We introduce version 2.0 of our Full House Model for comparing baseball players across eras. This document is meant to provide readers with new top all-time lists and many other interesting findings through the lens of era-adjusted statistics. Although casual and fun in nature, this document will be complicated and at times counter to one’s intuition. It is not necessarily meant to be digested in one sitting. Here is a list of topics:

This document will revisit some of the findings and analyses in our original series of articles, most notably the first and second parts of our original three-part series (article I and article II). Anyone familiar with our prior works should note that we apologize to Jeff Passan. Some, but not all, of his takes have been vindicated in version 2.0.

Anyone who desires a more rigorous look under the hood of Full House Modeling can find what they are looking for here.

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.

rank name ebWAR rank name efWAR rank name eWAR
1 Barry Bonds 153.89 1 Barry Bonds 145.24 1 Barry Bonds 149.56
2 Roger Clemens 145.88 2 Roger Clemens 141.25 2 Roger Clemens 143.56
3 Willie Mays 144.08 3 Willie Mays 135.39 3 Willie Mays 139.74
4 Babe Ruth 137.98 4 Henry Aaron 128.05 4 Henry Aaron 131.82
5 Henry Aaron 135.60 5 Greg Maddux 120.73 5 Babe Ruth 129.13
6 Alex Rodriguez 120.29 6 Babe Ruth 120.28 6 Greg Maddux 117.19
7 Stan Musial 119.51 7 Stan Musial 113.03 7 Stan Musial 116.27
8 Ty Cobb 114.48 8 Alex Rodriguez 110.30 8 Alex Rodriguez 115.30
9 Greg Maddux 113.66 9 Randy Johnson 109.77 9 Ty Cobb 111.62
10 Albert Pujols 111.86 10 Ty Cobb 108.77 10 Randy Johnson 110.29
11 Randy Johnson 110.81 11 Nolan Ryan 108.30 11 Mike Schmidt 108.00
12 Mike Schmidt 109.58 12 Ted Williams 107.75 12 Ted Williams 107.81
13 Rickey Henderson 109.08 13 Mike Schmidt 106.41 13 Rickey Henderson 106.49
14 Ted Williams 107.86 14 Rickey Henderson 103.90 14 Albert Pujols 104.60
15 Tom Seaver 104.31 15 Bert Blyleven 101.82 15 Lefty Grove 100.67
16 Lefty Grove 102.54 16 Steve Carlton 100.34 16 Bert Blyleven 99.75
17 Tris Speaker 102.26 17 Lefty Grove 98.80 17 Tris Speaker 98.69
18 Justin Verlander 100.23 18 Albert Pujols 97.34 18 Joe Morgan 98.12
19 Joe Morgan 100.17 19 Joe Morgan 96.07 19 Frank Robinson 97.93
20 Frank Robinson 99.93 20 Frank Robinson 95.92 20 Mel Ott 97.73
21 Mel Ott 99.74 21 Mel Ott 95.72 21 Justin Verlander 97.65
22 Bert Blyleven 97.69 22 Tris Speaker 95.13 22 Nolan Ryan 97.57
23 Cal Ripken Jr 97.39 23 Justin Verlander 95.07 23 Tom Seaver 97.54
24 Rogers Hornsby 97.01 24 Gaylord Perry 94.45 24 Rogers Hornsby 95.72
25 Lou Gehrig 95.87 25 Rogers Hornsby 94.42 25 Cal Ripken Jr 95.32

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.

rank name ebJAWS rank name efJAWS rank name eJAWS
1 Barry Bonds 109.14 1 Roger Clemens 103.54 1 Barry Bonds 106.17
2 Roger Clemens 107.47 2 Barry Bonds 103.21 2 Roger Clemens 105.50
3 Willie Mays 105.17 3 Willie Mays 98.72 3 Willie Mays 101.94
4 Babe Ruth 100.70 4 Babe Ruth 90.29 4 Babe Ruth 95.50
5 Henry Aaron 95.11 5 Henry Aaron 89.52 5 Henry Aaron 92.32
6 Alex Rodriguez 91.66 6 Greg Maddux 88.51 6 Alex Rodriguez 88.00
7 Stan Musial 88.38 7 Randy Johnson 85.78 7 Greg Maddux 87.06
8 Randy Johnson 88.20 8 Alex Rodriguez 84.35 8 Randy Johnson 86.99
9 Albert Pujols 86.33 9 Stan Musial 83.61 9 Stan Musial 86.00
10 Greg Maddux 85.60 10 Ted Williams 82.72 10 Mike Schmidt 83.37
11 Mike Schmidt 84.53 11 Mike Schmidt 82.20 11 Ted Williams 83.13
12 Lefty Grove 84.52 12 Lefty Grove 79.31 12 Lefty Grove 81.91
13 Ted Williams 83.54 13 Ty Cobb 78.85 13 Albert Pujols 81.06
14 Ty Cobb 82.62 14 Rickey Henderson 78.83 14 Ty Cobb 80.74
15 Rickey Henderson 82.14 15 Steve Carlton 78.32 15 Rickey Henderson 80.48
16 Justin Verlander 80.34 16 Nolan Ryan 76.88 16 Justin Verlander 77.82
17 Joe Morgan 79.03 17 Albert Pujols 75.80 17 Joe Morgan 77.08
18 Tom Seaver 78.51 18 Justin Verlander 75.29 18 Cal Ripken Jr 75.58
19 Cal Ripken Jr 77.54 19 Joe Morgan 75.13 19 Mike Trout 75.58
20 Mike Trout 77.26 20 Bert Blyleven 75.12 20 Rogers Hornsby 75.45
21 Rogers Hornsby 76.62 21 Rogers Hornsby 74.28 21 Bert Blyleven 75.06
22 Lou Gehrig 75.70 22 Mike Trout 73.90 22 Lou Gehrig 74.56
23 Wade Boggs 75.61 23 Mickey Mantle 73.71 23 Mickey Mantle 74.40
24 Clayton Kershaw 75.12 24 Cal Ripken Jr 73.62 24 Steve Carlton 74.40
25 Mickey Mantle 75.09 25 Lou Gehrig 73.41 25 Tom Seaver 74.15

We now go through some top 10 lists for career batting categories.

Top 10 batting careers by ebWAR

name PA AB H HR BB BA OBP ABpHR ebWAR efWAR ebWARpPA efWARpPA
Barry Bonds 12740 10170 3049 654 2373 0.300 0.434 15.55 153.89 145.24 7.85 7.41
Willie Mays 12814 11151 3475 577 1528 0.312 0.394 19.33 144.08 135.39 7.31 6.87
Henry Aaron 14113 12540 3887 689 1420 0.310 0.378 18.20 135.60 128.05 6.25 5.90
Babe Ruth 10829 8884 2672 702 1902 0.301 0.426 12.66 127.29 120.44 7.64 7.23
Alex Rodriguez 11917 10293 3047 547 1338 0.296 0.383 18.82 120.29 110.30 6.56 6.02
Stan Musial 13036 11420 3579 492 1510 0.313 0.394 23.21 119.51 113.03 5.96 5.64
Ty Cobb 12721 11659 3726 247 971 0.320 0.376 47.20 114.48 108.77 5.85 5.56
Albert Pujols 13201 11432 3522 662 1523 0.308 0.391 17.27 111.86 97.34 5.51 4.79
Mike Schmidt 10310 8517 2331 561 1606 0.274 0.390 15.18 109.58 106.41 6.91 6.71
Rickey Henderson 13760 11331 3195 286 2264 0.282 0.404 39.62 109.08 103.90 5.15 4.91

Top 10 batting careers by efWAR

name PA AB H HR BB BA OBP ABpHR ebWAR efWAR ebWARpPA efWARpPA
Barry Bonds 12740 10170 3049 654 2373 0.300 0.434 15.55 153.89 145.24 7.85 7.41
Willie Mays 12814 11151 3475 577 1528 0.312 0.394 19.33 144.08 135.39 7.31 6.87
Henry Aaron 14113 12540 3887 689 1420 0.310 0.378 18.20 135.60 128.05 6.25 5.90
Babe Ruth 10829 8884 2672 702 1902 0.301 0.426 12.66 127.29 120.44 7.64 7.23
Stan Musial 13036 11420 3579 492 1510 0.313 0.394 23.21 119.51 113.03 5.96 5.64
Alex Rodriguez 11917 10293 3047 547 1338 0.296 0.383 18.82 120.29 110.30 6.56 6.02
Ty Cobb 12721 11659 3726 247 971 0.320 0.376 47.20 114.48 108.77 5.85 5.56
Ted Williams 10184 8258 2593 503 1867 0.314 0.442 16.42 107.86 107.75 6.88 6.88
Mike Schmidt 10310 8517 2331 561 1606 0.274 0.390 15.18 109.58 106.41 6.91 6.71
Rickey Henderson 13760 11331 3195 286 2264 0.282 0.404 39.62 109.08 103.90 5.15 4.91

Top 10 ebWAR per 650 PA (minimum 5000 PA)

name PA AB H HR BB BA OBP ABpHR ebWAR efWAR ebWARpPA efWARpPA
Mike Trout 7121 5764 1816 355 1203 0.315 0.438 16.24 90.43 87.87 8.25 8.02
Barry Bonds 12740 10170 3049 654 2373 0.300 0.434 15.55 153.89 145.24 7.85 7.41
Babe Ruth 10829 8884 2672 702 1902 0.301 0.426 12.66 127.29 120.44 7.64 7.23
Willie Mays 12814 11151 3475 577 1528 0.312 0.394 19.33 144.08 135.39 7.31 6.87
Mookie Betts 6304 5458 1658 226 751 0.304 0.390 24.15 69.70 63.03 7.19 6.50
Mike Schmidt 10310 8517 2331 561 1606 0.274 0.390 15.18 109.58 106.41 6.91 6.71
Ted Williams 10184 8258 2593 503 1867 0.314 0.442 16.42 107.86 107.75 6.88 6.88
Jackie Robinson 5772 5045 1515 136 646 0.300 0.387 37.10 60.03 53.51 6.76 6.03
Rogers Hornsby 9419 8457 2589 436 914 0.306 0.377 19.40 97.01 94.42 6.69 6.52
Alex Rodriguez 11917 10293 3047 547 1338 0.296 0.383 18.82 120.29 110.30 6.56 6.02

Top 10 efWAR per 650 PA (minimum 5000 PA)

name PA AB H HR BB BA OBP ABpHR ebWAR efWAR ebWARpPA efWARpPA
Mike Trout 7121 5764 1816 355 1203 0.315 0.438 16.24 90.43 87.87 8.25 8.02
Barry Bonds 12740 10170 3049 654 2373 0.300 0.434 15.55 153.89 145.24 7.85 7.41
Babe Ruth 10829 8884 2672 702 1902 0.301 0.426 12.66 127.29 120.44 7.64 7.23
Ted Williams 10184 8258 2593 503 1867 0.314 0.442 16.42 107.86 107.75 6.88 6.88
Willie Mays 12814 11151 3475 577 1528 0.312 0.394 19.33 144.08 135.39 7.31 6.87
Mike Schmidt 10310 8517 2331 561 1606 0.274 0.390 15.18 109.58 106.41 6.91 6.71
Rogers Hornsby 9419 8457 2589 436 914 0.306 0.377 19.40 97.01 94.42 6.69 6.52
Mookie Betts 6304 5458 1658 226 751 0.304 0.390 24.15 69.70 63.03 7.19 6.50
Buster Posey 5781 5028 1587 168 657 0.316 0.396 29.93 49.52 57.75 5.57 6.49
Lou Gehrig 9569 8096 2502 479 1428 0.309 0.415 16.90 95.87 92.98 6.51 6.32

The new 500 home run club

name PA AB H HR BB BA OBP ABpHR ebWAR efWAR ebWARpPA efWARpPA
Babe Ruth 10829 8884 2672 702 1902 0.301 0.426 12.66 127.29 120.44 7.64 7.23
Henry Aaron 14113 12540 3887 689 1420 0.310 0.378 18.20 135.60 128.05 6.25 5.90
Albert Pujols 13201 11432 3522 662 1523 0.308 0.391 17.27 111.86 97.34 5.51 4.79
Barry Bonds 12740 10170 3049 654 2373 0.300 0.434 15.55 153.89 145.24 7.85 7.41
Reggie Jackson 11481 9931 2726 578 1392 0.274 0.367 17.18 76.15 75.76 4.31 4.29
Willie Mays 12814 11151 3475 577 1528 0.312 0.394 19.33 144.08 135.39 7.31 6.87
Mike Schmidt 10310 8517 2331 561 1606 0.274 0.390 15.18 109.58 106.41 6.91 6.71
Alex Rodriguez 11917 10293 3047 547 1338 0.296 0.383 18.82 120.29 110.30 6.56 6.02
Frank Robinson 11945 10213 3001 535 1432 0.294 0.388 19.09 99.93 95.92 5.44 5.22
Ken Griffey Jr 11500 10018 2836 528 1299 0.283 0.367 18.97 86.86 77.76 4.91 4.40
Willie Stargell 9212 8093 2326 528 966 0.287 0.366 15.33 60.51 63.98 4.27 4.51
David Ortiz 10093 8580 2416 521 1383 0.282 0.380 16.47 62.23 56.74 4.01 3.65
Willie McCovey 10023 8482 2394 515 1402 0.282 0.386 16.47 66.43 68.45 4.31 4.44
Harmon Killebrew 10073 8403 2091 508 1545 0.249 0.366 16.54 55.70 59.02 3.59 3.81
Ted Williams 10184 8258 2593 503 1867 0.314 0.442 16.42 107.86 107.75 6.88 6.88
Mickey Mantle 10128 8338 2514 502 1730 0.302 0.420 16.61 95.37 94.30 6.12 6.05
Eddie Mathews 10144 8618 2413 502 1442 0.280 0.383 17.17 87.88 86.38 5.63 5.53

Top 10 era-adjusted at bats per homerun (minimum 5000 AB)

name PA AB H HR BB BA OBP ABpHR ebWAR efWAR ebWARpPA efWARpPA
Babe Ruth 10829 8884 2672 702 1902 0.301 0.426 12.66 127.29 120.44 7.64 7.23
Mark McGwire 7666 6249 1663 489 1265 0.266 0.392 12.78 60.67 63.95 5.14 5.42
Giancarlo Stanton 6698 5729 1616 397 881 0.282 0.380 14.43 51.61 49.48 5.01 4.80
Dave Kingman 7696 6873 1736 461 695 0.253 0.323 14.91 24.02 26.72 2.03 2.26
Ralph Kiner 6347 5438 1404 359 878 0.258 0.363 15.15 43.17 42.70 4.42 4.37
Mike Schmidt 10310 8517 2331 561 1606 0.274 0.390 15.18 109.58 106.41 6.91 6.71
Willie Stargell 9212 8093 2326 528 966 0.287 0.366 15.33 60.51 63.98 4.27 4.51
Barry Bonds 12740 10170 3049 654 2373 0.300 0.434 15.55 153.89 145.24 7.85 7.41
Jimmie Foxx 9322 7990 2335 493 1319 0.292 0.393 16.21 79.88 83.03 5.57 5.79
Mike Trout 7121 5764 1816 355 1203 0.315 0.438 16.24 90.43 87.87 8.25 8.02

Top 10 era-adjusted batting averages (minimum 5000 AB)

name PA AB H HR BB BA OBP ABpHR ebWAR efWAR ebWARpPA efWARpPA
Tony Gwynn 10448 9560 3270 104 779 0.342 0.390 91.92 70.53 65.45 4.39 4.07
Rod Carew 10825 9697 3192 120 1039 0.329 0.393 80.81 82.03 72.48 4.93 4.35
Ichiro Suzuki 10692 9786 3198 133 803 0.327 0.379 73.58 70.66 67.82 4.30 4.12
Jose Altuve 7810 6957 2275 191 737 0.327 0.394 36.42 57.29 58.27 4.77 4.85
Ty Cobb 12721 11659 3726 247 971 0.320 0.376 47.20 114.48 108.77 5.85 5.56
Roberto Clemente 10031 9319 2982 266 616 0.320 0.362 35.03 91.37 79.20 5.92 5.13
Miguel Cabrera 12251 10617 3393 480 1457 0.320 0.402 22.12 82.29 80.41 4.37 4.27
Joe DiMaggio 7798 7036 2236 370 716 0.318 0.384 19.02 75.53 74.82 6.30 6.24
Wade Boggs 10884 9335 2952 107 1430 0.316 0.405 87.24 92.51 87.91 5.52 5.25
Buster Posey 5781 5028 1587 168 657 0.316 0.396 29.93 49.52 57.75 5.57 6.49

Top 10 era-adjusted on base percentage (minimum 5000 PA)

name PA AB H HR BB BA OBP ABpHR ebWAR efWAR ebWARpPA efWARpPA
Ted Williams 10184 8258 2593 503 1867 0.314 0.442 16.42 107.86 107.75 6.88 6.88
Mike Trout 7121 5764 1816 355 1203 0.315 0.438 16.24 90.43 87.87 8.25 8.02
Barry Bonds 12740 10170 3049 654 2373 0.300 0.434 15.55 153.89 145.24 7.85 7.41
Joey Votto 9225 7470 2283 283 1626 0.306 0.433 26.40 72.69 67.80 5.12 4.78
Babe Ruth 10829 8884 2672 702 1902 0.301 0.426 12.66 127.29 120.44 7.64 7.23
Mickey Mantle 10128 8338 2514 502 1730 0.302 0.420 16.61 95.37 94.30 6.12 6.05
Bryce Harper 6967 5684 1676 273 1184 0.295 0.417 20.82 54.53 56.90 5.09 5.31
Lou Gehrig 9569 8096 2502 479 1428 0.309 0.415 16.90 95.87 92.98 6.51 6.32
Frank Thomas 10297 8433 2494 449 1656 0.296 0.411 18.78 75.73 72.46 4.78 4.57
Freddie Freeman 8664 7373 2317 304 1141 0.314 0.410 24.25 67.38 66.90 5.06 5.02

The new 3000 hits club

name PA AB H HR BB BA OBP ABpHR ebWAR efWAR ebWARpPA efWARpPA
Pete Rose 15966 14139 4355 192 1641 0.308 0.382 73.64 85.84 85.49 3.49 3.48
Henry Aaron 14113 12540 3887 689 1420 0.310 0.378 18.20 135.60 128.05 6.25 5.90
Ty Cobb 12721 11659 3726 247 971 0.320 0.376 47.20 114.48 108.77 5.85 5.56
Cap Anson 13927 12883 3605 165 1019 0.280 0.334 78.08 46.87 42.02 2.19 1.96
Stan Musial 13036 11420 3579 492 1510 0.313 0.394 23.21 119.51 113.03 5.96 5.64
Albert Pujols 13201 11432 3522 662 1523 0.308 0.391 17.27 111.86 97.34 5.51 4.79
Willie Mays 12814 11151 3475 577 1528 0.312 0.394 19.33 144.08 135.39 7.31 6.87
Derek Jeter 12364 11000 3410 202 1136 0.310 0.381 54.46 78.02 76.26 4.10 4.01
Miguel Cabrera 12251 10617 3393 480 1457 0.320 0.402 22.12 82.29 80.41 4.37 4.27
Eddie Murray 13041 11527 3367 498 1371 0.292 0.365 23.15 70.75 73.99 3.53 3.69
Tony Gwynn 10448 9560 3270 104 779 0.342 0.390 91.92 70.53 65.45 4.39 4.07
Cal Ripken Jr 13088 11766 3263 370 1129 0.277 0.341 31.80 97.39 93.24 4.84 4.63
Paul Molitor 11856 10607 3262 231 1104 0.308 0.372 45.92 76.25 68.33 4.18 3.75
Robin Yount 12372 11130 3238 292 1071 0.291 0.352 38.12 80.57 69.46 4.23 3.65
Carl Yastrzemski 13556 11606 3202 396 1813 0.276 0.373 29.31 95.20 92.64 4.56 4.44
Ichiro Suzuki 10692 9786 3198 133 803 0.327 0.379 73.58 70.66 67.82 4.30 4.12
Rickey Henderson 13760 11331 3195 286 2264 0.282 0.404 39.62 109.08 103.90 5.15 4.91
Rod Carew 10825 9697 3192 120 1039 0.329 0.393 80.81 82.03 72.48 4.93 4.35
Tris Speaker 12003 10723 3171 195 1179 0.296 0.371 54.99 102.26 95.13 5.54 5.15
Dave Winfield 12095 10743 3112 491 1235 0.290 0.361 21.88 66.64 63.20 3.58 3.40
Craig Biggio 12542 11002 3104 233 1174 0.282 0.364 47.22 68.00 66.23 3.52 3.43
Adrián Beltré 11768 10616 3077 389 955 0.290 0.351 27.29 95.01 86.34 5.25 4.77
Al Kaline 11891 10469 3072 307 1264 0.293 0.369 34.10 84.82 80.86 4.64 4.42
Barry Bonds 12740 10170 3049 654 2373 0.300 0.434 15.55 153.89 145.24 7.85 7.41
Alex Rodriguez 11917 10293 3047 547 1338 0.296 0.383 18.82 120.29 110.30 6.56 6.02
Frank Robinson 11945 10213 3001 535 1432 0.294 0.388 19.09 99.93 95.92 5.44 5.22

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 our previous version. This is best evidenced by Babe Ruth taking the career home run crown. We remind the reader that 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. Thus Ruth’s era-adjusted home run total is inflated when interpreted as a measure of his talent. Nonetheless, Babe Ruth remains an all-time great player as judged by era-adjusted statistics despite him playing so long ago.

We wanted include a measure of era-adjusted WAR on a rate basis to demonstrate just how great Mike Trout has been. Trout is number 1 all-time in both ebWAR and efWAR per 650 PAs. He’s 2nd in OBP, 11th in batting average, and 10th 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 31 season Mike Trout is squarely in the top 25 era-adjusted JAWS rankings for all players (batters and pitchers). Absolutely amazing!

We now move to pitching.

Top 10 pitching careers by ebWAR

name IP ER ERA K K9 ebWAR efWAR ebWARpIP efWARpIP
Roger Clemens 5456 1701 2.81 4752 7.8 145.88 141.25 6.68 6.47
Greg Maddux 5646 1739 2.77 3473 5.5 113.66 120.73 5.03 5.35
Randy Johnson 4724 1521 2.90 5136 9.8 110.81 109.77 5.86 5.81
Tom Seaver 4587 1482 2.91 3656 7.2 104.31 90.78 5.69 4.95
Lefty Grove 3518 1085 2.78 2826 7.2 102.54 98.80 7.29 7.02
Justin Verlander 4107 1283 2.81 3297 7.2 100.23 95.07 6.10 5.79
Bert Blyleven 4877 1721 3.18 3785 7.0 97.69 101.82 5.01 5.22
Phil Niekro 5082 1776 3.15 3364 6.0 94.37 77.47 4.64 3.81
Clayton Kershaw 3484 941 2.43 2980 7.7 93.78 88.83 6.73 6.37
Walter Johnson 4791 1766 3.32 3888 7.3 91.53 91.80 4.78 4.79

Top 10 pitching careers by efWAR

name IP ER ERA K K9 ebWAR efWAR ebWARpIP efWARpIP
Roger Clemens 5456 1701 2.81 4752 7.8 145.88 141.25 6.68 6.47
Greg Maddux 5646 1739 2.77 3473 5.5 113.66 120.73 5.03 5.35
Randy Johnson 4724 1521 2.90 5136 9.8 110.81 109.77 5.86 5.81
Nolan Ryan 5319 1918 3.25 6026 10.2 86.85 108.30 4.08 5.09
Bert Blyleven 4877 1721 3.18 3785 7.0 97.69 101.82 5.01 5.22
Steve Carlton 4816 1641 3.07 4221 7.9 88.70 100.34 4.60 5.21
Lefty Grove 3518 1085 2.78 2826 7.2 102.54 98.80 7.29 7.02
Justin Verlander 4107 1283 2.81 3297 7.2 100.23 95.07 6.10 5.79
Gaylord Perry 4977 1768 3.20 3366 6.1 89.50 94.45 4.50 4.74
Walter Johnson 4791 1766 3.32 3888 7.3 91.53 91.80 4.78 4.79

Top 10 pitching careers by ebWAR per 250 IP (minimum 3000 IP)

name IP ER ERA K K9 ebWAR efWAR ebWARpIP efWARpIP
Lefty Grove 3518 1085 2.78 2826 7.2 102.54 98.80 7.29 7.02
Clayton Kershaw 3484 941 2.43 2980 7.7 93.78 88.83 6.73 6.37
Pedro Martinez 3248 943 2.61 3113 8.6 87.20 82.13 6.71 6.32
Roger Clemens 5456 1701 2.81 4752 7.8 145.88 141.25 6.68 6.47
Max Scherzer 3658 1150 2.83 3506 8.6 90.63 82.14 6.19 5.61
Justin Verlander 4107 1283 2.81 3297 7.2 100.23 95.07 6.10 5.79
Roy Halladay 3194 1013 2.85 2078 5.9 76.07 67.91 5.95 5.32
Randy Johnson 4724 1521 2.90 5136 9.8 110.81 109.77 5.86 5.81
Tom Seaver 4587 1482 2.91 3656 7.2 104.31 90.78 5.69 4.95
Curt Schilling 3663 1205 2.96 3036 7.5 82.09 77.00 5.60 5.26

Top 10 pitching careers by efWAR per 250 IP (minimum 3000 IP)

name IP ER ERA K K9 ebWAR efWAR ebWARpIP efWARpIP
Lefty Grove 3518 1085 2.78 2826 7.2 102.54 98.80 7.29 7.02
Roger Clemens 5456 1701 2.81 4752 7.8 145.88 141.25 6.68 6.47
Clayton Kershaw 3484 941 2.43 2980 7.7 93.78 88.83 6.73 6.37
Pedro Martinez 3248 943 2.61 3113 8.6 87.20 82.13 6.71 6.32
Randy Johnson 4724 1521 2.90 5136 9.8 110.81 109.77 5.86 5.81
Justin Verlander 4107 1283 2.81 3297 7.2 100.23 95.07 6.10 5.79
Max Scherzer 3658 1150 2.83 3506 8.6 90.63 82.14 6.19 5.61
Greg Maddux 5646 1739 2.77 3473 5.5 113.66 120.73 5.03 5.35
Bob Gibson 3585 1183 2.97 2836 7.1 77.00 76.45 5.37 5.33
Roy Halladay 3194 1013 2.85 2078 5.9 76.07 67.91 5.95 5.32

Top 10 pitching careers by ERA (minimum 1500 IP)

name IP ER ERA K K9 ebWAR efWAR ebWARpIP efWARpIP
Mariano Rivera 1700 433 2.29 1366 7.2 59.85 42.57 8.80 6.26
Clayton Kershaw 3484 941 2.43 2980 7.7 93.78 88.83 6.73 6.37
Brandon Webb 1536 433 2.54 1062 6.2 36.18 31.90 5.89 5.19
Jacob deGrom 1902 540 2.56 1767 8.4 52.03 49.20 6.84 6.47
Pedro Martinez 3248 943 2.61 3113 8.6 87.20 82.13 6.71 6.32
Johan Santana 2267 682 2.71 1992 7.9 57.74 51.31 6.37 5.66
Greg Maddux 5646 1739 2.77 3473 5.5 113.66 120.73 5.03 5.35
Lefty Grove 3518 1085 2.78 2826 7.2 102.54 98.80 7.29 7.02
Chris Sale 2260 697 2.78 2331 9.3 55.02 54.69 6.09 6.05
Hoyt Wilhelm 2177 672 2.78 1609 6.7 46.58 21.59 5.35 2.48

Top 10 pitching careers by ERA (minimum 3000 IP)

name IP ER ERA K K9 ebWAR efWAR ebWARpIP efWARpIP
Clayton Kershaw 3484 941 2.43 2980 7.7 93.78 88.83 6.73 6.37
Pedro Martinez 3248 943 2.61 3113 8.6 87.20 82.13 6.71 6.32
Greg Maddux 5646 1739 2.77 3473 5.5 113.66 120.73 5.03 5.35
Lefty Grove 3518 1085 2.78 2826 7.2 102.54 98.80 7.29 7.02
Roger Clemens 5456 1701 2.81 4752 7.8 145.88 141.25 6.68 6.47
Justin Verlander 4107 1283 2.81 3297 7.2 100.23 95.07 6.10 5.79
Max Scherzer 3658 1150 2.83 3506 8.6 90.63 82.14 6.19 5.61
Roy Halladay 3194 1013 2.85 2078 5.9 76.07 67.91 5.95 5.32
Randy Johnson 4724 1521 2.90 5136 9.8 110.81 109.77 5.86 5.81
Tom Seaver 4587 1482 2.91 3656 7.2 104.31 90.78 5.69 4.95

Top 10 pitching careers by strikeouts

name IP ER ERA K K9 ebWAR efWAR ebWARpIP efWARpIP
Nolan Ryan 5319 1918 3.25 6026 10.2 86.85 108.30 4.08 5.09
Randy Johnson 4724 1521 2.90 5136 9.8 110.81 109.77 5.86 5.81
Roger Clemens 5456 1701 2.81 4752 7.8 145.88 141.25 6.68 6.47
Steve Carlton 4816 1641 3.07 4221 7.9 88.70 100.34 4.60 5.21
Walter Johnson 4791 1766 3.32 3888 7.3 91.53 91.80 4.78 4.79
Bert Blyleven 4877 1721 3.18 3785 7.0 97.69 101.82 5.01 5.22
Tom Seaver 4587 1482 2.91 3656 7.2 104.31 90.78 5.69 4.95
Don Sutton 5071 1929 3.42 3575 6.3 72.44 82.98 3.57 4.09
Max Scherzer 3658 1150 2.83 3506 8.6 90.63 82.14 6.19 5.61
Greg Maddux 5646 1739 2.77 3473 5.5 113.66 120.73 5.03 5.35

Top 10 pitching careers by strikeouts per 9 innings (minimum 3000 IP)

name IP ER ERA K K9 ebWAR efWAR ebWARpIP efWARpIP
Nolan Ryan 5319 1918 3.25 6026 10.2 86.85 108.30 4.08 5.09
Randy Johnson 4724 1521 2.90 5136 9.8 110.81 109.77 5.86 5.81
Max Scherzer 3658 1150 2.83 3506 8.6 90.63 82.14 6.19 5.61
Pedro Martinez 3248 943 2.61 3113 8.6 87.20 82.13 6.71 6.32
Bob Feller 3472 1302 3.38 3104 8.0 50.50 53.21 3.64 3.83
Steve Carlton 4816 1641 3.07 4221 7.9 88.70 100.34 4.60 5.21
Roger Clemens 5456 1701 2.81 4752 7.8 145.88 141.25 6.68 6.47
Clayton Kershaw 3484 941 2.43 2980 7.7 93.78 88.83 6.73 6.37
David Cone 3212 1141 3.20 2716 7.6 61.87 55.93 4.82 4.35
Curt Schilling 3663 1205 2.96 3036 7.5 82.09 77.00 5.60 5.26

Top 10 pitching careers by innings

name IP ER ERA K K9 ebWAR efWAR ebWARpIP efWARpIP
Greg Maddux 5646 1739 2.77 3473 5.5 113.66 120.73 5.03 5.35
Roger Clemens 5456 1701 2.81 4752 7.8 145.88 141.25 6.68 6.47
Nolan Ryan 5319 1918 3.25 6026 10.2 86.85 108.30 4.08 5.09
Warren Spahn 5112 1832 3.23 2955 5.2 91.20 72.30 4.46 3.54
Phil Niekro 5082 1776 3.15 3364 6.0 94.37 77.47 4.64 3.81
Don Sutton 5071 1929 3.42 3575 6.3 72.44 82.98 3.57 4.09
Gaylord Perry 4977 1768 3.20 3366 6.1 89.50 94.45 4.50 4.74
Tom Glavine 4917 1696 3.10 2563 4.7 81.89 71.16 4.16 3.62
Bert Blyleven 4877 1721 3.18 3785 7.0 97.69 101.82 5.01 5.22
Steve Carlton 4816 1641 3.07 4221 7.9 88.70 100.34 4.60 5.21

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 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 premiere 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.

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 12.73 1 Steve Carlton 1980 11.18
2 Bret Saberhagen 1989 12.61 2 Clayton Kershaw 2015 11.02
3 Justin Verlander 2012 12.22 3 Greg Maddux 1994 11.00
4 Roger Clemens 1997 12.16 4 Dwight Gooden 1985 10.51
5 Shohei Ohtani 2023 12.06 5 Randy Johnson 2004 10.51
6 Dwight Gooden 1985 12.02 6 Roger Clemens 1997 10.46
7 Gerrit Cole 2023 11.65 7 Justin Verlander 2012 10.40
8 Randy Johnson 2002 11.62 8 Randy Johnson 1995 10.31
9 Greg Maddux 1994 11.55 9 Jacob deGrom 2018 10.28
10 Zack Greinke 2015 11.54 10 Roger Clemens 1991 10.23
rank name year ebWAR rank name year efWAR
1 Shohei Ohtani 2022 12.73 1 Shohei Ohtani 2022 10.22
2 Shohei Ohtani 2023 12.06 2 Cal Ripken Jr 1991 9.67
3 Cal Ripken Jr 1991 10.28 3 Shohei Ohtani 2023 9.48
4 Aaron Judge 2022 10.23 4 Alex Rodriguez 2005 9.48
5 Alex Rodriguez 2005 10.19 5 Cal Ripken Jr 1984 9.48
6 Babe Ruth 1926 10.14 6 Mike Trout 2016 9.47
7 Carl Yastrzemski 1970 10.10 7 Barry Bonds 1993 9.45
8 Cal Ripken Jr 1984 10.08 8 Aaron Judge 2022 9.44
9 Mike Trout 2016 10.08 9 Ted Williams 1947 9.41
10 Willie Mays 1962 10.02 10 Babe Ruth 1926 9.40
name position ebWAR efWAR
Aaron Judge OF 10.23 9.44
Shohei Ohtani DH 3.82 4.28
Shohei Ohtani SP 8.91 5.94

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 highest all-time.

name year age AB HR
Giancarlo Stanton 2017 27 598 54
George Foster 1977 28 616 52
Jose Canseco 1988 23 628 51
Eddie Mathews 1953 21 584 51
José Bautista 2010 29 564 50
Chris Davis 2013 27 567 50
Khris Davis 2018 30 573 50
Aaron Judge 2022 30 553 50
Willie Mays 1965 34 551 50
Babe Ruth 1927 32 570 50

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 the 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.

name year age AB ABpHR HR
Barry Bonds 2004 39 441 10.76 41
Barry Bonds 2002 37 444 10.83 41
Babe Ruth 1926 31 520 10.83 48
Barry Bonds 2001 36 478 10.86 44
Giancarlo Stanton 2012 22 456 10.86 42
Willie Stargell 1971 31 532 10.86 49
Babe Ruth 1920 25 457 10.88 42
Babe Ruth 1919 24 482 10.95 44
Willie Mays 1965 34 551 11.02 50
Mark McGwire 1998 34 497 11.04 45
Barry Bonds 2000 35 464 11.05 42
Aaron Judge 2022 30 553 11.06 50
Giancarlo Stanton 2017 27 598 11.07 54
Mark McGwire 1996 32 424 11.16 38
Giancarlo Stanton 2014 24 518 11.26 46
José Bautista 2010 29 564 11.28 50
Babe Ruth 1921 26 519 11.28 46
Mark McGwire 1999 35 508 11.29 45
Dave Kingman 1976 27 476 11.33 42
Chris Davis 2013 27 567 11.34 50

Mike Trout

Mike Trout is the greatest player of 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 2023 season Mike Trout is ranked 37th in career ebWAR and 36th 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
32 Walter Johnson 91.53 31 Cy Young 91.28
33 Roberto Clemente 91.37 32 Tom Seaver 90.78
34 Warren Spahn 91.20 33 Honus Wagner 89.81
35 Eddie Collins 90.94 34 Clayton Kershaw 88.83
36 Max Scherzer 90.63 35 Wade Boggs 87.91
37 Mike Trout 90.43 36 Mike Trout 87.87
38 Zack Greinke 90.23 37 Eddie Mathews 86.38
39 Gaylord Perry 89.50 38 Adrián Beltré 86.34
40 Steve Carlton 88.70 39 Pete Rose 85.49
41 George Brett 87.99 40 George Brett 83.48
42 Eddie Mathews 87.88 41 Eddie Collins 83.36

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 12 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 12 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 13 seasons aggregated:

name PA AB H HR BB BA OBP ABpHR ebWAR efWAR ebWARpPA efWARpPA
Mickey Mantle 7536 6261 1947 389 1233 0.311 0.423 16.10 81.85 79.16 7.06 6.83
Mike Trout 7121 5764 1816 355 1203 0.315 0.438 16.24 90.43 87.87 8.25 8.02

Maybe Willie Mays is a better comparison for Trout. Below, we see that Trout is comparable to Willie Mays.

First 13 seasons aggregated:

name PA AB H HR BB BA OBP ABpHR ebWAR efWAR ebWARpPA efWARpPA
Willie Mays 8137 7176 2282 370 873 0.318 0.391 19.39 98.31 91.37 7.85 7.30
Mike Trout 7121 5764 1816 355 1203 0.315 0.438 16.24 90.43 87.87 8.25 8.02

To catch Mays, Trout will have to stay healthy and productive. Mays’ remaining era-adjusted seasons are very good so it is a tall order for Trout to catch him.

name PA AB H HR BB BA OBP ABpHR ebWAR efWAR ebWARpPA efWARpPA
Willie Mays 4677 3975 1193 207 655 0.3 0.399 19.2 45.77 44.02 6.36 6.12

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.

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 strike outs per 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 1855 1915 9.3 51.79 48.34 6.98 6.51
Tom Seaver 2.60 1720 1618 8.5 49.67 43.52 7.22 6.33

As it currently stands Max Scherzer ranks 12th in career ebWAR and 15th in career efWAR among pitchers and is among elite company:

rank name ebWAR rank name efWAR
7 Bert Blyleven 97.69 10 Walter Johnson 91.80
8 Phil Niekro 94.37 11 Cy Young 91.28
9 Clayton Kershaw 93.78 12 Tom Seaver 90.78
10 Walter Johnson 91.53 13 Clayton Kershaw 88.83
11 Warren Spahn 91.20 14 Don Sutton 82.98
12 Max Scherzer 90.63 15 Max Scherzer 82.14
13 Zack Greinke 90.23 16 Pedro Martinez 82.13
14 Gaylord Perry 89.50 17 Zack Greinke 80.28
15 Steve Carlton 88.70 18 Mike Mussina 80.08
16 Pedro Martinez 87.20 19 John Smoltz 79.36
17 Nolan Ryan 86.85 20 Pete Alexander 77.55

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

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 163rd all-time. Our era-adjusted statistics are much more favorable to Sabathia’s career. He ranks 73rd all-time by ebWAR and 64th all-time by efWAR. Below we see that CC Sabathia’s era-adjusted career compares favorable 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.

name ERA IP K K9 ebWAR efWAR ebWARpIP efWARpIP
Fergie Jenkins 3.23 4199 3088 6.6 77.83 75.97 4.63 4.52
CC Sabathia 3.15 4169 2960 6.4 74.50 75.36 4.47 4.52
Robin Roberts 3.48 4435 2494 5.1 79.01 69.39 4.45 3.91
Jim Palmer 2.98 3688 2227 5.4 65.04 52.71 4.41 3.57
Pete Alexander 3.31 4356 2416 5.0 68.10 77.55 3.91 4.45
Don Sutton 3.42 5071 3575 6.3 72.44 82.98 3.57 4.09

CC Sabathia needs to be in the Hall of Fame as soon as he is eligible.

WAR and it’s 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 153.89 1 Barry Bonds 145.24
2 Roger Clemens 145.88 2 Roger Clemens 141.25
6 Alex Rodriguez 120.29 8 Alex Rodriguez 110.30
10 Albert Pujols 111.86 18 Albert Pujols 97.34
18 Justin Verlander 100.23 23 Justin Verlander 95.07
30 Clayton Kershaw 93.78 34 Clayton Kershaw 88.83
36 Max Scherzer 90.63 36 Mike Trout 87.87
37 Mike Trout 90.43 39 Pete Rose 85.49
38 Zack Greinke 90.23 45 Max Scherzer 82.14
48 Pete Rose 85.84 48 Miguel Cabrera 80.41
51 Miguel Cabrera 82.29 49 Zack Greinke 80.28
52 Curt Schilling 82.09 57 Curt Schilling 77.00
59 Lou Whitaker 78.39 64 CC Sabathia 75.36
60 Carlos Beltrán 78.14 68 Carlos Beltrán 74.26
73 CC Sabathia 74.50 75 Lou Whitaker 71.22
79 Joey Votto 72.69 80 Bobby Grich 70.27
80 Manny Ramirez 72.64 82 Rafael Palmeiro 69.78
81 Rafael Palmeiro 72.57 84 Dwight Evans 69.40
82 Bobby Grich 72.45 87 Rick Reuschel 69.12
89 Dwight Evans 71.60 88 Graig Nettles 68.90
91 Chase Utley 71.33 91 Manny Ramirez 68.17
92 Graig Nettles 71.01 93 Ichiro Suzuki 67.82
94 Ichiro Suzuki 70.66 94 Joey Votto 67.80
98 Rick Reuschel 70.12 96 Chase Utley 67.73

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 8313 6812 1988 369 1383 0.292 0.412 18.46 97.33 92.59 7.61 7.24
Cap Anson 13927 12883 3605 165 1019 0.280 0.334 78.08 46.87 42.02 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. Morevoer, Ty Cobb, who also is 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 no where 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 13927 12883 3605 165 1019 0.280 0.334 78.08 46.87 42.02 2.19 1.96
Nick Markakis 9446 8280 2413 182 1042 0.291 0.371 45.49 46.57 41.30 3.20 2.84
Ty Cobb 12721 11659 3726 247 971 0.320 0.376 47.20 114.48 108.77 5.85 5.56

Mark Buehrle

Let’s turn our focus to the HOF candidacy of Mark Buehrle. Our era-adjusted versions of WAR are very favorable to Buerhle’s career. He ranks 97th in career ebWAR and 150th in career efWAR. Here is a brief list of currently unquestioned Hall of Fame pitchers that Buehrle exceeds in both era-adjusted WAR totals and rates:

name ERA IP K K9 ebWAR efWAR ebWARpIP efWARpIP
Mark Buehrle 3.15 3774 1906 4.5 70.33 59.47 4.66 3.94
Jim Palmer 2.98 3688 2227 5.4 65.04 52.71 4.41 3.57
Bob Feller 3.38 3472 3104 8.0 50.50 53.21 3.64 3.83
Whitey Ford 2.97 3161 2000 5.7 49.44 49.25 3.91 3.90

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 innings totals did not really amount to anything impressive. However, when you compare innings “vs your peers” then this story changes. Buehrle’s era-adjusted 3774 innings ranks 34th all-time.

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 42nd and 81st best pitcher in history and ranks 148th and 247th overall among both pitchers and hitters by, respectively, ebWAR and efWAR. There are currently 270 former MLB players in the HOF. If we included players based on stats, then Tiant would be in.

Let’s compare Tiant to the same group with which we compared Buehrle. Among this group, Tiant ranks first in career eWAR and eWAR per 250 IP. This is a reflection of his greatness and injuries which cut his career short.

name ERA IP K K9 ebWAR efWAR ebWARpIP efWARpIP
Luis Tiant 3.31 3313 2402 6.5 61.14 50.44 4.61 3.81
Jim Palmer 2.98 3688 2227 5.4 65.04 52.71 4.41 3.57
Whitey Ford 2.97 3161 2000 5.7 49.44 49.25 3.91 3.90
Bob Feller 3.38 3472 3104 8.0 50.50 53.21 3.64 3.83

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 Roger Clemens Roger Clemens
3 Barry Bonds Willie Mays 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 Randy Johnson Nolan Ryan
12 Lou Gehrig Mike Schmidt 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 Lefty Grove Steve Carlton
17 Frank Robinson Tris Speaker Lefty Grove
18 Joe Morgan Justin Verlander Albert Pujols
19 Lefty Grove Joe Morgan Joe Morgan
20 Albert Pujols Frank Robinson Frank Robinson
21 Rickey Henderson Mel Ott Mel Ott
22 Pete Alexander Bert Blyleven Tris Speaker
23 Mike Trout Cal Ripken Jr Justin Verlander
24 Randy Johnson Rogers Hornsby Gaylord Perry
25 Eddie Collins Lou Gehrig Rogers Hornsby

We appreciate that Posnanski used an artistic as well as a scientific process to come up with the above rankings. And we appreiacte 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 70.66 career ebWAR which ranks 91st all-time, and 67.82 career efWAR which ranks 93rd 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 36th all-time in ebWAR and 37th 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 in the top 100 by both versions of eWAR. You do not need to wait for Posnanski to come around! You are also fourth all-time in era-adjusted career OBP, 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.

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

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 list gives under question would be in perfect agreement with what is statistically expected.

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.

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 slightly outside the top 100 in both ebWAR and efWAR while Mel Ott ranks 20th in ebWAR and 23rd in efWAR.

name PA AB H HR BB BA OBP ABpHR ebWAR efWAR ebWARpPA efWARpPA
Mel Ott 11058 9370 2655 418 1624 0.283 0.393 22.42 99.74 95.72 5.86 5.63
Tony Gwynn 10448 9560 3270 104 779 0.342 0.390 91.92 70.53 65.45 4.39 4.07

The differences in evaluating Mel Ott’s career and Tony Gwynn’s career between this version of our work and the previous version likely rests with how the talent pools are calculated and how careers are evaluated. The previous calculation of the talent pool under counted eligible individuals during the days that Mel Ott played when compared with our current calculation of the talent pool based on player demographic data. The previous version also compared careers by evaluating their performances as if everyone individually started playing in 1977. This method had some instability. For example, this method made no corrections for the strike shortened 1981 season. Our current version constructs a common environment from all non-strike NL seasons from 1977-1989, similar to what was done in Michael Schell’s work.

Christina Kahrl

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 13201 11432 3522 662 1523 0.308 0.391 17.27 111.86 97.34 5.51 4.79
Lou Gehrig 9569 8096 2502 479 1428 0.309 0.415 16.90 95.87 92.98 6.51 6.32
name PA AB H HR BB BA OBP ABpHR ebWAR efWAR ebWARpPA efWARpPA
Alex Rodriguez 11917 10293 3047 547 1338 0.296 0.383 18.82 120.29 110.30 6.56 6.02
Cal Ripken Jr 13088 11766 3263 370 1129 0.277 0.341 31.80 97.39 93.24 4.84 4.63
Honus Wagner 10815 10175 2927 246 523 0.288 0.330 41.36 86.46 89.81 5.20 5.40

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).

name PA AB H HR BB BA OBP ABpHR ebWAR efWAR ebWARpPA efWARpPA
Albert Pujols 9813 8380 2687 546 1242 0.321 0.410 15.35 101.07 88.35 6.69 5.85
Lou Gehrig 9569 8096 2502 479 1428 0.309 0.415 16.90 95.87 92.98 6.51 6.32
name PA AB H HR BB BA OBP ABpHR ebWAR efWAR ebWARpPA efWARpPA
Alex Rodriguez 10791 9339 2794 507 1185 0.299 0.384 18.42 115.25 105.22 6.94 6.34
Cal Ripken Jr 10564 9430 2642 322 986 0.280 0.348 29.29 91.73 87.80 5.64 5.40
Honus Wagner 10815 10175 2927 246 523 0.288 0.330 41.36 86.46 89.81 5.20 5.40

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 10.45 9.62
Bob Feller AL CLE 21 1940 296 87 2.65 363 11.0 8.85 9.35
Billy Pierce AL CHA 28 1955 213 45 1.90 187 7.9 8.06 6.91
Early Wynn AL CLE 36 1956 264 72 2.45 173 5.9 8.02 5.74
Herb Score AL CLE 23 1956 236 61 2.33 281 10.7 8.00 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 7.17 3.83
Frank Lary AL DET 28 1958 264 77 2.62 124 4.2 6.90 4.84
Jim Bunning AL DET 25 1957 274 83 2.73 192 6.3 6.89 3.88

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 9.94 8.99
Johnny Antonelli NL NY1 24 1954 252 60 2.14 189 6.8 9.77 4.65
Mort Cooper NL SLN 29 1942 274 66 2.17 217 7.1 9.71 8.82
Ewell Blackwell NL CIN 24 1947 259 68 2.36 258 9.0 9.51 8.98
Robin Roberts NL PHI 27 1954 296 101 3.07 204 6.2 8.95 6.45
Ernie Broglio NL SLN 24 1960 222 54 2.19 194 7.9 8.73 3.97
Warren Spahn NL BSN 26 1947 280 73 2.35 174 5.6 8.45 6.03
Robin Roberts NL PHI 24 1951 296 99 3.01 172 5.2 8.35 7.48
Warren Spahn NL BSN 30 1951 280 95 3.05 203 6.5 7.74 5.13
Johnny Sain NL BSN 30 1948 296 89 2.71 185 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 10.72 9.71
Wilbur Wood AL CHA 29 1971 282 71 2.27 184 5.9 10.22 6.13
Mark Fidrych AL DET 21 1976 231 50 1.95 118 4.6 9.87 4.74
Bert Blyleven AL MIN 22 1973 273 72 2.37 239 7.9 8.55 10.15
Hank Aguirre AL DET 31 1962 214 48 2.02 150 6.3 8.53 4.67
Wilbur Wood AL CHA 30 1972 296 92 2.80 144 4.4 8.01 4.48
Gaylord Perry AL CLE 33 1972 277 65 2.11 182 5.9 7.98 6.62
Gaylord Perry AL CLE 35 1974 277 75 2.44 203 6.6 7.91 5.04
Bert Blyleven AL MIN 23 1974 238 67 2.53 246 9.3 7.67 8.28
Dean Chance AL LAA 23 1964 264 70 2.39 169 5.8 7.52 6.87

1981-2000 AL:

name lg team age year IP ER ERA K K9 ebWAR efWAR
Bret Saberhagen AL KCA 25 1989 296 63 1.92 207 6.3 12.61 9.39
Roger Clemens AL TOR 34 1997 296 74 2.25 257 7.8 12.16 10.46
Kevin Appier AL KCA 25 1993 253 67 2.38 178 6.3 10.22 8.21
Roger Clemens AL TOR 35 1998 266 73 2.47 265 9.0 10.03 8.03
Bert Blyleven AL CLE 30 1981 242 82 3.05 189 7.0 9.87 5.30
Teddy Higuera AL ML4 30 1988 228 67 2.64 189 7.5 9.12 5.51
Frank Viola AL MIN 28 1988 263 79 2.70 201 6.9 8.85 5.87
Randy Johnson AL SEA 31 1995 275 72 2.36 362 11.8 8.82 10.31
Dave Stieb AL TOR 26 1984 296 89 2.71 228 6.9 8.61 6.42
Frank Viola AL MIN 27 1987 253 67 2.38 192 6.8 8.51 5.50

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 12.22 10.40
Zack Greinke AL KCA 25 2009 266 54 1.83 232 7.8 11.34 9.65
Corey Kluber AL CLE 31 2017 271 54 1.79 270 9.0 11.22 9.22
Mike Minor AL TEX 31 2019 269 84 2.81 171 5.7 10.08 4.70
Justin Verlander AL DET 28 2011 296 72 2.19 257 7.8 10.03 7.79
Corey Kluber AL CLE 28 2014 276 73 2.38 278 9.1 9.72 7.79
David Price AL TBA 26 2012 249 66 2.39 191 6.9 9.06 5.02
Lance Lynn AL TEX 32 2019 266 84 2.84 204 6.9 8.81 6.48
Justin Verlander AL DET 33 2016 280 86 2.76 227 7.3 8.59 6.10
Justin Verlander AL DET 34 2017 277 89 2.89 206 6.7 8.30 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 faced some of the weakest competition that one could have faced over a lengthy career. Or, in other words, if you could choose a contextual environment with the goal of maximizing your potential for achieving mythical stats, then the 1939-1960 AL with Lefty Grove on your team would have to be near the top of the list. Moreover, Ted Williams was a left-handed hitter and Lefty Grove was a left-handed pitcher (his real name is not Lefty). This is important because Ted Williams was relatively weak against left-handed pitching. So Ted had it comparatively easier than others.

In addition, Ted Williams faced fewer left handed-hitters than great hitters from more modern eras, and this is something we also have not yet accounted for. 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
Split PA AB H HR BB BA OBP SLG OPS HBP SH SF tOPS+
vs RHP 7089 5548 1938 414 1497 .349 .488 .664 1.152 26 1 17 106
vs LHP 1971 1620 504 61 334 .311 .431 .496 .927 11 1 5 68
Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Original Table
Generated 12/7/2022.


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 substantial 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 503 1867 0.314 0.442 16.42 107.86 107.75 6.88 6.88
Ted Williams* 10184 8299 2576 472 1824 0.31 0.436 17.58 101.36 101.25 6.47 6.46

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 efWAR 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 2023, his age 31 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 144.08 135.39
Henry Aaron 135.60 128.05
Greg Maddux 113.66 120.73
Babe Ruth 137.98 120.28
Stan Musial 119.51 113.03
Randy Johnson 110.81 109.77
Ty Cobb 114.48 108.77
Nolan Ryan 86.85 108.30
Mike Schmidt 109.58 106.41
Rickey Henderson 109.08 103.90
Bert Blyleven 97.69 101.82
Ted Williams* 101.36 101.25
Barry Bonds** 97.33 92.59
Mike Trout 90.43 87.87

Where does this go from here? Ted Williams needs only roughly 20 efWAR to eclipse Greg Maddux and Babe Ruth for the 3rd spot (keep in mind that Babe Ruth faced Walter Johnson and performed almost as well against Lefty Grove as Williams did against the anonymous lefties of his day). Barry Bonds who put up 8.41 efWAR 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 trough his age 31 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 efWAR 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 ebWAR would be 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 9225 7470 2283 283 1626 0.306 0.433 26.4 72.69 67.8 5.12 4.78
Ted Williams* 10184 8299 2576 472 1824 0.31 0.436 17.58 101.36 101.25 6.47 6.46

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 wins above replacement. 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 an all-time great player, just perhaps not Mt Rushmore worthy.