
Shohei Ohtani 2022-2025 39.46
Willie Mays 1962-1965 38.46
Ted Williams 1944-1947 37.76
Barry Bonds 2001-2004 37.63
Lefty Grove 1929-1932 36.67
Joe Morgan 1973-1976 36.48
Mike Trout 2013-2016 36.13
Steve Carlton 1980-1983 36.11
Aaron Judge 2022-2025 35.46
Greg Maddux 1993-1996 35.27
Mike Schmidt 1974-1977 34.88
Roger Clemens 1988-1991 34.79
Clayton Kershaw 2012-2015 34.77
Wade Boggs 1985-1988 34.62
Justin Verlander 2009-2012 34.58
Carl Yastrzemski 1967-1970 33.33
Randy Johnson 1999-2002 33.12
Mickey Mantle 1955-1958 33.03
Babe Ruth 1926-1929 32.49
Alex Rodriguez 2002-2005 32.46
Lou Gehrig 1934-1937 32.37
Albert Pujols 2006-2009 32.24
Cal Ripken Jr.  1983-1986 32.09
Jimmie Foxx 1932-1935 31.89
Sandy Koufax 1963-1966 31.79

Taken together, what we are witnessing in real time is some of, if not the, best baseball in the sport’s entire history. It is nearly a cliché to point this out. People will point to the talent pool being larger now (which it likely is) or that advances in training methods and technology continue to revolutionize elite play. Yet these explanations can undersell the actual accomplishments of the players themselves when viewed through the lens of era-adjusted statistics. By traditional WAR and other conventional metrics, Shohei Ohtani, Aaron Judge, Mike Trout, and others are all-time greats, but they still trail the ghosts of the past. Era-adjusted statistics tell a different story. At their peaks, these players have a legitimate claim to being the greatest the game has ever seen. And they are playing right now. Back to topics

Max Scherzer

Max Scherzer is one of this era’s greatest pitchers. He is one of a handful of pitchers to win 3 Cy Young awards. Other players with 3 Cy Young awards include Roger Clemens, Randy Johnson, Greg Maddux, Steve Carlton, Tom Seaver, Pedro Martinez, Clayton Kershaw, Justin Verlander, Sandy Koufax, and Jim Palmer. Scherzer’s run from 2013-2019 is especially dominant. Over that stretch he collected his Cy Young awards and never fell below fifth in the voting. That being said, his numbers over that stretch do not leap off of the page. Sure, his strikeout rates and strikeout-to-walk ratios are all-time elite, but ERA and most counting totals do not reflect the Cy Young voting when viewed from the lens of baseball history. Take Tom Seaver as an example. From 1969 to 1975 Terrific Tom boasted similar dominance and also collected 3 Cy Young awards. In 1971 Seaver had a 1.76 ERA over 286.1 innings. Surely his run leaps off the page.

Max Scherzer’s dominance is punished by his era, a time period with a large MLB eligible talent pool, lower innings totals, and a balance of hitting and pitching that was tilted in the favor of pitching which, in this case, led to a crowded field of low ERA totals. Our per season era-adjusted statistics paint a much more favorable comparison of Scherzer’s dominant 7-year run from 2013-2019 to that of Seaver’s dominant run from 1969-1975. These players’ primes are nearly identical with Seaver holding a slight edge according to ebWAR:

name ERA eIP eK eK9 ebWAR efWAR ebWARpIP efWARpIP
Max Scherzer 2.62 1828 1892 9.3 50.18 47.49 6.86 6.49
Tom Seaver 2.51 1686 1647 8.8 51.05 44.31 7.57 6.57

As it currently stands Max Scherzer ranks 13th in career ebWAR and 15th in career efWAR among pitchers and is among elite company:

rank name ebWAR rank name efWAR
8 Phil Niekro 95.23 10 Cy Young 95.41
9 Clayton Kershaw 94.71 11 Walter Johnson 93.57
10 Gaylord Perry 92.19 12 Clayton Kershaw 92.28
11 Warren Spahn 90.78 13 Tom Seaver 91.18
12 Steve Carlton 90.76 14 Don Sutton 84.59
13 Max Scherzer 90.54 15 Max Scherzer 83.74
14 Zack Greinke 90.39 16 Pedro Martínez 81.85
15 Walter Johnson 89.13 17 Grover Alexander 79.46
16 Nolan Ryan 88.67 18 Phil Niekro 79.44
17 Pedro Martínez 87.90 19 Mike Mussina 79.26
18 Mike Mussina 83.42 20 Zack Greinke 78.97

As you see above, similar analyses can point out the dominance of Scherzer’s contemporaries: Clayton Kershaw, Justin Verlander, and Zack Greinke. Back to topics

CC Sabathia

CC Sabathia retired in 2019 with 251 wins, over 3000 strikeouts, 62.3 bWAR and 66.5 fWAR. These are great numbers but are somewhat underwhelming in discussions of all-time pitchers in the Hall of Fame. Sabathia fell short of 300 wins and his career bWAR total is tied for 166th all-time. Our era-adjusted statistics are much more favorable to Sabathia’s career. He ranks 94th all-time by ebWAR and 71st all-time by efWAR. Below we see that CC Sabathia’s era-adjusted career compares favorably to the era-adjusted careers of some solid Hall of Famers from years past: Pete “Grover” Alexander, Robin Roberts, Fergie Jenkins, Jim Palmer, and Don Sutton. These careers are sorted by efWAR per 250 innings pitched (see table below).

Among this group Pete Alexander is currently viewed as an inner circle legend with 373 wins with nearly 120 bWAR and 95.7 fWAR. There is a good chance that if CC Sabathia had been born in the late 1880s and been allowed to play, then we would be viewing Sabathia as one of the key figures in baseball history who would lay the foundation for how to play the game the right way. Back to topics

name ERA eIP eK eK9 ebWAR efWAR ebWARpIP efWARpIP
Fergie Jenkins 3.18 4136 3132 6.8 78.82 77.67 4.76 4.69
CC Sabathia 3.19 4122 2921 6.4 72.06 73.33 4.37 4.45
Grover Alexander 3.38 4564 2417 4.8 65.66 79.46 3.60 4.35
Don Sutton 3.34 5009 3583 6.4 75.16 84.59 3.75 4.22
Robin Roberts 3.47 4425 2512 5.1 79.00 68.98 4.46 3.90
Jim Palmer 2.93 3669 2260 5.5 67.54 54.87 4.60 3.74

Era-adjusted WAR and its possible usage in HOF discussions

One of the goals of WAR is to provide a framework for people like us to compare players across eras. The following passage is taken directly from the What is WAR? page on FanGraphs: “The goal of WAR is to provide a holistic metric of player value that allows for comparisons across team, league, year, and era and a framework for player evaluation.”

The work in this article moves WAR closer to its goal of providing fair comparisons of players who have played in vastly different eras. This matters when we evaluate a player’s career in historical context. The HOF players of the old past are beneficiaries of biased performance metrics. Comparisons based upon “vs your peers” statistics are therefore slanted in favor of old time players—specifically those who performed in the segregated NL/AL. With the Full House Model, this is no more. Here is a look at active players and retired players who are not in the HOF who have era-adjusted bWAR and fWAR values in the top 100 all-time at the time that this was written:

rank name ebWAR rank name efWAR
1 Barry Bonds 156.50 1 Barry Bonds 149.50
3 Roger Clemens 143.78 2 Roger Clemens 139.56
6 Alex Rodriguez 119.95 10 Alex Rodriguez 110.77
10 Albert Pujols 112.29 21 Justin Verlander 98.18
21 Justin Verlander 100.93 22 Albert Pujols 98.16
29 Clayton Kershaw 94.71 33 Clayton Kershaw 92.28
32 Mike Trout 94.14 34 Mike Trout 91.91
39 Max Scherzer 90.54 37 Pete Rose 88.04
40 Zack Greinke 90.39 45 Max Scherzer 83.74
45 Pete Rose 88.47 48 Miguel Cabrera 81.81
54 Miguel Cabrera 82.49 54 Zack Greinke 78.97
55 Mookie Betts 82.20 65 Freddie Freeman 76.51
59 Curt Schilling 80.55 66 Curt Schilling 76.20
64 Lou Whitaker 79.13 75 Lou Whitaker 72.25
72 Freddie Freeman 77.16 79 Bobby Grich 71.70
80 Graig Nettles 74.77 80 Graig Nettles 71.53
84 Dwight Evans 73.78 81 Dwight Evans 71.35
85 Bobby Grich 73.77 91 Rafael Palmeiro 69.34
88 Manny Ramirez 73.22 94 Mookie Betts 68.72
91 Rafael Palmeiro 72.66 96 Manny Ramirez 68.69
96 Joey Votto 71.84 100 Joey Votto 67.81

The table also highlights several players whose Hall of Fame candidacies have been controversial. Lou Whitaker, Bobby Grich, Graig Nettles, and Dwight Evans all rank among the top 100 players of all time by both era-adjusted versions of WAR despite receiving little support from Hall of Fame voters. Whitaker was dropped from the BBWAA ballot after a single year, while Grich, Nettles, and Evans also fell well short of election. Their presence on this list reinforces a longstanding sabermetric argument: traditional Hall of Fame voting often undervalued players whose contributions were broad and consistent rather than concentrated in headline statistics such as batting average, home runs, wins, or RBI.

We realize that some of the names on the above list, namely Barry Bonds who had the greatest career ever by ebWAR and efWAR, are not the most popular of figures in baseball history. But is PED usage and personal foibles worse than Cap Anson who played a major role in establishing racial segregation? Our era-adjusted stats can be used to evaluate Bonds and Anson in the same contextual environment after accounting for the quality of their respective talent pools. Below is a direct comparison of Anson’s career and Bonds’s career through 1998 (the last year that Bonds may have been clean). It’s no comparison.

name ePA eAB eH eHR eBB eBA eOBP eSLG eOPS ABpHR ebWAR efWAR ebWARpPA efWARpPA
Barry Bonds 8313 6795 1979 373 1396 0.291 0.412 0.535 0.947 18.22 98.93 94.49 7.74 7.39
Cap Anson 11594 10761 2935 148 795 0.273 0.324 0.366 0.690 72.71 51.29 37.16 2.88 2.08

Our era-adjusted statistics reveal that Cap Anson is more like Nick Markakis than Barry Bonds through 1998 as far as on-field production is concerned. Moreover, Ty Cobb, who also was a controversial figure, at least has the on-field production to warrant HOF status. Perhaps Anson would remain in the HOF for having close to 3000 hits, but he is nowhere near the player that Ty Cobb was or that Barry Bonds was through 1998. Anson is a slightly worse Nick Markakis with more longevity and less plate discipline.

name ePA eAB eH eHR eBB eBA eOBP eSLG eOPS ABpHR ebWAR efWAR ebWARpPA efWARpPA
Cap Anson 11594 10761 2935 148 795 0.273 0.324 0.366 0.690 72.71 51.29 37.16 2.88 2.08
Nick Markakis 9387 8231 2388 172 1028 0.290 0.369 0.422 0.791 47.85 45.14 39.85 3.13 2.76
Ty Cobb 12978 11616 3717 224 994 0.320 0.378 0.457 0.835 51.86 116.90 110.88 5.85 5.55

We now proceed with three Hall of Fame case studies through the lens of era-adjusted statistics: Luis Tiant, Mark Buehrle, and Bob Feller with some contextualization of Jack Morris thrown in. Back to topics

Luis Tiant

Tiant spent 15 years on the BBWAA ballot and was never particularly close to the 75% voting threshold that was needed for HOF inclusion. He also was not very close to HOF inclusion when his name appeared on the ballot of various Veterans Committees. We would like to revisit Tiant’s HOF case here. By ebWAR and efWAR, Tiant ranks as the 38th and 68th best pitcher in history and ranks 143rd and 227th overall among both pitchers and hitters by, respectively, ebWAR and efWAR. There are currently 278 former MLB players in the HOF. If we included players based on stats, then Tiant would be in.

Let’s compare Tiant to a small group of currently unquestioned Hall of Famers: Jim Palmer, Whitey Ford, and Bob Feller. Tiant holds up well. He ranks first in ebWAR per 250 innings pitched and is competitive across the board, finishing last in none of the major stats. Add in a few elite peak seasons with ebWAR or efWAR greater than or equal to 6 (see below), and his case looks strong.

name ERA eIP eK eK9 ebWAR efWAR ebWARpIP efWARpIP
Luis Tiant 3.21 3276 2419 6.6 63.57 53.60 4.85 4.09
Jim Palmer 2.93 3669 2260 5.5 67.54 54.87 4.60 3.74
Whitey Ford 2.97 3119 1950 5.6 48.37 48.55 3.88 3.89
Bob Feller 3.60 3667 3267 8.0 47.62 55.30 3.25 3.77
name age year eIP eERA eK eK9 ebWAR efWAR ebWARpIP efWARpIP
Luis Tiant 27 1968 234 2.35 248 9.5 6.75 7.5 7.21 8.01
Luis Tiant 31 1972 178 2.12 125 6.3 6.99 3.5 9.82 4.92
Luis Tiant 33 1974 260 2.80 170 5.9 6.45 5.6 6.20 5.38
Luis Tiant 35 1976 251 2.80 152 5.5 6.09 3.8 6.07 3.78

Additionally, Tiant delivered a stellar World Series performance in 1975 against the 108-win Big Red Machine, going 2–0 with a 3.60 ERA over 25 innings in three starts. While that falls short of Jack Morris’s legendary 1991 2–0 record and 1.17 ERA across 23 innings, including a 10-inning shutout in Game 7. Context matters. No one romanticizes the 94-win 1991 Braves offense the way they do the Big Red Machine.

The Big Red Machine

Here we list era-adjusted batting lines for starters in the 1975 Big Red Machine juggernaut, sorted by era-adjusted OBP.

name ePA eAB eH eHR eBB eBA eOBP eSLG eOPS ABpHR ebWAR efWAR ebWARpPA efWARpPA
Joe Morgan 652 499 165 22 144 0.331 0.479 0.541 1.020 22.68 10.10 9.79 10.07 9.76
Pete Rose 718 617 196 13 88 0.318 0.411 0.459 0.870 47.46 4.71 5.67 4.26 5.13
Ken Griffey 556 474 147 10 72 0.310 0.400 0.443 0.843 47.40 3.91 3.22 4.57 3.76
George Foster 519 461 141 27 50 0.306 0.374 0.551 0.925 17.07 5.52 5.66 6.91 7.09
Johnny Bench 613 533 155 32 70 0.291 0.370 0.544 0.914 16.66 6.75 6.81 7.16 7.22
Tony Pérez 589 517 150 24 63 0.290 0.367 0.497 0.864 21.54 3.81 4.35 4.20 4.80
César Gerónimo 576 509 139 12 59 0.273 0.353 0.415 0.768 42.42 4.80 4.43 5.42 5.00
Dave Concepción 578 515 147 11 51 0.285 0.350 0.412 0.762 46.82 4.61 4.63 5.18 5.21

Aggregate Batting Line

ePA eAB eH eHR eBB eBA eOBP eSLG eOPS ABpHR ebWAR efWAR ebWARpPA efWARpPA
4801 4125 1240 151 597 0.301 0.39 0.482 0.872 27.32 44.21 44.56 5.99 6.03

1991 Atlanta Braves

Here we list era-adjusted batting lines for the starters of the 94-win 1991 Atlanta Braves, an offense that ranked 8th in 1991 in total runs per game, sorted by era-adjusted OBP.

name ePA eAB eH eHR eBB eBA eOBP eSLG eOPS ABpHR ebWAR efWAR ebWARpPA efWARpPA
David Justice 493 419 113 19 66 0.270 0.369 0.475 0.844 22.05 1.91 1.99 2.52 2.62
Lonnie Smith 446 381 102 7 52 0.268 0.367 0.386 0.753 54.43 2.03 1.05 2.96 1.53
Jeff Treadway 380 347 106 3 26 0.305 0.354 0.401 0.755 115.67 1.25 1.23 2.14 2.10
Terry Pendleton 655 597 183 18 43 0.307 0.350 0.482 0.832 33.17 6.09 6.32 6.04 6.27
Ron Gant 652 572 140 27 70 0.245 0.330 0.460 0.790 21.19 2.10 2.15 2.09 2.14
Greg Olson 487 431 102 6 47 0.237 0.313 0.336 0.649 71.83 -0.12 0.82 -0.16 1.09
Sid Bream 307 272 67 9 27 0.246 0.310 0.390 0.700 30.22 -0.08 0.39 -0.17 0.83
Rafael Belliard 413 379 92 1 24 0.243 0.291 0.288 0.579 379.00 0.29 0.00 0.46 0.00

Aggregate Batting Line

ePA eAB eH eHR eBB eBA eOBP eSLG eOPS ABpHR ebWAR efWAR ebWARpPA efWARpPA
3833 3398 905 90 355 0.266 0.337 0.411 0.748 37.76 13.47 13.95 2.28 2.37

That’s a good group, but c’mon.

It is important to note that Jack Morris’s shutout was not the product of his efforts alone. In the 8th inning Morris gave up hard contact to Terry Pendleton with Lonnie Smith on first base. Rookie second baseman Chuck Knoblauch and shortstop Greg Gagne executed a decoy play that, in combination with Smith losing track of the ball, prevented Smith from scoring on the play. Smith scores with near certainty had he tracked the ball off the bat, and the score would have been 1-0 Braves in the 8th inning had that counterfactual come to fruition. Morris then does not throw a shutout and his historic performance likely becomes lost in the sands of time like so many other great postseason performances. Off the top of your head: who did Morris pitch against in his historic game 7, and what were the stats of that pitcher in the 1991 World Series?

Morris argued that the “decoy play” should have never happened because Pendleton should have been called out on strikes, claiming he whiffed at a pitch the umpire ruled a foul tip. It is clearly of personal importance to Jack Morris that his version of the story is widely known. It is worth wondering what Morris’s opinion of Kent Hrbek’s inning ending play where he lifts Gant off first base. If that call is overturned, the Braves’ odds of winning Game 2 rise, and they might even take the series in five games. In that timeline, Morris’s 10-inning shutout in Game 7 never happens, and his Hall of Fame case looks much worse. At the time Morris made the above comments, he was still stuck on the ballot without induction. While striking out Pendleton would not have changed the outcome of the game, it would have improved Morris’s individual performance.

Ultimately, Morris’s Hall of Fame case rests heavily on one legendary performance that nearly unraveled due to events beyond his control. By contrast, Luis Tiant put together a broader, superior career. Tiant bests Morris on a rate basis and career ebWAR while Morris holds the edge on career efWAR. Tiant had four seasons with ebWAR or efWAR greater than or equal to 6 (see above) while Morris only has one (see below).

name ERA eIP eK eK9 ebWAR efWAR ebWARpIP efWARpIP
Luis Tiant 3.21 3276 2419 6.6 63.57 53.60 4.85 4.09
Jack Morris 3.65 3984 2649 6.0 48.18 59.42 3.02 3.73
name age year eIP eERA eK eK9 ebWAR efWAR ebWARpIP efWARpIP
Jack Morris 28 1983 291 3.19 251 7.8 4.28 6.18 3.68 5.31

Tiant remarkably reinvented himself after injuries derailed his early prime. Luis Tiant is a Hall of Famer, not just a what could have been. Back to topics

Mark Buehrle

Our era-adjusted versions of WAR are very favorable to Buehrle’s career. He ranks 120th in career ebWAR and 187th in career efWAR. We compare Buehrle to the same group of Hall of Famers that we compared Tiant with. Buehrle compares favorably with this group in both career era-adjusted WAR totals and rates:

name ERA eIP eK eK9 ebWAR efWAR ebWARpIP efWARpIP
Mark Buehrle 3.18 3708 1828 4.4 67.38 57.33 4.54 3.87
Jim Palmer 2.93 3669 2260 5.5 67.54 54.87 4.60 3.74
Bob Feller 3.60 3667 3267 8.0 47.62 55.30 3.25 3.77
Whitey Ford 2.97 3119 1950 5.6 48.37 48.55 3.88 3.89

Mark Buehrle also has a World Series ring and two no-hitters, including a perfect game, to complement a career that, according to era-adjusted WAR, has been comparable to several currently unquestioned Hall of Fame pitchers. So, besides not having an era-adjustment tool until now, what is the knock against him? It seems that Buehrle is viewed as a durable compiler and not a truly great pitcher. The issue against Buehrle is that he was a durable compiler during a period in which pitching usage is much less than past eras. Thus, his raw innings pitched totals did not really amount to anything that impressive. However, when you compare innings “vs your peers” then this story changes. Buehrle’s era-adjusted 3708 innings ranks 40th all-time. Back to topics

The Jekyll and Hyde Legacy of Bob Feller

Some readers may understandably wonder how a project centered on contextualization could overlook Bob Feller. Feller was a WWII hero, one whose stats were diminished because he led the charge of MLB players who selflessly gave up–borrowing vernacular from the more modern critical times–their “place of privilege” to join the war effort in an undeniably true act of American Patriotism. Feller was 23 years old when he volunteered for the Navy and was at the height of his career. He broke into the league at age 17.

Moreover, when restricting attention to what was done on the field, it is undeniable that Feller’s highs (seasons with ebWAR greater than 6) were much higher than those of either Tiant (see above) or Buehrle (see below). In addition, Feller threw three no-hitters, besting Buehrle’s two.

name age year eIP eERA eK eK9 ebWAR efWAR ebWARpIP efWARpIP
Bob Feller 20 1939 276 3.03 335 10.9 7.81 6.30 7.07 5.71
Bob Feller 21 1940 291 2.81 360 11.1 7.35 9.01 6.31 7.74
Bob Feller 22 1941 291 3.65 291 9.0 6.01 4.94 5.16 4.24
Bob Feller 27 1946 291 3.12 301 9.3 6.42 6.99 5.52 6.01
name age year eIP eERA eK eK9 ebWAR efWAR ebWARpIP efWARpIP
Mark Buehrle 22 2001 242 2.79 101 3.8 6.00 3.88 6.20 4.01
Mark Buehrle 28 2007 225 2.80 117 4.7 6.58 3.58 7.31 3.98

But Feller was derailed by injuries, and he did not reinvent himself like Tiant. He was a shell of himself after 1947.

name age year eIP eERA eK eK9 ebWAR efWAR ebWARpIP efWARpIP
Bob Feller 29 1948 276 3.78 216 7.0 -2.00 3.48 -1.81 3.15
Bob Feller 30 1949 196 3.72 137 6.3 0.27 2.45 0.34 3.12
Bob Feller 31 1950 228 3.20 147 5.8 3.36 2.83 3.68 3.10
Bob Feller 32 1951 235 3.71 145 5.6 2.74 1.44 2.91 1.53
Bob Feller 33 1952 193 5.50 92 4.3 -2.00 -0.12 -2.59 -0.16
Bob Feller 34 1953 188 3.69 65 3.1 -0.29 -0.24 -0.39 -0.32
Bob Feller 35 1954 140 3.15 76 4.9 1.52 1.51 2.71 2.70
Bob Feller 36 1955 89 3.44 36 3.6 -0.14 0.45 -0.39 1.26

His highs were higher, but his valleys were lower than both Tiant and Buehrle. A defining moment in Feller’s career was him being a part of the 1948 World Series winning Cleveland Indians team. For his part, Feller went 0-2 in two starts, posting a 5.01 ERA in 14.1 innings pitched. Down the stretch and in the World Series, Bob Feller was repeatedly bailed out by his teammates, including recently integrated black stars Larry Doby and Satchel Paige. In Chapter 26 of Our Team, Luke Epplin described Feller’s final moments in the 1948 World Series:

The stage was set. Everything had fallen into place. It was Feller’s destiny to close out the World Series in front of a hometown crowd. A victory that afternoon would be the culmination of a dream that had commenced on the diamond he and his father had carved into the family farm. Even the two heartbreaking losses Feller had suffered over the past week now could be recast in this new narrative as setbacks that made this particular game all the more dramatically satisfying… Far from the revelry, in a distant corner, Feller undressed in silence. In the eyes of one reporter, he “stood almost forlorn, smiling bravely and a bit self-consciously, as he sadly-gladly watched his beaming teammates celebrate with gay abandon.” It was as if, a United Press article summarized, Feller deliberately was setting himself apart from his teammates “in penance for three times letting them down in these last mad two weeks. It lent an edge of sadness to this noisy jubilee and you knew that Feller would have given almost anything to be standing in Bearden’s shoes. There was a certain irony to the scene: The pitcher who’d always seemed destined to steer the Indians to a championship had become an overlooked figure by the time it finally happened.”

In other words, he choked.

As stated earlier, Bob Feller was bailed out by his black teammates Larry Doby and Satchel Paige in 1948. Years earlier, in October, 1941, Feller and Paige would face each other in an exhibition. After the contests, a then 22 year old Bob Feller said this of 35 year old Satchel Paige and other black players:

“Satch is one of the few Negro baseball players I think could make the major league grade and stick, I’ve seen just about all of them, and there are only a few who I think could make good up there. Satchel is one of them… I wouldn’t say that he’d be great in the major leagues if he were up there. You’ve got to remember that conditions are a lot different from this barnstorming business once you’re up there in the majors.”

Meanwhile, after choking in the World Series and openly pouting in front of everyone while his teammates celebrated winning their championship, a then 24 year old WWII veteran Larry Doby reached out to 29 year old Bob Feller in a scene described well by Epplin:

Doby did what he no doubt wished every teammate had done for him: He walked over to Feller and stuck out his hand. “There were a lot of things–apology, brief happiness, and earnest congratulations–in Feller’s eyes at that moment,” observed one writer. “He in turn reached out with an eager hand which once fired the fastest pitch in baseball and lighted that somber corner with his smile. And with that handshake came a passing of sorts.”

Feller’s legacy has been built up beyond merit. People like Tim Kurkjian love to repeat that Ted Williams once said Feller was the greatest pitcher he ever faced, while completely ignoring that in 192 PAs against Feller, Williams, who remains a true legend even after statistical contextualization, had a .344/.474/.657 slash line with 10 home runs and only 13 strikeouts. In their time, Williams was dogged by the media, while Feller was lauded as a “from-the-farmlands prodigy” who was heir apparent to the seat left warm by Babe Ruth.

It is worth mentioning here that Ted Williams used his 1966 HOF induction speech platform to elevate the excluded Negro League players:

“I hope that someday, the names of Satchel Paige and Josh Gibson can … be added to the symbol of the great Negro League players that are not here only because they were not given a chance.”

This article notes that in the early ’90s, Williams told Bob Costas that speaking up for Negro League players was one of his proudest moments in baseball.

“No one encouraged me. I thought this thing alone… I’ve seen Satchel Paige. I’ve seen Josh Gibson. I heard about Buck Leonard. I heard about some of the other great black athletes. It just came out that [Hall of Fame] day … [and I thought about] the great players of the past. … Only because of their color, [they] didn’t have a chance to play in the big leagues.”

And so it is best to look at Feller’s career with nuance. A purely nostalgic and rose-colored viewing of the Guardians’ star that overlooks the negatives, like this one by Tim Kurkjian, risks twisting the concept of American Patriotism in the minds of those so inclined to see contextualization itself as a malicious distortion. One thing that is for certain: Bob “The Heater from Van Meter” Feller was Born in the USA!

Luis Tiant Bob Feller is a Hall of Famer and a World Series champion, not just a what could have been. Back to topics

Joe Posnanski’s The Baseball 100

Recently Joe Posnanski produced a book of the 100 greatest players of all time. This book is elegant in its presentation and is a tour-de-force of great anecdotes, and it is an impressive achievement to have devised such an overall great list without advanced statistical methodology. While at the Athletic, Posnanski had this to say about his philosophy on ranking lists of these sort: Some of it is science, but admittedly some of it also art. I [Joe Posnanski] will give you a handful of guiding principles:

  1. I think today’s players tend to be underrated compared to those who came before them.
  2. I lean toward players who were great at their peak, even if that peak only lasted a short time, and lean away from those who were consistently but not toweringly good for a long time.
  3. I lean toward players who did multiple things well over specialists (no matter how great) who basically did just one thing well.
  4. I take a lot of care to make educated guesses about players whose careers were shortened by things beyond their control – World War II, for example, or baseball’s tragic and infuriating color line. I don’t make the same adjustment for injuries. As Bill James has written, there’s a big difference. The years when Joe DiMaggio or Ted Williams or Bob Feller were at war, the years when Josh Gibson and Oscar Charleston played in the Negro Leagues, they were still the best players on earth. They just couldn’t play in the big leagues because of larger issues. When players get hurt – take Don Mattingly, for example, and his back problems – they stop being the best players in the world. I wish Donnie Baseball didn’t get hurt, we all do, but he did, and he was never quite the same player after that. That’s not the same as saying that Bob Feller lost four years when he was still the best pitcher on earth.

We provide Posnanski’s top 25 NL/AL players of all-time along with our top 25 NL/AL players ranked by era-adjusted bWAR and era-adjusted fWAR.

rank Posnanski’s NL/AL rankings ebWAR efWAR
1 Willie Mays Barry Bonds Barry Bonds
2 Babe Ruth Willie Mays Roger Clemens
3 Barry Bonds Roger Clemens Willie Mays
4 Hank Aaron Babe Ruth Henry Aaron
5 Ted Williams Henry Aaron Babe Ruth
6 Walter Johnson Alex Rodriguez Greg Maddux
7 Ty Cobb Stan Musial Stan Musial
8 Stan Musial Ty Cobb Ted Williams
9 Mickey Mantle Greg Maddux Ty Cobb
10 Honus Wagner Albert Pujols Alex Rodriguez
11 Roger Clemens Mike Schmidt Nolan Ryan
12 Lou Gehrig Ted Williams Randy Johnson
13 Alex Rodriguez Rickey Henderson Mike Schmidt
14 Rogers Hornsby Randy Johnson Lefty Grove
15 Tris Speaker Tris Speaker Rickey Henderson
16 Mike Schmidt Tom Seaver Bert Blyleven
17 Frank Robinson Joe Morgan Steve Carlton
18 Joe Morgan Lefty Grove Joe Morgan
19 Lefty Grove Frank Robinson Frank Robinson
20 Albert Pujols Mel Ott Tris Speaker
21 Rickey Henderson Justin Verlander Justin Verlander
22 Pete Alexander Rogers Hornsby Albert Pujols
23 Mike Trout Bert Blyleven Mel Ott
24 Randy Johnson Carl Yastrzemski Carl Yastrzemski
25 Eddie Collins Cal Ripken Jr.  Rogers Hornsby

We appreciate that Posnanski used an artistic as well as a scientific process to come up with the above rankings. And we appreciate his thinking that today’s players are underrated compared to those who came before them. We love that Posnanski placed Willie Mays in front of Babe Ruth! We also applaud Posnanski’s effort to include great Negro League players in the upper echelon of his rankings, and we think that he has progressed the conversation on the greatness of Negro League players forward. For reference, Posnanski had Oscar Charleston at #5, Satchel Paige at #10, Josh Gibson at #15, and Pop Lloyd at #25. We removed these players from consideration so that we can make an apples-to-apples comparison between his methodology and our methodology, and we apologize to Posnanski because removing these names changes his list in a way that lowers its artistic value. All-in-all this ranking list is a great achievement.

Now come our criticisms. Whatever reasoning led to putting Willie Mays ahead of Babe Ruth should have also placed Albert Pujols ahead of Lou Gehrig, Cal Ripken Jr. ahead of Honus Wagner, and both Randy Johnson and Greg Maddux ahead of Walter Johnson and Pete Alexander. However, a strong argument can be made for placing Lefty Grove higher than Greg Maddux and Randy Johnson.

We also observe that Posnanski’s list contains 6 NL/AL players who began their career before integration in his top 10 list, and 12 such players who began their career before integration in his top 25 list. By our calculations, the chance of observing 12 or more pre-integration players in a top 25 list is around 1 in 41, and the chance of observing 6 or more pre-integration players in a top 10 list is around 1 in 31. Thus, Posnanski has maybe included too many old time players in his rankings of the greatest all-time players despite his efforts to not do this.

Posnanski has the advantage of not being married to a formula and can better account for things like player narratives, anecdotes, and all-time great talents like Trout not having enough seasons to belong to a career list based solely on career totals. We would enjoy seeing what Posnanski’s list would look like if he incorporated our era-adjusted rankings into his calculus instead of the mysterious Tom Tango statistical list. Note that Ichiro has 68.38 career ebWAR which ranks 113th all-time, and 66.01 career efWAR which ranks 119th all-time. This does not include his time in Japan. If that time in Japan was worth 20 eWAR, which we think is a conservative estimate, then Ichiro would jump to 47th all-time in ebWAR and 40th in all-time efWAR. It is clear that Posnanski has deep admiration for Ichiro and that he rewarded him with the number 100 spot on the list to lead off his book. But when viewed through the lens of our era-adjusted framework, and after adding some generous sprinkles of lore and cultural impact, Posnanski could credibly put Ichiro at 25th all-time.

Joey Votto, if you are reading this, then we would like to let you know that our era-adjustment methodology ranks you 96th in ebWAR and 100th in efWAR which credibly can put you in the top 100. You do not need to wait for Posnanski to come around! You are also third all-time in era-adjusted career OBP among players with at least 8000 PAs, ahead of Babe Ruth, Mickey Mantle, and Lou Gehrig.

We will wrap up our discussion of Posnanski’s work with a connection between his thought process and our mathematical-based approach. Posnanski states that when viewing players all you can really do is look at the impact a player has in their own time and how much can one appreciate that impact. This is exactly what our era-adjustment strategy is. Our method is an assessment of how a player performed vs their peers balanced with the size of the talent pool at the time the player played. Our method formalizes impact in a player’s own time and how much we ought to appreciate that impact. Back to topics

A Comparison with Two Respectable Internet Lists

One consistent theme of our work is that there are not many ranking lists that appropriately compare players across eras. However, there are two lists that we found which do a respectable job by employing methodology which alters WAR to arrive at an era-adjusted version of WAR. These lists are provided by:

  1. Baseball Egg: One can see their methodology here.
  2. The 100 Greatest: One can see their methodology here.

Both of these lists give considerations for a player’s prime seasons. Thus we compare our JAWS rankings to these lists, see below (note that Negro League players are not considered here):

rank Baseball Egg The 100 Greatest ebJAWS efJAWS
1 Willie Mays Barry Bonds Barry Bonds Barry Bonds
2 Ted Williams Babe Ruth Willie Mays Roger Clemens
3 Babe Ruth Willie Mays Roger Clemens Willie Mays
4 Hank Aaron Roger Clemens Babe Ruth Babe Ruth
5 Stan Musial Randy Johnson Henry Aaron Henry Aaron
6 Mickey Mantle Albert Pujols Alex Rodriguez Greg Maddux
7 Ty Cobb Alex Rodriguez Stan Musial Ted Williams
8 Rickey Henderson Greg Maddux Albert Pujols Randy Johnson
9 Barry Bonds Lou Gehrig Lefty Grove Alex Rodriguez
10 Albert Pujols Hank Aaron Mike Schmidt Mike Schmidt
11 Walter Johnson Ted Williams Randy Johnson Lefty Grove
12 Joe Morgan Mike Schmidt Greg Maddux Stan Musial
13 Rogers Hornsby Ty Cobb Ted Williams Ty Cobb
14 Greg Maddux Clayton Kershaw Ty Cobb Rickey Henderson
15 Mike Schmidt Mike Trout Rickey Henderson Steve Carlton
16 Mike Trout Pedro Martinez Joe Morgan Joe Morgan
17 Lou Gehrig Justin Verlander Justin Verlander Nolan Ryan
18 Randy Johnson Mickey Mantle Mike Trout Mike Trout
19 Cal Ripken Jr.  Shohei Ohtani Tom Seaver Justin Verlander
20 Carl Yastrzemski Rogers Hornsby Cal Ripken Jr.  Albert Pujols
21 Tom Seaver Stan Musial Rogers Hornsby Rogers Hornsby
22 Frank Robinson Mariano Rivera Tris Speaker Bert Blyleven
23 Honus Wagner Max Scherzer Wade Boggs Cal Ripken Jr. 
24 Tris Speaker Sandy Koufax Carl Yastrzemski Mickey Mantle
25 Eddie Collins Bob Gibson Lou Gehrig Lou Gehrig

At a cursory glance these lists as very similar in that they all include a large amount of players that began their careers after baseball was integrated. Counts of players who began their career before baseball was integrated are below:

Rank Tier Baseball Egg The 100 Greatest ebJAWS efJAWS
top 10 4 2 3 2
top 25 10 6 8 7

The table below measures how well each ranking system aligns with the Full House Model. Assuming our talent-pool estimates are reasonably accurate and baseball talent is distributed uniformly across time, we calculate the probability of observing at least (x) who began their career prior to 1950 in a top-10 or top-25 list.

We report these results as odds of the form “1 in (N).” Values close to 1 in 1 indicate strong agreement with the model, while larger values indicate increasing disagreement. For example, a result of 1 in 100 means that a list containing that many pre-integration players would occur only about one percent of the time under the Full House assumptions. Thus, as the odds move farther from 1 in 1, the rankings become increasingly difficult to reconcile with a talent pool that is evenly distributed across time after accounting for changes in its size.

Rank Tier Baseball Egg The 100 Greatest ebJAWS efJAWS
Top 10 1 in 3.45 1 in 1.23 1 in 1.81 1 in 1.23
Top 25 1 in 7.92 1 in 1.37 1 in 2.59 1 in 1.78

The table below flips the question around. Instead of asking whether a ranking contains too many pre-integration players, we ask whether it contains too few. Specifically, we calculate the probability of observing at most \(x\) pre-integration players in a top-10 or top-25 list. As before, results are reported as odds of the form “1 in \(N\).” Values close to 1 in 1 indicate that the rankings are broadly consistent with the Full House Model, while larger values suggest that older-era players may be underrepresented.

Rank Tier Baseball Egg The 100 Greatest ebJAWS efJAWS
Top 10 1.13 1 in 2.24 1 in 1.41 1 in 2.24
Top 25 1 in 1.062 1 in 2.28 1 in 1.31 1 in 1.63

None of these lists exhibit the extreme overrepresentation of pre-integration players that is common in traditional all-time rankings. The 100 Greatest tends to be closest to the Full House Model when evaluating the potential overrepresentation of older-era players, while Baseball Egg is closest when evaluating possible underrepresentation. Our era-adjusted versions of JAWS generally fall between those two approaches, producing rankings that avoid both the strong historical bias often found in traditional lists and the tendency to discount older-era players too aggressively. Baseball Egg deserves credit for accounting for PED use and careers interrupted by war, but in our view those adjustments may slightly overshoot the mark. Back to topics

ESPN’s Top 100 MLB Players of All-Time

In February 2022, ESPN published a new top 100 ranking list. Their list was compiled in essentially two steps. As quoted from the linked article:

First, they selected a pool of 200 candidate players using career WAR, Hall of Fame status, peak performance and overall contributions to the game as initial screening criteria. They then asked dozens of ESPN editors and writers to contribute to a balloting system that pits players from the list against each other in head-to-head voting. The question they posed: “Based on a combination of career value and peak performance, which player would you rank higher?” ESPN’s participants voted more than 20,000 times. Based on those votes, the players were ranked by the percentage of the time they were chosen over any competing player.

The ESPN top 100 list included 6 players who began their career before baseball was integrated in their top 10, and 11 such players in their top 25. By our calculations, the chance of observing 11 or more pre-integration players in a top 25 list is around 1 in 30, and the chance of observing 6 or more pre-integration players in a top 10 list is around 1 in 17. Thus, ESPN has yet again likely included too many old-time players in their rankings of the greatest all-time players.

Our first analysis of the ESPN ranking list was very critical of Jeff Passan. Some of our criticisms remain. However, we apologize to Passan for his desire to swap Mel Ott who ranked 62nd with Tony Gwynn who ranked 44th. In this version of our analysis, Tony Gwynn ranks 102nd in ebWAR and 121st in efWAR while Mel Ott ranks 20th in ebWAR and 23rd in efWAR. Back to topics

Christina Kahrl’s Article

In 2016 Christina Kahrl wrote an excellent article on problems with using poorly calibrated “vs your peers” statistics to compare players across eras. Specifically, she said:

The Gehrig and Wagner arguments boil down to this: Via WAR or OPS+ or your own understanding of all of the numbers we have, you have faith in our measuring their relative extraordinary superiority over their peers in smaller leagues with deliberate personnel limitations and an uneven distribution of talent. You can have that faith, and it relies on a lot of data for support – at the same time that you turn a blind eye to what’s going on in the game that creates that data.

This is a point that is routinely missed among baseball fans and analysts alike, in part because they have been duped by websites claiming that the metrics they use are era-adjusted. For a metric to be era-adjusted it needs to account for the changing distributions of league statistics and the changing composition of MLB players. Returning to Kahrl’s point about Lou Gehrig and Honus Wagner, the Full House Model ranks modern first basemen and shortstops above Gehrig and Wagner in career ebWAR and career efWAR.

name ePA eAB eH eHR eBB eBA eOBP eSLG eOPS ABpHR ebWAR efWAR ebWARpPA efWARpPA
Albert Pujols 13181 11420 3506 660 1514 0.307 0.390 0.549 0.939 17.30 112.29 98.16 5.54 4.84
Lou Gehrig 9592 8013 2486 485 1428 0.310 0.417 0.575 0.992 16.52 96.64 93.15 6.55 6.31
name ePA eAB eH eHR eBB eBA eOBP eSLG eOPS ABpHR ebWAR efWAR ebWARpPA efWARpPA
Alex Rodriguez 11884 10260 3016 542 1323 0.294 0.380 0.509 0.889 18.93 119.95 110.77 6.56 6.06
Cal Ripken Jr.  12997 11668 3230 366 1126 0.277 0.340 0.435 0.775 31.88 98.51 94.58 4.93 4.73
Honus Wagner 11062 10168 2970 220 580 0.292 0.338 0.427 0.765 46.22 93.04 94.11 5.47 5.53

It is worth noting that Gehrig and Wagner are more competitive when evaluating their careers on a rate basis. Some of this is due to Pujols, A Rod, and Ripken Jr having longer era-adjusted careers than either Gehrig or Wagner. The comparisons below consider Pujols from 2001-2015, A Rod from 1994-2012, and Ripken Jr from 1981-1996. This viewing of careers has Gehrig and Pujols in a near tie, same as Wagner and Ripken Jr. That being said, our era-adjusted JAWS metrics rank Albert Pujols above Lou Gehrig and Cal Ripken Jr above Honus Wagner. And Alex Rodriguez is clearly better than Honus Wagner by all approaches mentioned here (career, shortened career, and JAWS). Back to topics

name ePA eAB eH eHR eBB eBA eOBP eSLG eOPS ABpHR ebWAR efWAR ebWARpPA efWARpPA
Albert Pujols 9786 8370 2670 543 1224 0.319 0.408 0.587 0.995 15.41 100.83 87.69 6.70 5.82
Lou Gehrig 9592 8013 2486 485 1428 0.310 0.417 0.575 0.992 16.52 96.64 93.15 6.55 6.31
name ePA eAB eH eHR eBB eBA eOBP eSLG eOPS ABpHR ebWAR efWAR ebWARpPA efWARpPA
Alex Rodriguez 10907 9436 2802 507 1189 0.297 0.382 0.515 0.897 18.61 115.78 106.25 6.90 6.33
Cal Ripken Jr.  11132 9927 2778 332 1038 0.280 0.348 0.447 0.795 29.90 94.50 90.42 5.52 5.28
Honus Wagner 11062 10168 2970 220 580 0.292 0.338 0.427 0.765 46.22 93.04 94.11 5.47 5.53

The Ruth Anomaly Revisited

On August 12, 2025 our work was featured by the Science desk at the New York Times. The article discussed both the reception of our published academic paper within the statistical community and one of its most provocative implications: Barry Bonds ranks as the career leader in era-adjusted WAR. This framing, which naturally invites debate about the greatest player of all time, helped bring broader attention to the era-adjusted statistics derived from our methodology. The reception has been mixed of course (don’t read the comments!)

Controversial blogger Steve Sailer wrote a piece about the New York Times feature titled “Who Was Greatest Baseball Player Ever? Ruth or Bonds?” Sailer’s piece is a more or less fair presentation of our work and handles PED concerns with nuance. He even grants Bonds the possibility of being the best player in his era.

Sailer clearly read our documentation and had a response to this passage from Version 2.1 of this document:

“Babe Ruth’s dominance is in part due to his talent, but is also in part to him exercising a superior batting strategy that had not existed before. Therefore, Ruth’s”vs his peers” stats are slightly distorted, and his era-adjusted stats will also be distorted as a result. Ruth’s era-adjusted stats reflect the combination of his talent and his competitive advantage. This competitive advantage does not exist in other contexts. Our method will therefore overestimate Ruth’s era-adjusted home run hitting and his era-adjusted WAR [Wins Above Replacement] since our method does not yet disentangle talent and competitive circumstance. The problem of the Babe Ruth anomaly confounds all era-adjustment techniques. We imagine that Ruth’s era-adjusted OBP [On Base Percentage] is also overestimated by our method. The Babe Ruth anomaly challenges all other era-adjustment techniques, and is especially challenging for anyone making interpretations based solely on raw or league adjusted “+” stats and WAR. ”

Sailer said that this points out that Ruth caused a glitch in the matrix and ended his piece by asking: then again, maybe Ruth should get extra credit for revolutionizing professional sports in the Western world?

To this, we say that whatever extra credit Sailer is calling for is already baked into the calculations and, even with the extra credit, Ruth still trails Bonds, Mays, Clemens in career value and his best seasons are dwarfed by many others.

Now consider the alternative line of thinking. Suppose that one were interested in correcting the mismatch between Ruth’s inferred talent from peer-relative accomplishments during eras where he revolutionized the sport, i.e. if the dominant strategy in the league was to hit home runs like it is today. It may be the case that Ruth still leads his contemporaries, but he would no longer be a glitch in the matrix. His dominance would shrink, his inferred talent would be much lower, and his era-adjusted stats would take a potentially huge hit.

It is worth it to note that advocates for older era players will still cry foul, pointing out that modern players are beneficiaries of advances in training, medicine, and technology which allow them to perform at an elite level unavailable to what was around for Ruth. Paradoxically, these advances correlate with a reduction in career value for modern stars (sans Barry Bonds). The table below taken from FanGraphs lists the top 10 in fWAR for all players age 35 and older. Bonds is the only player still living and seven of the 10 began their careers before integration.

Having read this far, you probably have a sense of what is happening by now. All the modern advantages are bestowed upon everyone and at the elite levels there is less variation in training and conditioning today than in the past. For example, Babe Ruth hired a personal trainer during his playing days and this was an event worthy of Wikipedia page. Combined with increases to the talent pool, the variation of achievement has shrunk and the margin for error is less than it has been in the past. An open problem in era-adjustment is to provide adjustments for the aging curve of players so that they, in addition to seasonal stats, can be compared across eras.

Taken together, it is possible, perhaps very likely, that era-adjusted WAR and other era-adjusted baseball statistics still leave Babe Ruth’s career value inflated over his true talent level. At least these measures rein in Ruth’s bloated valuation whereas traditional WAR and OPS+ suggest he’s the undisputed GOAT. Back to topics

Ted Williams

In a previous article, Eck devoted attention to Ted Williams with a focus on how his career would be much worse in an era-neutral context. While Williams’s stats do take a huge hit as speculated, his era-adjusted career WAR values are still very high. He is also firmly in the top 10 on a rate basis, as seen above.

Considering that Ted Williams missed a large part of five seasons due to wars, it is reasonable to include Ted Williams on the “Mount Rushmore” (top 4) of the greatest all-time baseball players based on this analysis… But there is a lot of context that this current analysis does not yet account for. We currently account for slow integration, talent depletion due to World War II, changing game numbers, and league expansion. But we do not yet account for the general quality of a players’ competition, and Ted Williams did not face very good pitchers.

We now look at the best pitching seasons by ebWAR during the years that Williams did not serve in wars and we remove Williams’s Boston teammates (namely Lefty Grove). What we find is that the top end of his competition is weak in both an absolute sense and relative to the contemporaneous NL. Below are the top 10 AL pitching seasons among non-Williams teammates during the years that Ted Williams played (1939-1960 with 1943-45 and 1952-53 removed).

name lg team age year eIP eER eERA eK eK9 ebWAR efWAR
Hal Newhouser AL DET 25 1946 284 76.04889 2.41 293 9.3 10.23 10.33
Billy Pierce AL CHA 28 1955 212 44.99111 1.91 187 7.9 7.86 6.89
Bob Feller AL CLE 20 1939 276 92.92000 3.03 335 10.9 7.81 6.30
Herb Score AL CLE 23 1956 231 59.03333 2.30 276 10.8 7.72 8.20
Early Wynn AL CLE 36 1956 257 69.96111 2.45 168 5.9 7.72 5.56
Bob Feller AL CLE 21 1940 291 90.85667 2.81 360 11.1 7.35 9.01
Hoyt Wilhelm AL BAL 36 1959 219 57.91333 2.38 142 5.8 6.73 3.72
Jim Bunning AL DET 25 1957 268 80.99556 2.72 187 6.3 6.66 3.72
Camilo Pascual AL WS1 25 1959 234 66.04000 2.54 180 6.9 6.65 8.49
Bobo Newsom AL DET 31 1939 271 96.95778 3.22 239 7.9 6.60 5.85

Below are the top 10 NL pitching seasons during the same time period. Recall that interleague play did not exist when Ted Williams played.

name lg team age year eIP eER eERA eK eK9 ebWAR efWAR
Ewell Blackwell NL CIN 24 1947 263 68.96444 2.36 264 9.0 9.79 8.94
Harry Brecheen NL SLN 33 1948 250 56.94444 2.05 211 7.6 9.64 9.01
Johnny Antonelli NL NY1 24 1954 252 59.92000 2.14 186 6.6 9.62 4.65
Mort Cooper NL SLN 29 1942 276 66.85333 2.18 206 6.7 8.89 8.82
Robin Roberts NL PHI 27 1954 291 98.94000 3.06 200 6.2 8.64 6.32
Warren Spahn NL BSN 26 1947 283 70.12111 2.23 154 4.9 8.57 5.90
Ernie Broglio NL SLN 24 1960 219 54.99333 2.26 190 7.8 8.48 3.81
Robin Roberts NL PHI 24 1951 291 96.03000 2.97 170 5.3 8.18 7.38
Warren Spahn NL BSN 30 1951 278 95.13778 3.08 203 6.6 7.61 5.13
Johnny Sain NL BSN 30 1948 291 88.91667 2.75 158 4.9 7.02 4.40

The top 10 AL pitching seasons excluding Boston Red Sox players for select 20 year stretches are included below for comparison:

1961-1980 AL:

name lg team age year eIP eER eERA eK eK9 ebWAR efWAR
Ron Guidry AL NYA 27 1978 254 53.05778 1.88 257 9.1 11.24 9.71
Mark Fidrych AL DET 21 1976 227 47.92222 1.90 123 4.9 10.72 4.85
Wilbur Wood AL CHA 29 1971 281 68.06444 2.18 189 6.1 10.42 6.22
Bert Blyleven AL MIN 22 1973 267 67.04667 2.26 245 8.3 8.88 10.18
Hank Aguirre AL DET 31 1962 213 48.99000 2.07 149 6.3 8.54 4.62
Gaylord Perry AL CLE 33 1972 272 61.95556 2.05 189 6.3 8.20 6.92
Wilbur Wood AL CHA 30 1972 291 90.85667 2.81 161 5.0 8.14 4.90
Gaylord Perry AL CLE 35 1974 272 73.13778 2.42 209 6.9 8.07 5.02
Bert Blyleven AL MIN 23 1974 233 63.94556 2.47 251 9.7 7.87 8.36
Frank Tanana AL CAL 21 1975 230 67.97778 2.66 287 11.2 7.67 7.81

1981-2000 AL:

name lg team age year eIP eER eERA eK eK9 ebWAR efWAR
Bret Saberhagen AL KCA 25 1989 291 63.05000 1.95 204 6.3 13.56 9.17
Roger Clemens AL TOR 34 1997 291 72.10333 2.23 254 7.9 12.71 10.45
Kevin Appier AL KCA 25 1993 251 66.09667 2.37 181 6.5 10.68 8.27
Bert Blyleven AL CLE 30 1981 235 80.94444 3.10 182 7.0 9.94 5.11
Roger Clemens AL TOR 35 1998 259 71.94444 2.50 259 9.0 9.47 7.76
Teddy Higuera AL ML4 29 1988 225 66.00000 2.64 187 7.5 9.23 5.40
Randy Johnson AL SEA 31 1995 270 71.10000 2.37 355 11.8 8.69 10.33
Kevin Appier AL KCA 24 1992 208 61.01333 2.64 146 6.3 8.54 4.48
Dave Stieb AL TOR 26 1984 291 86.00667 2.66 224 6.9 8.43 6.28
Mark Gubicza AL KCA 25 1988 283 88.04444 2.80 191 6.1 8.36 6.11

2001-2019 AL:

The 2020 season is not included.

name lg team age year eIP eER eERA eK eK9 ebWAR efWAR
Justin Verlander AL DET 29 2012 291 71.13333 2.20 242 7.5 12.60 10.21
Zack Greinke AL KCA 25 2009 262 52.98222 1.82 230 7.9 12.27 9.66
Corey Kluber AL CLE 31 2017 265 53.00000 1.80 266 9.0 11.74 9.11
Mike Minor AL TEX 31 2019 262 82.09333 2.82 168 5.8 9.65 4.56
Justin Verlander AL DET 28 2011 291 72.10333 2.23 253 7.8 9.35 7.56
Corey Kluber AL CLE 28 2014 272 73.13778 2.42 272 9.0 8.92 7.53
Lance Lynn AL TEX 32 2019 260 82.04444 2.84 200 6.9 8.53 6.45
David Price AL TBA 26 2012 244 65.06667 2.40 187 6.9 8.44 4.81
Justin Verlander AL DET 33 2016 277 85.87000 2.79 224 7.3 8.27 5.99
Justin Verlander AL DET 34 2017 272 87.04000 2.88 201 6.7 8.10 5.01

We now take a closer look at the wider field of Williams’s competition. Below we display the distributions of ebWAR values of all pitchers who pitched at least 200 innings for each of the above AL eras with a focus on comparing Williams’s AL to the other eras. We find that the field of pitchers that Williams faced is better than the era that came before it (which makes sense) and slightly worse than the contemporaneous NL. But his competition was far worse than the more modern eras.

What this shows is that Ted Williams competed in one of the weakest pitching environments of any extended era. Even Hal Newhouser’s 1946 masterpiece (10.32 ebWAR) came without the wartime hiatus that sidelined so many stars, as he never had to shake off military “rust.” In other words, if you were hand‑picking an environment to pile up legendary numbers, the 1939–1960 AL with Lefty Grove on your team would be near the top of the list.

To compound the issue, Ted Williams faced fewer left-handed hitters than great hitters from more modern eras. Kenneth Matinale has some analyses on this topic, you can view one here. Below are Ted Williams splits from baseball reference (the information is not based on complete play-by-play data). We can see that Williams was far worse against left-handed pitchers, and that he faced lefties only 21.8% of the time. On the other hand, Tony Gywnn and George Brett faced lefties, respectively, 34.4% and 33.2% of the time.

Platoon Splits
I Split G GS PA AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS TB GDP HBP SH SF IBB ROE BAbip tOPS+
I vs RHP 1900 7148 5587 1362 1953 388 59 421 1390 19 16 1516 474 .350 .489 .666 1.155 3722 145 26 1 18 225 64 .325 106
I vs LHP 778 1988 1634 295 509 99 9 61 311 4 2 337 197 .312 .431 .495 .926 809 52 11 1 5 23 23 .324 67
Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Original Table
Generated 7/15/2025.


Below is an educated guess of Ted Williams’s era-adjusted statistics had 33% of his plate appearances came against lefties (denoted Ted Williams*). The table below also provides, for reference, Ted William’s era-adjusted stats in the first row. We use a wOBA based approach to estimate Williams’s era-adjusted WAR had 33% of his plate appearances came against lefties using the run values computed here. This reference gives run values for outs (-0.26), walks (0.29), HBP (0.31), singles (0.44), doubles (0.74), triples (1.01), and home runs (1.39). We will suppose that one run is 0.10 WAR (using a 10 runs-to-wins conversion). Note that Williams loses more home runs than hits. We assign a run value of 0.59 for this difference so that theses added hits are halfway between a single and a double. The analysis here shows that Ted Williams’s era-adjusted stats would take a hit if they were additionally adjusted for a more modern pitching deployment strategy, one that was embraced during the time frame that we are using to evaluate careers.

name ePA eAB eH eHR eBB eBA eOBP ABpHR ebWAR efWAR ebWARpPA efWARpPA
Ted Williams 10164 8210 2576 497 1890 0.314 0.443 16.52 110.45 111.49 7.06 7.13
Ted Williams* 10164 8256 2562 465 1844 0.310 0.438 17.75 103.9 104.94 6.64 6.71

With all this in mind, we are now going to start a speculative exercise on Ted Williams prospects of remaining in the “Mount Rushmore” (top 4) of baseball players as judged by career value if you gave him his 5 seasons back. For this exercise we will remove Alex Rodriguez and Roger Clemens entirely and will consider Bonds stats through 1998 (denoted Barry Bonds**) where the speculative projection of Bonds career is under the premise of what his career would look like had he not taken PEDs after his age 33 season (we will ignore amphetamine speculation and just focus on PEDs as is standard practice with these types of discussions). This exercise will focus on ebWAR since it is favorable to Ted Williams, but we will be using our lefty percentage adjusted version of Ted Williams. Below is the list of all players that have obtained as much efWAR as Ted Williams where Mike Trout (through 2025, his age 33 season) is included in the conversation since he is the greatest player on a rate basis. In aggregate, this is a favorable set of circumstances for Ted Williams.

name ebWAR efWAR
Willie Mays 147.26 138.59
Babe Ruth 140.71 125.83
Henry Aaron 138.22 130.72
Stan Musial 119.10 112.35
Ty Cobb 116.90 110.88
Greg Maddux 112.49 119.40
Mike Schmidt 111.45 108.73
Rickey Henderson 109.78 105.01
Randy Johnson 108.27 109.13
Ted Williams* 103.90 104.94
Lefty Grove 103.61 105.22
Barry Bonds** 98.93 94.47
Mike Trout 94.14 91.91
Nolan Ryan 88.67 109.82

Where does this go from here? Ted Williams needs only roughly 15 ebWAR and 8 efWAR to eclipse Stan Musial for the 4th spot. He would need a lot more to obtain the third spot. Barry Bonds, who put up 8.6 ebWAR in 1998 is slightly behind Ted Williams. Mike Trout is on the outside looking in. But Trout is the most productive player all-time on a rate basis and this analysis is only through his age 33 season. A close look at Williams’s stats reveal that he got off to a hot start in 1953 and his 1942 and 1946 seasons were amazing.

So, at face value, he could easily pull this off. But none of this accounts for the relatively poor pitching competition that Ted Williams faced in his time period. How much should that factor in? A 5% reduction? A 10% reduction? More? Less? And how do these types of projections account for additional injury risk? What do we think about accounting for the systematic increased longevity of older era players? It seems possible for Ted Williams to crack the Mount Rushmore of career ebWAR from the analysis. But this analysis was very favorable to Williams. We ignored Clemens, threw out all post-1998 Bonds stats, and have not adjusted for strength of competition or additional injury risk. In our view, Ted Williams remains firmly on the outside of Mt. Rushmore.

Ted Williams remains one of the greatest players of all-time. But the mythical lore and possible GOAT status that surrounds him reflects failed attempts to properly evaluate the historical achievements of players. A contextualized Ted Williams is comporable to Joey Votto with more power and more longevity. Oh the blasphemy!

name ePA eAB eH eHR eBB eBA eOBP ABpHR ebWAR efWAR ebWARpPA efWARpPA
Joey Votto 9053 7294 2230 275 1630 0.306 0.435 26.52 71.84 67.81 5.16 4.87
Ted Williams* 10164 8256 2562 465 1844 0.310 0.438 17.75 103.9 104.94 6.64 6.71

Back to topics

Resources

For readers who want direct access to our data, this document is written in R Markdown and now loads the fullhouse R package. No more local data files. You can install it from GitHub:

https://github.com/DEck13/fullhouse

The source code for this document is also available for cloning and experimentation. Feel free to play around with these statistics! If you publish analyses or content based on our era-adjusted statistics, please cite at least one of the following:

  • Shen Yan, Adrian Burgos Jr., Christopher Kinson, and Daniel J. Eck (2025). Comparing baseball players across eras via novel Full House Modeling. Annals of Applied Statistics, 19(2): 1778-1799. DOI: 10.1214/24-AOAS1992.

  • Our website: https://eckeraadjustment.web.illinois.edu/

Mathematically inclined readers may also explore the detailed primer vignette in the Lahman R package which walks through Full House Modeling mechanics through an example involving batting averages.

https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/Lahman/vignettes/FHM-primer.html

Back to topics