We are pleased to release version 2.1 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 the 2022 season. This presentation builds upon the structure and goals of Version 2.0 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 154.71 1 Barry Bonds 145.57 1 Barry Bonds 150.14
2 Willie Mays 145.30 2 Roger Clemens 140.75 2 Roger Clemens 142.56
3 Roger Clemens 144.38 3 Willie Mays 135.78 3 Willie Mays 140.54
4 Babe Ruth 138.64 4 Henry Aaron 127.96 4 Henry Aaron 131.82
5 Henry Aaron 135.67 5 Greg Maddux 120.91 5 Babe Ruth 129.62
6 Alex Rodriguez 120.64 6 Babe Ruth 120.60 6 Greg Maddux 117.23
7 Stan Musial 119.37 7 Stan Musial 112.79 7 Stan Musial 116.08
8 Ty Cobb 115.00 8 Alex Rodriguez 110.52 8 Alex Rodriguez 115.58
9 Greg Maddux 113.55 9 Randy Johnson 109.78 9 Ty Cobb 111.98
10 Albert Pujols 111.95 10 Ty Cobb 108.95 10 Randy Johnson 109.71
11 Mike Schmidt 110.09 11 Nolan Ryan 108.31 11 Mike Schmidt 108.25
12 Randy Johnson 109.64 12 Ted Williams 107.45 12 Ted Williams 107.70
13 Rickey Henderson 109.26 13 Mike Schmidt 106.41 13 Rickey Henderson 106.58
14 Ted Williams 107.95 14 Rickey Henderson 103.90 14 Albert Pujols 104.64
15 Tom Seaver 103.85 15 Bert Blyleven 101.93 15 Lefty Grove 100.00
16 Tris Speaker 102.66 16 Steve Carlton 100.34 16 Bert Blyleven 99.66
17 Lefty Grove 101.19 17 Lefty Grove 98.80 17 Tris Speaker 99.00
18 Joe Morgan 100.31 18 Albert Pujols 97.33 18 Justin Verlander 98.26
19 Justin Verlander 100.05 19 Justin Verlander 96.48 19 Joe Morgan 98.10
20 Mel Ott 99.87 20 Mel Ott 95.98 20 Mel Ott 97.93
21 Frank Robinson 99.84 21 Joe Morgan 95.89 21 Frank Robinson 97.83
22 Cal Ripken Jr 97.95 22 Frank Robinson 95.83 22 Nolan Ryan 97.59
23 Bert Blyleven 97.38 23 Tris Speaker 95.34 23 Tom Seaver 97.29
24 Rogers Hornsby 97.16 24 Rogers Hornsby 94.49 24 Rogers Hornsby 95.82
25 Lou Gehrig 95.56 25 Gaylord Perry 94.46 25 Cal Ripken Jr 95.70

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 109.63 1 Barry Bonds 103.43 1 Barry Bonds 106.53
2 Willie Mays 106.15 2 Roger Clemens 103.04 2 Roger Clemens 104.48
3 Roger Clemens 105.92 3 Willie Mays 99.08 3 Willie Mays 102.62
4 Babe Ruth 101.12 4 Babe Ruth 90.53 4 Babe Ruth 95.83
5 Henry Aaron 95.13 5 Henry Aaron 89.39 5 Henry Aaron 92.26
6 Alex Rodriguez 91.98 6 Greg Maddux 88.69 6 Alex Rodriguez 88.26
7 Stan Musial 88.34 7 Randy Johnson 85.79 7 Greg Maddux 87.12
8 Randy Johnson 86.99 8 Alex Rodriguez 84.54 8 Randy Johnson 86.39
9 Albert Pujols 86.38 9 Stan Musial 83.54 9 Stan Musial 85.94
10 Greg Maddux 85.54 10 Ted Williams 82.53 10 Mike Schmidt 83.56
11 Mike Schmidt 84.91 11 Mike Schmidt 82.20 11 Ted Williams 83.16
12 Ted Williams 83.80 12 Lefty Grove 79.31 12 Lefty Grove 81.28
13 Lefty Grove 83.24 13 Ty Cobb 78.98 13 Albert Pujols 81.07
14 Ty Cobb 82.91 14 Rickey Henderson 78.86 14 Ty Cobb 80.94
15 Rickey Henderson 82.34 15 Steve Carlton 78.32 15 Rickey Henderson 80.60
16 Justin Verlander 79.92 16 Nolan Ryan 76.91 16 Justin Verlander 77.96
17 Joe Morgan 79.11 17 Justin Verlander 76.00 17 Joe Morgan 77.03
18 Mike Trout 78.23 18 Albert Pujols 75.76 18 Mike Trout 76.40
19 Tom Seaver 78.07 19 Bert Blyleven 75.23 19 Cal Ripken Jr 75.89
20 Cal Ripken Jr 78.00 20 Joe Morgan 74.94 20 Rogers Hornsby 75.54
21 Rogers Hornsby 76.76 21 Mike Trout 74.58 21 Bert Blyleven 74.94
22 Wade Boggs 75.67 22 Rogers Hornsby 74.33 22 Lou Gehrig 74.26
23 Lou Gehrig 75.48 23 Cal Ripken Jr 73.78 23 Steve Carlton 74.16
24 Tris Speaker 74.97 24 Mickey Mantle 73.37 24 Mickey Mantle 74.06
25 Mickey Mantle 74.74 25 Lou Gehrig 73.04 25 Tom Seaver 73.91

Era-Adjusted Ranking Lists for Batters

Top 10 Batting Careers by ebWAR

name ebWAR PA
Barry Bonds 154.71 12740
Willie Mays 145.30 12814
Henry Aaron 135.67 14113
Babe Ruth 127.91 10829
Alex Rodriguez 120.64 11917
Stan Musial 119.37 13036
Ty Cobb 115.00 12721
Albert Pujols 111.95 13253
Mike Schmidt 110.09 10310
Rickey Henderson 109.26 13760

Top 10 Batting Careers by efWAR

name efWAR PA
Barry Bonds 145.57 12740
Willie Mays 135.78 12814
Henry Aaron 127.96 14113
Babe Ruth 120.76 10829
Stan Musial 112.79 13036
Alex Rodriguez 110.52 11917
Ty Cobb 108.95 12721
Ted Williams 107.45 10184
Mike Schmidt 106.41 10310
Rickey Henderson 103.90 13760

Top 10 ebWAR per 650 PA (minimum 3000 PA)

name ebWARpPA PA
Mike Trout 8.26 7273
Barry Bonds 7.89 12740
Babe Ruth 7.68 10829
Aaron Judge 7.66 4579
Willie Mays 7.37 12814
Mookie Betts 7.12 6847
Mike Schmidt 6.94 10310
Ted Williams 6.89 10184
Jackie Robinson 6.74 5770
Rogers Hornsby 6.70 9421

Top 10 efWAR per 650 PA (minimum 3000 PA)

name efWARpPA PA
Mike Trout 7.98 7273
Barry Bonds 7.43 12740
Babe Ruth 7.25 10829
Aaron Judge 7.19 4579
Willie Mays 6.89 12814
Ted Williams 6.86 10184
Mike Schmidt 6.71 10310
Rogers Hornsby 6.52 9421
Buster Posey 6.50 5781
Mookie Betts 6.43 6847

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 HR AB
Babe Ruth 703 8884
Henry Aaron 690 12540
Albert Pujols 663 11465
Barry Bonds 651 10170
Reggie Jackson 575 9931
Willie Mays 573 11151
Mike Schmidt 560 8517
Alex Rodriguez 547 10293
Frank Robinson 535 10213
Willie Stargell 527 8091
Ken Griffey Jr 526 10017
David Ortiz 521 8580
Willie McCovey 514 8482
Harmon Killebrew 511 8403
Ted Williams 500 8258
Mickey Mantle 500 8338
Eddie Mathews 498 8621
Eddie Murray 497 11529
Stan Musial 496 11420
Jimmie Foxx 495 7990
Dave Winfield 490 10743
Jim Thome 485 8308
Mark McGwire 484 6251
Lou Gehrig 479 8096

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

name ABpHR AB
Babe Ruth 12.64 8884
Mark McGwire 12.92 6251
Aaron Judge 14.49 3667
Giancarlo Stanton 14.83 6212
Dave Kingman 14.88 6874
Ralph Kiner 15.15 5438
Mike Schmidt 15.21 8517
Willie Stargell 15.35 8091
Gorman Thomas 15.38 4676
Barry Bonds 15.62 10170

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

name BA AB
Tony Gwynn 0.342 9560
Luis Arraez 0.335 2721
Rod Carew 0.329 9697
Ichiro Suzuki 0.327 9786
Jose Altuve 0.326 7603
Jeff McNeil 0.323 3205
Roberto Clemente 0.322 9319
Ty Cobb 0.320 11659
Miguel Cabrera 0.320 10313
Joe DiMaggio 0.318 7036

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

name BA AB
Tony Gwynn 0.342 9560
Rod Carew 0.329 9697
Ichiro Suzuki 0.327 9786
Jose Altuve 0.326 7603
Roberto Clemente 0.322 9319
Ty Cobb 0.320 11659
Miguel Cabrera 0.320 10313
Wade Boggs 0.317 9335
Freddie Freeman 0.317 7866
Stan Musial 0.314 11420

Top 10 Era-Adjusted OBP (minimum 3000 PA)

name OBP PA
Juan Soto 0.454 4405
Ted Williams 0.442 10184
Mike Trout 0.438 7273
Aaron Judge 0.438 4579
Barry Bonds 0.434 12740
Joey Votto 0.433 9076
Babe Ruth 0.426 10829
Mickey Mantle 0.419 10128
Bryce Harper 0.417 7650
Lou Gehrig 0.415 9569

Top 10 Era-Adjusted OBP (minimum 8000 PA)

name OBP PA
Ted Williams 0.442 10184
Barry Bonds 0.434 12740
Joey Votto 0.433 9076
Babe Ruth 0.426 10829
Mickey Mantle 0.419 10128
Lou Gehrig 0.415 9569
Freddie Freeman 0.415 9303
Frank Thomas 0.411 10297
Edgar Martinez 0.409 8772
Wade Boggs 0.405 10884

The New 3000 Hits Club

name H AB BA
Pete Rose 4354 14139 0.308
Henry Aaron 3886 12540 0.310
Ty Cobb 3727 11659 0.320
Cap Anson 3605 12875 0.280
Stan Musial 3583 11420 0.314
Albert Pujols 3533 11465 0.308
Willie Mays 3478 11151 0.312
Derek Jeter 3412 11000 0.310
Eddie Murray 3367 11529 0.292
Miguel Cabrera 3301 10313 0.320
Tony Gwynn 3274 9560 0.342
Cal Ripken Jr 3263 11766 0.277
Paul Molitor 3262 10607 0.308
Robin Yount 3241 11128 0.291
Ichiro Suzuki 3202 9786 0.327
Carl Yastrzemski 3201 11606 0.276
Rickey Henderson 3197 11331 0.282
Rod Carew 3191 9697 0.329
Tris Speaker 3174 10723 0.296
Dave Winfield 3110 10743 0.289
Craig Biggio 3105 11002 0.282
Adrián Beltré 3076 10616 0.290
Al Kaline 3076 10472 0.294
Barry Bonds 3054 10170 0.300
Alex Rodriguez 3047 10293 0.296

Our rankings place more modern players among the greatest all-time than conventional ranking lists. However, our new version is more favorable to old players than previous versions. This is best evidenced by Babe Ruth taking the career home run crown.

Era-adjusted WAR on a rate basis demonstrates how great Mike Trout has been. He is number 1 all-time in both ebWAR and efWAR per 650 PAs. He’s 3rd in OBP, 18th in batting average, and 14th in home run rate. Of course these measures are favorable to Trout since his career has not reached its full decline phase. That being said, through his age 32 season Mike Trout is squarely in the top 25 era-adjusted JAWS rankings for all players (batters and pitchers). Absolutely amazing! We will discuss Mike Trout more. Back to topics

Era-Adjusted Ranking Lists for Pitchers

Top 10 Pitching Careers by ebWAR

name ebWAR IP
Roger Clemens 144.38 5442
Greg Maddux 113.55 5652
Randy Johnson 109.64 4725
Tom Seaver 103.85 4584
Lefty Grove 101.19 3518
Justin Verlander 100.05 4247
Bert Blyleven 97.38 4881
Phil Niekro 93.98 5079
Clayton Kershaw 93.10 3535
Walter Johnson 91.91 4790

Top 10 Pitching Careers by efWAR

name efWAR IP
Roger Clemens 140.75 5442
Greg Maddux 120.91 5652
Randy Johnson 109.78 4725
Nolan Ryan 108.31 5320
Bert Blyleven 101.93 4881
Steve Carlton 100.34 4817
Lefty Grove 98.80 3518
Justin Verlander 96.48 4247
Gaylord Perry 94.46 4979
Walter Johnson 91.79 4790

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

name ebWARpIP IP
Lefty Grove 7.19 3518
Pedro Martinez 6.67 3244
Roger Clemens 6.63 5442
Clayton Kershaw 6.58 3535
Max Scherzer 6.09 3725
Roy Halladay 5.93 3194
Justin Verlander 5.89 4247
Randy Johnson 5.80 4725
Tom Seaver 5.66 4584
Curt Schilling 5.57 3663

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

name efWARpIP IP
Lefty Grove 7.02 3518
Roger Clemens 6.47 5442
Clayton Kershaw 6.34 3535
Pedro Martinez 6.32 3244
Randy Johnson 5.81 4725
Justin Verlander 5.68 4247
Max Scherzer 5.57 3725
Greg Maddux 5.35 5652
Bob Gibson 5.33 3585
Roy Halladay 5.32 3194

Top 10 Pitching Careers by ERA (minimum 1500 IP)

name ERA IP
Mariano Rivera 2.30 1701
Clayton Kershaw 2.47 3535
Brandon Webb 2.53 1536
Jacob deGrom 2.55 1924
Pedro Martinez 2.60 3244
Johan Santana 2.71 2266
Chris Sale 2.74 2498
Greg Maddux 2.77 5652
Lefty Grove 2.77 3518
Hoyt Wilhelm 2.78 2176

Top 10 Pitching Careers by ERA (minimum 3000 IP)

name ERA IP
Clayton Kershaw 2.47 3535
Pedro Martinez 2.60 3244
Greg Maddux 2.77 5652
Lefty Grove 2.77 3518
Roger Clemens 2.81 5442
Max Scherzer 2.84 3725
Roy Halladay 2.85 3194
Justin Verlander 2.87 4247
Randy Johnson 2.90 4725
Tom Seaver 2.90 4584

Top 10 Pitching Careers by Strikeouts

name K IP
Nolan Ryan 6024 5320
Randy Johnson 5130 4725
Roger Clemens 4739 5442
Steve Carlton 4195 4817
Walter Johnson 3888 4790
Bert Blyleven 3780 4881
Tom Seaver 3654 4584
Don Sutton 3572 5068
Max Scherzer 3543 3725
Greg Maddux 3463 5652

Top 11 Pitching Careers by Strikeouts per 9 Innings (minimum 3000 IP)

Here we display 11 names so that Walter Johnson is displayed.

name K9 IP
Nolan Ryan 10.2 5320
Randy Johnson 9.8 4725
Max Scherzer 8.6 3725
Pedro Martinez 8.6 3244
Bob Feller 8.0 3473
Roger Clemens 7.8 5442
Steve Carlton 7.8 4817
Clayton Kershaw 7.7 3535
David Cone 7.5 3213
Curt Schilling 7.4 3663
Walter Johnson 7.3 4790

Top 10 Pitching Careers by Innings

name IP
Greg Maddux 5652
Roger Clemens 5442
Nolan Ryan 5320
Warren Spahn 5112
Phil Niekro 5079
Don Sutton 5068
Gaylord Perry 4979
Tom Glavine 4916
Bert Blyleven 4881
Steve Carlton 4817

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 7.3 ranks 11th 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 both ebWAR and efWAR on a rate basis (minimum 3000 IP). He also ranks 5th in career ebWAR and 7th in career efWAR. Lefty Grove is a pitcher who has been slept on. Another fun new finding is that Justin Verlander joins the top 10 in career and rate basis ebWAR and efWAR. Verlander could finish in the top 5 in career ebWAR and efWAR if he ends his career strongly. It is also fun to see active pitchers Clayton Kershaw and Max Scherzer populate these era-adjusted ranking lists. Back to topics

The 2022 Season

We have added and analyzed the truly historic 2022 season which featured two of the greatest individual seasons of all-time between Shohei Ohtani and Aaron Judge. Ohtani’s 2022 season may be the greatest era-adjusted season of all-time while Judge’s 2022 season is among the greatest offensive season of all-time. The tables below show the top 10 seasons all-time by era-adjusted ebWAR and efWAR (for everyone and then batters), and the breakdown of Judge’s and Ohtani’s 2022 seasons. We see that Shohei Ohtani’s 2022 season is the best season ever by ebWAR.

rank name year ebWAR rank name year efWAR
1 Shohei Ohtani 2022 12.69 1 Steve Carlton 1980 11.18
2 Bret Saberhagen 1989 12.59 2 Clayton Kershaw 2015 11.02
3 Justin Verlander 2012 12.13 3 Greg Maddux 1994 11.00
4 Shohei Ohtani 2023 12.03 4 Dwight Gooden 1985 10.51
5 Dwight Gooden 1985 11.93 5 Randy Johnson 2004 10.51
6 Roger Clemens 1997 11.57 6 Justin Verlander 2012 10.40
7 Gerrit Cole 2023 11.50 7 Randy Johnson 1995 10.31
8 Zack Greinke 2015 11.49 8 Jacob deGrom 2018 10.28
9 Randy Johnson 2002 11.43 9 Shohei Ohtani 2022 10.25
10 Greg Maddux 1994 11.35 10 Roger Clemens 1991 10.23
rank name year ebWAR rank name year efWAR
1 Shohei Ohtani 2022 12.69 1 Shohei Ohtani 2022 10.25
2 Shohei Ohtani 2023 12.03 2 Cal Ripken Jr 1991 9.73
3 Cal Ripken Jr 1991 10.36 3 Shohei Ohtani 2023 9.71
4 Aaron Judge 2022 10.33 4 Aaron Judge 2022 9.63
5 Alex Rodriguez 2005 10.19 5 Mike Trout 2016 9.53
6 Carl Yastrzemski 1970 10.17 6 Barry Bonds 1993 9.51
7 Mike Trout 2016 10.15 7 Alex Rodriguez 2005 9.48
8 Babe Ruth 1926 10.15 8 Cal Ripken Jr 1984 9.48
9 Cal Ripken Jr 1984 10.11 9 Willie Mays 1962 9.45
10 Willie Mays 1962 10.09 10 Ted Williams 1947 9.41
name position ebWAR efWAR
Aaron Judge OF 10.33 9.63
Shohei Ohtani DH 3.73 4.30
Shohei Ohtani SP 8.96 5.95

In addition to being the greatest offensive season by both ebWAR and efWAR, Aaron Judge’s 2022 era-adjusted home run total is unsurprisingly among the best all-time.

Note: Home run totals are smoothed for players from the Deadball Era to account for extreme year-to-year fluctuations. This adjustment does not change career totals as estimated by our methodology but does modify annual season totals. As a result, Babe Ruth’s 1919 and 1920 seasons are slightly affected.

name year age AB HR
Giancarlo Stanton 2017 27 598 53
Jose Canseco 1988 23 628 51
George Foster 1977 28 616 51
Eddie Mathews 1953 21 584 50
José Bautista 2010 29 564 49
Chris Davis 2013 27 567 49
Khris Davis 2018 30 573 49
Frank Howard 1968 31 599 49
Willie Mays 1965 34 551 49
Shohei Ohtani 2024 29 622 49
Matt Olson 2023 29 590 49
Luke Voit 2020 29 570 49
Jim Wynn 1967 25 602 49
Johnny Bench 1972 24 573 48
Jose Canseco 1991 26 584 48
Aaron Judge 2022 30 544 48
Ralph Kiner 1947 24 586 48
Mark McGwire 1987 23 556 48
Stan Musial 1948 27 626 48
Albert Pujols 2009 29 558 48

Judge’s 2022 season also ranks 12th all-time on home run rate among players with at least 400 era-adjusted at bats (see table below). The following top 20 list shows Ruth’s dominance vs his peers and highlights the effects of the steroids era on Bonds’s dominance. When compared vs your peers, Ruth dominated his peers by a much larger margin than other players. His dominance is offset by a small talent pool.

More on Ruth. Babe Ruth revolutionized baseball by prioritizing home run hitting as MLB livened the baseball. As stated here, the single season home run record before Babe Ruth was 27 by Ned Williamson in 1884. Babe Ruth broke this record in 1919 when he hit 29 home runs. He subsequently destroyed his own record in the following 1920 season when he hit 54 home runs. The runner up in 1920 finished the season with only 15 home runs. This level of dominance has never been seen before and has never been seen since, and it poses a problem for era-adjustment techniques.

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 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 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. Back to topics

name year age AB ABpHR HR
Barry Bonds 2004 39 441 11.03 40
Willie Stargell 1971 31 532 11.08 48
Barry Bonds 2001 36 477 11.09 43
Barry Bonds 2002 37 444 11.10 40
Giancarlo Stanton 2012 22 456 11.12 41
Mark McGwire 1996 32 424 11.16 38
Babe Ruth 1919 24 482 11.21 43
Willie Mays 1965 34 551 11.24 49
Giancarlo Stanton 2017 27 598 11.28 53
Mark McGwire 1998 34 497 11.30 44
Barry Bonds 2000 35 464 11.32 41
Aaron Judge 2022 30 544 11.33 48
Dave Kingman 1976 27 476 11.33 42
Babe Ruth 1920 25 457 11.43 40
Mark McGwire 1992 28 483 11.50 42
José Bautista 2010 29 564 11.51 49
Giancarlo Stanton 2014 24 518 11.51 45
Aaron Judge 2024 32 530 11.52 46
Babe Ruth 1918 23 415 11.53 36
Mark McGwire 1999 35 508 11.55 44

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 Babe Ruth and Ty Cobb. However, our era-adjustment method tells a slightly different story if Trout can stay healthy. Through the 2024 season Mike Trout is ranked 32nd in career ebWAR and 35th 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.

rank name ebWAR rank name efWAR
27 Carl Yastrzemski 95.16 30 Walter Johnson 91.79
28 Mickey Mantle 94.93 31 Cy Young 91.39
29 Phil Niekro 93.98 32 Tom Seaver 90.74
30 Clayton Kershaw 93.10 33 Clayton Kershaw 89.71
31 Wade Boggs 92.50 34 Honus Wagner 89.65
32 Mike Trout 92.41 35 Mike Trout 89.29
33 Roberto Clemente 92.09 36 Wade Boggs 87.80
34 Walter Johnson 91.91 37 Adrián Beltré 86.21
35 Warren Spahn 90.89 38 Eddie Mathews 85.50
36 Max Scherzer 90.81 39 Pete Rose 85.43
37 Eddie Collins 90.71 40 George Brett 83.56

Below we see career trajectories for batters. Only a handful of the game’s greatest players have performed at Mike Trout’s level through their first 14 seasons. This even sells Trout short, since his first season was not complete and he has missed time with injuries. That being said, Trout’s injuries may catch up to him and he may not stay on his current trajectory of all-time greatness. Either way, Trout’s first 14 years have been among the best in baseball history.

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 14 seasons aggregated:

name PA AB H HR BB BA OBP ABpHR ebWAR efWAR ebWARpPA efWARpPA
Mickey Mantle 8100 6719 2076 417 1336 0.309 0.423 16.11 85.33 83.23 6.85 6.68
Mike Trout 7273 5881 1848 362 1221 0.314 0.438 16.25 92.41 89.29 8.26 7.98

As it stands right now Mike Trout has been the most productive batter on a rate basis in baseball history according to our era-adjusted versions of WAR. 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:

name ERA IP K K9 ebWAR efWAR ebWARpIP efWARpIP
Max Scherzer 2.58 1852 1912 9.3 51.44 48.26 6.94 6.51
Tom Seaver 2.60 1720 1618 8.5 49.28 43.52 7.16 6.33

As it currently stands Max Scherzer ranks 12th in career ebWAR and 14th in career efWAR among pitchers and is among elite company:

rank name ebWAR rank name efWAR
7 Bert Blyleven 97.38 9 Gaylord Perry 94.46
8 Phil Niekro 93.98 10 Walter Johnson 91.79
9 Clayton Kershaw 93.10 11 Cy Young 91.39
10 Walter Johnson 91.91 12 Tom Seaver 90.74
11 Warren Spahn 90.89 13 Clayton Kershaw 89.71
12 Max Scherzer 90.81 14 Max Scherzer 83.00
13 Zack Greinke 90.25 15 Don Sutton 82.91
14 Gaylord Perry 89.37 16 Pedro Martinez 81.99
15 Steve Carlton 88.30 17 Zack Greinke 80.36
16 Nolan Ryan 86.86 18 Mike Mussina 80.06
17 Pedro Martinez 86.58 19 John Smoltz 79.46

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 74th all-time by ebWAR and 64th 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 Alexander, Robin Roberts, Fergie Jenkins, Jim Palmer, and Don Sutton. These careers are sorted by ebWAR 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 IP K K9 ebWAR efWAR ebWARpIP efWARpIP
Fergie Jenkins 3.23 4198 3076 6.6 78.12 75.95 4.65 4.52
CC Sabathia 3.15 4170 2961 6.4 74.47 75.38 4.46 4.52
Robin Roberts 3.48 4437 2495 5.1 78.93 69.43 4.45 3.91
Jim Palmer 2.98 3689 2209 5.4 65.14 52.72 4.41 3.57
Pete Alexander 3.30 4358 2396 4.9 67.93 77.58 3.90 4.45
Don Sutton 3.42 5068 3572 6.3 72.32 82.91 3.57 4.09

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 154.71 1 Barry Bonds 145.57
3 Roger Clemens 144.38 2 Roger Clemens 140.75
6 Alex Rodriguez 120.64 8 Alex Rodriguez 110.52
10 Albert Pujols 111.95 18 Albert Pujols 97.33
19 Justin Verlander 100.05 19 Justin Verlander 96.48
30 Clayton Kershaw 93.10 33 Clayton Kershaw 89.71
32 Mike Trout 92.41 35 Mike Trout 89.29
36 Max Scherzer 90.81 39 Pete Rose 85.43
38 Zack Greinke 90.25 43 Max Scherzer 83.00
47 Pete Rose 86.24 48 Zack Greinke 80.36
53 Curt Schilling 81.59 52 Miguel Cabrera 79.07
54 Miguel Cabrera 80.83 57 Curt Schilling 77.01
58 Lou Whitaker 78.46 68 Carlos Beltrán 73.95
62 Carlos Beltrán 77.87 76 Lou Whitaker 71.31
82 Bobby Grich 72.55 81 Bobby Grich 70.30
83 Rafael Palmeiro 72.53 83 Dwight Evans 69.72
85 Manny Ramirez 72.46 84 Rafael Palmeiro 69.62
89 Dwight Evans 71.91 89 Graig Nettles 68.82
94 Graig Nettles 71.32 92 Manny Ramirez 68.08
95 Chase Utley 71.16 94 Ichiro Suzuki 67.87
98 Ichiro Suzuki 70.71 97 Chase Utley 67.51

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 PA AB H HR BB BA OBP ABpHR ebWAR efWAR ebWARpPA efWARpPA
Barry Bonds 8314 6813 1993 371 1383 0.293 0.412 18.36 98.01 92.84 7.66 7.26
Cap Anson 13918 12875 3605 162 1018 0.280 0.334 79.48 46.85 41.99 2.19 1.96

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 well over 3000 hits, but he is nowhere near the player that Ty Cobb was or that Barry Bonds was through 1998. Anson is Nick Markakis with more longevity and less plate discipline.

name PA AB H HR BB BA OBP ABpHR ebWAR efWAR ebWARpPA efWARpPA
Cap Anson 13918 12875 3605 162 1018 0.280 0.334 79.48 46.85 41.99 2.19 1.96
Nick Markakis 9444 8278 2417 183 1042 0.292 0.372 45.23 46.71 41.26 3.21 2.84
Ty Cobb 12721 11659 3727 240 971 0.320 0.376 48.58 115.00 108.95 5.88 5.57

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 43rd and 81st best pitcher in history and ranks 149th and 249th overall among both pitchers and hitters by, respectively, ebWAR and efWAR. There are currently 274 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 IP K K9 ebWAR efWAR ebWARpIP efWARpIP
Luis Tiant 3.30 3316 2393 6.5 61.17 50.49 4.61 3.81
Jim Palmer 2.98 3689 2209 5.4 65.14 52.72 4.41 3.57
Whitey Ford 2.97 3161 1979 5.6 49.44 49.24 3.91 3.89
Bob Feller 3.40 3473 3101 8.0 50.91 53.23 3.66 3.83
name age year IP ERA K K9 ebWAR efWAR ebWARpIP efWARpIP
Luis Tiant 27 1968 240 2.36 246 9.2 6.77 7.41 7.05 7.72
Luis Tiant 31 1972 180 2.20 119 6.0 6.66 3.30 9.25 4.58
Luis Tiant 33 1974 266 2.81 172 5.8 6.39 5.45 6.01 5.12
Luis Tiant 35 1976 254 2.80 148 5.2 6.06 3.64 5.96 3.58

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 PA AB H HR BB BA OBP ABpHR ebWAR efWAR ebWARpPA efWARpPA
Joe Morgan 653 507 166 19 137 0.327 0.469 26.68 9.67 9.00 9.63 8.96
Pete Rose 727 630 198 10 85 0.314 0.404 63.00 4.43 5.41 3.96 4.84
Ken Griffey 538 467 143 7 67 0.306 0.392 66.71 3.47 2.80 4.19 3.38
George Foster 512 459 140 23 45 0.305 0.367 19.96 5.22 5.44 6.63 6.91
Johnny Bench 610 535 154 31 65 0.288 0.362 17.26 6.48 6.53 6.90 6.96
Tony Perez 584 516 148 23 59 0.287 0.360 22.43 3.38 3.94 3.76 4.39
Cesar Geronimo 561 503 135 9 53 0.268 0.342 55.89 4.38 4.08 5.07 4.73
Dave Concepcion 564 514 144 8 44 0.280 0.337 64.25 4.15 4.37 4.78 5.04

Aggregate Batting Line

PA AB H HR BB BA OBP ABpHR ebWAR efWAR ebWARpPA efWARpPA
4749 4131 1228 130 555 0.297 0.382 31.78 41.18 41.57 5.64 5.69

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 PA AB H HR BB BA OBP ABpHR ebWAR efWAR ebWARpPA efWARpPA
David Justice 484 412 111 18 64 0.269 0.368 22.89 1.78 1.88 2.39 2.52
Lonnie Smith 439 377 100 6 51 0.265 0.364 62.83 1.88 0.86 2.78 1.27
Jeff Treadway 374 345 105 3 24 0.304 0.350 115.00 1.09 1.06 1.89 1.84
Terry Pendleton 650 601 184 18 41 0.306 0.348 33.39 6.11 6.30 6.11 6.30
Ron Gant 656 577 141 27 69 0.244 0.328 21.37 1.84 2.00 1.82 1.98
Sid Bream 318 287 71 10 27 0.247 0.308 28.70 -0.51 0.26 -1.04 0.53
Greg Olson 475 423 96 5 45 0.227 0.303 84.60 -0.48 0.50 -0.66 0.68
Rafael Belliard 401 377 91 1 21 0.241 0.284 377.00 -0.05 -0.61 -0.08 -0.99

Aggregate Batting Line

PA AB H HR BB BA OBP ABpHR ebWAR efWAR ebWARpPA efWARpPA
3797 3399 899 88 342 0.264 0.333 38.62 11.66 12.25 2 2.1

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 IP K K9 ebWAR efWAR ebWARpIP efWARpIP
Luis Tiant 3.30 3316 2393 6.5 61.17 50.49 4.61 3.81
Jack Morris 3.68 4038 2685 6.0 47.94 60.05 2.97 3.72
name age year IP ERA K K9 ebWAR efWAR ebWARpIP efWARpIP
Jack Morris 28 1983 296 3.13 257 7.8 4.43 6.35 3.74 5.36

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 100th in career ebWAR and 155th in career efWAR. We compare Buehrle to the same group of Hall of Famers that we compared Tiant with. Buehrle exceeds this group in both era-adjusted WAR totals and rates:

name ERA IP K K9 ebWAR efWAR ebWARpIP efWARpIP
Mark Buehrle 3.15 3772 1902 4.5 70.27 59.44 4.66 3.94
Jim Palmer 2.98 3689 2209 5.4 65.14 52.72 4.41 3.57
Bob Feller 3.40 3473 3101 8.0 50.91 53.23 3.66 3.83
Whitey Ford 2.97 3161 1979 5.6 49.44 49.24 3.91 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 3772 innings ranks 34th 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 IP ERA K K9 ebWAR efWAR ebWARpIP efWARpIP
Bob Feller 20 1939 274 2.86 321 10.5 7.70 6.12 7.03 5.58
Bob Feller 21 1940 296 2.68 363 11.0 8.75 9.35 7.39 7.90
Bob Feller 22 1941 296 3.44 294 8.9 6.87 5.03 5.80 4.25
Bob Feller 27 1946 296 2.92 302 9.2 6.85 7.05 5.79 5.95
name age year IP ERA K K9 ebWAR efWAR ebWARpIP efWARpIP
Mark Buehrle 22 2001 247 2.77 104 3.8 6.27 4.11 6.35 4.16
Mark Buehrle 28 2007 227 2.81 120 4.8 6.70 3.70 7.38 4.07

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

name playerID age year IP ER ERA K K9 ebWAR efWAR ebWARpIP efWARpIP
Bob Feller fellebo01 29 1948 274 107 3.51 219 7.2 0.90 3.70 0.82 3.38
Bob Feller fellebo01 30 1949 198 83 3.77 139 6.3 0.03 2.43 0.04 3.07
Bob Feller fellebo01 31 1950 231 84 3.27 147 5.7 3.43 2.86 3.71 3.10
Bob Feller fellebo01 32 1951 242 104 3.87 151 5.6 2.89 1.39 2.99 1.44
Bob Feller fellebo01 33 1952 115 68 5.32 56 4.4 -2.00 0.05 -4.35 0.11
Bob Feller fellebo01 34 1953 191 78 3.68 69 3.3 -0.38 -0.78 -0.50 -1.02
Bob Feller fellebo01 35 1954 139 48 3.11 76 4.9 1.52 1.49 2.73 2.68
Bob Feller fellebo01 36 1955 88 34 3.48 32 3.3 -0.40 0.40 -1.14 1.14

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 Greg Maddux
6 Walter Johnson Alex Rodriguez Babe Ruth
7 Ty Cobb Stan Musial Stan Musial
8 Stan Musial Ty Cobb Alex Rodriguez
9 Mickey Mantle Greg Maddux Randy Johnson
10 Honus Wagner Albert Pujols Ty Cobb
11 Roger Clemens Mike Schmidt Nolan Ryan
12 Lou Gehrig Randy Johnson Ted Williams
13 Alex Rodriguez Rickey Henderson Mike Schmidt
14 Rogers Hornsby Ted Williams Rickey Henderson
15 Tris Speaker Tom Seaver Bert Blyleven
16 Mike Schmidt Tris Speaker Steve Carlton
17 Frank Robinson Lefty Grove Lefty Grove
18 Joe Morgan Joe Morgan Albert Pujols
19 Lefty Grove Justin Verlander Justin Verlander
20 Albert Pujols Mel Ott Mel Ott
21 Rickey Henderson Frank Robinson Joe Morgan
22 Pete Alexander Cal Ripken Jr Frank Robinson
23 Mike Trout Bert Blyleven Tris Speaker
24 Randy Johnson Rogers Hornsby Rogers Hornsby
25 Eddie Collins Lou Gehrig Gaylord Perry

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 57, and the chance of observing 6 or more pre-integration players in a top 10 list is around 1 in 38. 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 70.71 career ebWAR which ranks 98th all-time, and 67.87 career efWAR which ranks 94th 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 38th all-time in ebWAR and 36th 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 with our method in mind, Posnanski could credibly put Ichiro at 25 all-time.

Joey Votto, if you are reading this, then we would like to let you know that our era-adjustment methodology ranks you 90th in ebWAR and 103rd 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 Lou Gehrig Henry Aaron Henry Aaron
6 Mickey Mantle Randy Johnson Alex Rodriguez Greg Maddux
7 Ty Cobb Hank Aaron Stan Musial Randy Johnson
8 Rickey Henderson Ted Williams Randy Johnson Alex Rodriguez
9 Albert Pujols Greg Maddux Albert Pujols Stan Musial
10 Mike Schmidt Alex Rodriguez Greg Maddux Ted Williams
11 Joe Morgan Mike Schmidt Mike Schmidt Mike Schmidt
12 Rogers Hornsby Albert Pujols Ted Williams Lefty Grove
13 Mike Trout Ty Cobb Lefty Grove Ty Cobb
14 Walter Johnson Clayton Kershaw Ty Cobb Rickey Henderson
15 Barry Bonds Mike Trout Rickey Henderson Steve Carlton
16 Lou Gehrig Pedro Martinez Justin Verlander Nolan Ryan
17 Tris Speaker Justin Verlander Joe Morgan Justin Verlander
18 Cal Ripken Rogers Hornsby Mike Trout Albert Pujols
19 Greg Maddux Mickey Mantle Tom Seaver Bert Blyleven
20 Honus Wagner Stan Musial Cal Ripken Jr Joe Morgan
21 Carl Yastrzemski Walter Johnson Rogers Hornsby Mike Trout
22 Frank Robinson Lefty Grove Wade Boggs Rogers Hornsby
23 Eddie Collins Mariano Rivera Lou Gehrig Cal Ripken Jr
24 Wade Boggs Max Scherzer Tris Speaker Mickey Mantle
25 Mookie Betts Jimmie Foxx Mickey Mantle 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 3 2 3
top 25 10 9 7 7

And here are corresponding measures of agreement with how these lists conform with what is expected assuming our MLB-eligible population is calculated correctly, and that baseball talent is evenly distributed across time. This measure of agreement is in the form of a chance that one could observe \(x\) names in a top 10 or top 25 list who started their before baseball was integrated. A chance closer to 1 in 1 is better than a chance that is far away from 1 in 1. A chance of 1 in 1 means that the lists under question would be in perfect agreement with what is statistically expected.

Rank Tier Baseball Egg The 100 Greatest ebJAWS efJAWS
Top 10 1 in 3.83 1 in 1.92 1 in 1.27 1 in 1.96
Top 25 1 in 9.98 1 in 5.10 1 in 3.78 1 in 1.96

These lists all avoid very problematic preferential treatment of players from the past. That being said, our era-adjusted versions of JAWS provides representation of older era players that is closer in alignment to what is statistically expected than either Baseball Egg or The 100 Greatest. It is worth noting that Baseball Egg makes additional adjustments for PEDs and players whose careers were cut short due to war. We applaud these adjustments but ultimately think that they went a tad too far. 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 50. 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 99th in ebWAR and 111th in efWAR while Mel Ott ranks 20th in both ebWAR and efWAR. Back to topics

name PA AB H HR BB BA OBP ABpHR ebWAR efWAR ebWARpPA efWARpPA
Mel Ott 11061 9372 2659 415 1625 0.284 0.393 22.58 99.87 95.98 5.87 5.64
Tony Gwynn 10447 9560 3274 104 778 0.342 0.390 91.92 70.62 65.33 4.39 4.06

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 PA AB H HR BB BA OBP ABpHR ebWAR efWAR ebWARpPA efWARpPA
Albert Pujols 13253 11465 3533 663 1526 0.308 0.392 17.29 111.95 97.33 5.49 4.77
Lou Gehrig 9569 8096 2501 479 1428 0.309 0.415 16.90 95.56 92.53 6.49 6.29
name PA AB H HR BB BA OBP ABpHR ebWAR efWAR ebWARpPA efWARpPA
Alex Rodriguez 11917 10293 3047 547 1338 0.296 0.383 18.82 120.64 110.52 6.58 6.03
Cal Ripken Jr 13088 11766 3263 368 1129 0.277 0.341 31.97 97.95 93.45 4.86 4.64
Honus Wagner 10815 10175 2927 251 523 0.288 0.330 40.54 86.56 89.65 5.20 5.39

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 PA AB H HR BB BA OBP ABpHR ebWAR efWAR ebWARpPA efWARpPA
Albert Pujols 9813 8380 2690 545 1242 0.321 0.411 15.38 101.11 88.25 6.70 5.85
Lou Gehrig 9569 8096 2501 479 1428 0.309 0.415 16.90 95.56 92.53 6.49 6.29
name PA AB H HR BB BA OBP ABpHR ebWAR efWAR ebWARpPA efWARpPA
Alex Rodriguez 10791 9339 2794 507 1185 0.299 0.384 18.42 115.63 105.45 6.97 6.35
Cal Ripken Jr 10564 9430 2642 321 986 0.280 0.348 29.38 92.30 88.00 5.68 5.41
Honus Wagner 10815 10175 2927 251 523 0.288 0.330 40.54 86.56 89.65 5.20 5.39

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 IP ER ERA K K9 ebWAR efWAR
Hal Newhouser AL DET 25 1946 280 73 2.35 285 9.2 10.22 9.62
Bob Feller AL CLE 21 1940 296 88 2.68 363 11.0 8.75 9.35
Billy Pierce AL CHA 28 1955 213 45 1.90 187 7.9 7.89 6.91
Early Wynn AL CLE 36 1956 264 72 2.45 173 5.9 7.89 5.74
Herb Score AL CLE 23 1956 236 61 2.33 281 10.7 7.81 8.26
Thornton Lee AL CHA 34 1941 274 78 2.56 174 5.7 7.72 4.79
Bob Feller AL CLE 20 1939 274 87 2.86 321 10.5 7.70 6.12
Hoyt Wilhelm AL BAL 36 1959 221 59 2.40 144 5.9 6.96 3.83
Jim Bunning AL DET 25 1957 274 82 2.69 192 6.3 6.90 3.88
Camilo Pascual AL WS1 25 1959 240 66 2.48 187 7.0 6.89 8.65

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 IP ER ERA K K9 ebWAR efWAR
Harry Brecheen NL SLN 33 1948 242 58 2.16 214 8.0 9.77 8.99
Johnny Antonelli NL NY1 24 1954 255 61 2.15 191 6.7 9.72 4.70
Mort Cooper NL SLN 29 1942 274 66 2.17 217 7.1 9.49 8.82
Ewell Blackwell NL CIN 24 1947 259 68 2.36 258 9.0 9.28 8.98
Robin Roberts NL PHI 27 1954 296 99 3.01 204 6.2 8.82 6.45
Ernie Broglio NL SLN 24 1960 222 54 2.19 194 7.9 8.59 3.97
Robin Roberts NL PHI 24 1951 296 99 3.01 172 5.2 8.35 7.48
Warren Spahn NL BSN 26 1947 280 73 2.35 174 5.6 8.33 6.03
Warren Spahn NL BSN 30 1951 280 95 3.05 203 6.5 7.76 5.13
Johnny Sain NL BSN 30 1948 296 88 2.68 185 5.6 7.46 4.62

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 IP ER ERA K K9 ebWAR efWAR
Ron Guidry AL NYA 27 1978 259 54 1.88 260 9.0 10.64 9.71
Wilbur Wood AL CHA 29 1971 282 71 2.27 184 5.9 10.01 6.13
Mark Fidrych AL DET 21 1976 231 50 1.95 118 4.6 9.85 4.74
Hank Aguirre AL DET 31 1962 214 48 2.02 150 6.3 8.39 4.67
Bert Blyleven AL MIN 22 1973 273 72 2.37 239 7.9 8.35 10.15
Wilbur Wood AL CHA 30 1972 296 93 2.83 144 4.4 8.01 4.48
Gaylord Perry AL CLE 33 1972 277 65 2.11 182 5.9 7.97 6.62
Gaylord Perry AL CLE 35 1974 277 75 2.44 203 6.6 7.92 5.04
Bert Blyleven AL MIN 23 1974 240 67 2.51 248 9.3 7.54 8.35
Dean Chance AL LAA 23 1964 264 70 2.39 169 5.8 7.51 6.87

1981-2000 AL:

name lg team age year IP ER ERA K K9 ebWAR efWAR
Bret Saberhagen AL KCA 25 1989 296 64 1.95 207 6.3 12.59 9.39
Roger Clemens AL TOR 34 1997 284 71 2.25 247 7.8 11.57 10.04
Kevin Appier AL KCA 25 1993 253 67 2.38 178 6.3 10.11 8.21
Roger Clemens AL TOR 35 1998 266 73 2.47 265 9.0 9.82 8.03
Bert Blyleven AL CLE 30 1981 242 82 3.05 189 7.0 9.76 5.30
Teddy Higuera AL ML4 30 1988 228 67 2.64 189 7.5 9.01 5.51
Frank Viola AL MIN 28 1988 263 79 2.70 201 6.9 8.65 5.87
Randy Johnson AL SEA 31 1995 275 72 2.36 362 11.8 8.60 10.31
Dave Stieb AL TOR 26 1984 296 88 2.68 228 6.9 8.56 6.42
Mark Gubicza AL KCA 25 1988 283 88 2.80 188 6.0 8.37 6.14

2001-2019 AL:

The 2020 season is not included.

name lg team age year IP ER ERA K K9 ebWAR efWAR
Justin Verlander AL DET 29 2012 296 71 2.16 255 7.8 12.13 10.40
Zack Greinke AL KCA 25 2009 266 54 1.83 232 7.8 11.31 9.65
Corey Kluber AL CLE 31 2017 271 56 1.86 270 9.0 11.14 9.22
Justin Verlander AL DET 28 2011 296 71 2.16 257 7.8 9.80 7.79
Mike Minor AL TEX 31 2019 266 83 2.81 169 5.7 9.75 4.65
Corey Kluber AL CLE 28 2014 276 73 2.38 278 9.1 9.50 7.79
David Price AL TBA 26 2012 249 66 2.39 191 6.9 8.86 5.02
Lance Lynn AL TEX 32 2019 269 85 2.84 206 6.9 8.70 6.55
Justin Verlander AL DET 33 2016 280 86 2.76 227 7.3 8.44 6.10
Justin Verlander AL DET 34 2017 277 89 2.89 206 6.7 8.20 5.08

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 (10.22 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 PA AB H HR BB BA OBP ABpHR ebWAR efWAR ebWARpPA efWARpPA
Ted Williams 10184 8258 2593 500 1867 0.314 0.442 16.52 107.95 107.45 6.89 6.86
Ted Williams* 10184 8299 2576 468 1821 0.310 0.436 17.73 101.19 100.69 6.46 6.43

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 2024, his age 32 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 145.30 135.78
Babe Ruth 138.64 120.60
Henry Aaron 135.67 127.96
Stan Musial 119.37 112.79
Ty Cobb 115.00 108.95
Greg Maddux 113.55 120.91
Mike Schmidt 110.09 106.41
Randy Johnson 109.64 109.78
Rickey Henderson 109.26 103.90
Ted Williams* 101.19 100.69
Bert Blyleven 97.38 101.93
Barry Bonds** 97.33 92.59
Mike Trout 92.41 89.29
Nolan Ryan 86.86 108.31

Where does this go from here? Ted Williams needs only roughly 18 ebWAR to eclipse Stan Musial for the 4th 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 32 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 he could 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 injury risk?

It seems like a tall order, albeit it is quite possible, for Ted Williams to crack the Mount Rushmore of career ebWAR from the analysis. But this analysis was very favorable to Williams. We considered a favorable metric, ignored Clemens, threw out all post-1998 Bonds stats, and have not adjusted for strength of competition. The same exercise viewed through efWAR would be slightly harder on him. Ted Williams remains one of the greatest players of all-time. But the mythical lore that surrounds him reflects failed attempts to properly evaluate the historical achievements of players. Ted Williams is Joey Votto with more power and more longevity. Oh the blasphemy!

name PA AB H HR BB BA OBP ABpHR ebWAR efWAR ebWARpPA efWARpPA
Joey Votto 9076 7337 2240 273 1607 0.305 0.433 26.88 71.91 66.45 5.15 4.76
Ted Williams* 10184 8299 2576 468 1821 0.310 0.436 17.73 101.19 100.69 6.46 6.43

In all, we are skeptical that Ted Williams is in the Mt Rushmore of the game’s all-time greatest players as judged by era-adjusted WAR. We hope that our analysis will shed light on Ted Williams accomplishments. We hope that the reader will see that the real Ted Williams with the lore removed is a truly all-time great player, just perhaps not Mt Rushmore worthy. 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