Roger Weber's Baseball Judgments
No. 1
Covering work from
Jan. 2005 through
April 2006
Roger Weber's
Baseball
Judgments
-1-
Roger Weber's Baseball Judgments
Roger Weber's
Baseball Judgments
Contents
Judgments 03
Studies
05
Articles
51
Essays
57
References 66
In W.P. Kinsella's book, "The Iowa Baseball Confederacy," the main character has a
quest to find hidden history and must overcome many obstacles from those in baseball. In this
group of studies and articles I also tried to decipher history, to compute answers to questions
many fans have and to set up information I can use in future studies to aid greater
understanding of America's national pastime and increased debate and enjoyment of such a
great game. As Dodgers' announcer Red Barber said, "baseball is only dull to dull minds."
A judgment, as most of us think of it, is a decision made after review of facts. That is
precisely what I aim to show in this document. I reveal many of my statistical findings and
display my favorite recent articles and essays.
Visit sportparks.org or rogerweber.net. Nearly 1,000 pages of information and
growing, Sportparks contains art, reviews, articles, essays, stats, studies, photos, games,
downloads and much more. Everything on Sportparks is by Roger Weber unless otherwise
stated. At Sportparks download full Excel files for each statistical study to get all the
computations.
"It's such a wonderful sport. There aren't any time limits, which means you can go and
enjoy yourself. It's a great place to go and relax. It's a wonderful place to visit with
somebody you love. It's an important part of our history."
-George W. Bush
-2-
Roger Weber's Baseball Judgments
Judgments
Baseball
Babe Ruth is the greatest player of all time because of the era in which he played. He is so far above his immediate
competition that there is no question.
Ted Williams, Willy Mays, Barry Bonds and Mickey Mantle are the next best offensive players ever. For Bonds,
steroids were likely a factor. Mays had to play in a difficult ballpark for hitters for much of his career and still hit
660 home runs.
The catcher is a far more valuable player than most people think. Although in my second study catchers have a low
average score their defensive abilities and the toll they are willing to take on their bodies must be respected. There
is a reason there are so few good offensive catchers.
Speed is more important to a team's success. Bill James touched on this in his article, "Underestimating the Fog,"
that appeared in the Baseball Research Journal. Speed contributes to defense, and when used correctly on the base
paths, in conjunction with strong pitching and low scoring games, can greatly add to a team's success.
There is an unclear line between 1930 and 1947 when new equipment, night games, different types of players and
other factors contributed to a major change in the game that make the eras before and after those two years very
difficult to compare with each other. In some ways Babe Ruth's totals are unbelievable compared to those today,
and in other ways he benefited from many advantages. This difference is hard to measure. It is almost like baseball
was two different games.
Hitting contributes more to a team's success than does pitching.
Stats can be grossly affected by biases like ballpark. These factors need to be accounted before because a big
ballpark can make a good batter look weak and an average hitter look like a superstar.
I define a great team as one that wins the World Series or has a winning percentage of .670 or better. There seems
to be a fairly clear line at the .670 mark that separates good teams from great teams. Teams above this mark are
able to be dominant but still have some of the ups and downs seasons that most teams must endure.
The effects of variables like steroids are not yet known to an accurate degree because we don't actually know for
sure what players took steroids and the amount they took. The effects obviously have a great deal given some
findings about Bonds, McGwire and Sosa, but time will tell how much steroids have changed the game.
Most fans will never agree with most of what statisticians say no matter how clear the evidence is because most
judgments are based on personal experience. Fans pay money to see players that impress them, so most think those
players are best, whether or not the stats agree. This is not to say the stats should dictate who fans watch. The point
of watching great players play is to be impressed. If certain players impress, that is who the fan should watch.
All fans will never agree.
-3-
Roger Weber's Baseball Judgments
Statistics
If something seems consistently unusual, there is likely a variable causing it. There is rarely a situation caused
solely by chance.
There are hardly any statistics that are not measurable. Intangibles can be measured. Even factors like "momentum"
can be measured based on how well teams performed in situations that set up "momentum." The effect of an
attribute like race can be measured by changes in the game when certain races make up a larger portion of the
league.
The best way to measure changes in the game like the race issue pre and post-1947 is not to look at box scores and
see how black players performed versus white players. A far more accurate way is to take the differences in the
league as a whole and how the league changes versus the change in the demographics of the league. If the league is
12% more successful and the prevalence of blacks increased 12%, there is likely a trend. Taken in large numbers
these trends are measurable.
Most measurements must be finished at "close enough." It is not realistically possible to determine exact
adjustments or exact totals. Most variables' effects on data are minimal.
Subjectivity is rampant and popular opinion is often wrong. While not all analysis can be performed via statistics,
in general stats tell far more than personal experience. The brain has weird tendencies to remember certain types of
plays, certain events and certain effects. Numbers, when used correctly, don't lie.
Weighing stats is equally or even more important than the stats themselves. While it is convenient to measure them
evenly, no two stats should in the same weight. No two stats are even. Statisticians' opinions about which are most
important vary, making it almost necessary to perform side studies to determine desired weights before actually
beginning the study.
The theory behind a stat can make a stat valuable even if the stat itself is not very telling. This is evident in
strikeouts versus walks. Neither is distinctly revealing but together they tell how much a player is allowing batted
balls in play and thus creating a 28% chance the ball will be a hit versus how much the player gives up free
baserunners in walks or controls the outcome of the at bat with a strikeout. It should be noted, though, that
strikeouts do raise a pitcher's pitch count.
Method must be changed to measure stats across eras.
Z-scores are the most effective way to measure stats not usually measured on the same scale. I experimented with
direct measurements, stats divided by standard deviations and percentiles, but z-scores are the easiest to use and the
most telling and easiest to decipher.
It is up to the statistician to decide how exactly to make measurements, but several different ways can give fairly
equal results. For example, comparing range factor between positions I added or subtracted amounts form each zscore, but another statistician might count fielding different amounts for different positions. Each takes a
conceptually different approach but surprisingly both give about equal results.
There is always more analysis that can be done.
-4-
Roger Weber's Baseball Judgments
Studies
Determining the best baseball team from 1902-2005
I.
The study
II. All teams
III. Rankings
The five tool player
I.
The study
II. The Best players
III. Performance and salary
IV. Performance and uniform number
Recalculating a tainted record
I.
The study
II. Results
Determining the best ballpark for 2006
I.
The study
II. Calculations
III. Rankings and comments
-5-
6
11
14
17
23
28
31
33
37
40
46
48
Roger Weber's Baseball Judgments
Determining the Best
Major League Baseball Team
from 1902-2004
A Logical Statistical Comparison
March 2005, December 2005
This study is also available at http://baseball-almanac.com under 1/17/06 additions or under "Articles"
Throughout the years, there have been many great baseball teams, and it seems that each year there is
another. Based on just memories, it is difficult to compare teams between years, and without any on field
competitions possible between these teams, there is really no way of determining an all time champion. As a result,
there have been conflicting comparisons of teams through different statistical means.
For all the attention some of the more famous comparisons get, I feel there are a few areas where they are
inaccurate. Many comparisons show as very important to a team's greatness the number of players that team has in
the Hall of Fame, and the number of games the team finished ahead of the second place contender.
I don't feel a great team necessarily has to have Hall of Fame members. A great team can be made of
players who only played great for one year. Also, many teams dating from the late 1980s had members who still
aren't even eligible for the Hall of Fame. For a comparison of all teams from all time, this statistic seems to give a
bias to teams from the past, and doesn't seem to reflect a team's combined greatness.
It is important for a baseball team to perform far better than its competition to be considered great. But
giving so much emphasis to the number of games ahead of second place seems to not only be grading the team, but
the competition they played as well. Perhaps a team who finishes 30 games ahead of second place in a division is
playing weak competition. It doesn't seem right to reward them for that.
In my comparison, I use number of games ahead of second place, but don't give much emphasis to it. Some
may argue that it isn't fair to older teams that I count a margin of games ahead of second place within a division
equal to games ahead of second place in a league. The divisions were created for a reason, though. As the league
-6-
Roger Weber's Baseball Judgments
expanded, each division became in itself a miniature league, comparable in size to the entire league from the early
1900s. It would be even more unfair to count a team's games over second place in a league of six teams equal to a
team's games over second place in a league of 16 teams.
Some comparisons count out teams from before 1920. These teams tend to have a higher final rank, for
many reasons. To me, though, it doesn't seem fair to discount a team due to their existence prior to an arbitrary date,
but it also seems unfair to include teams that may skew the rankings. In my analysis, I include all teams from 19022005, but I will also include in this article a ranking of teams not including 1902-1919.
Selecting the Teams for Comparison
Teams That Were Included
I used fairly basic criteria for selecting teams for the comparison. All World Series winning teams were
included, except for a few whose circumstances I will explain. Also, teams like the 1954 and 1995 Cleveland
Indians were undoubtedly great teams, yet neither won the World Series. For that reason, all teams with regular
season winning percentages of at least .670 were included. While this number is quite arbitrary, it worked as a good
cutoff point between including some great teams who didn't win the World Series, and allowing too many teams to
be included in the scoring. There are a few exceptions to this rule, though.
The 1998 Atlanta Braves are included in the rankings although their winning percentage was just .654.
They played dominantly, and if not for a very "lucky" San Diego Padres team, these Braves may have won the
World Series.
The 1994 Montreal Expos are also included. Since there was no World Series in 1994, it seemed logical to
include the team with the best record from the regular season. Since part of the scoring is based on postseason play,
the 1994 Expos, 1904 Giants, and 1902 Pirates, all of whom never played in playoffs or a World Series, are
included and are given arbitrary but fair 50% postseason winning percentages.
Teams That Were Not Included
There are a few teams not included in the final rankings. Mainly, the period from 1942-1945 was not
included because it was the time of World War II. Most teams lost many good players to the war effort, and young,
inexperienced, and probably inferior quality players were called into major league action. The talent level of major
league baseball went down, as did that of the minor leagues as a result, creating a few years of mostly
inexperienced players. It isn't fair to compare Babe Ruth's teams to teams made up of mostly minor or lower league
players.
As stated before, teams from before 1920 are sometimes excluded from all time rankings. While it isn't fair
to exclude them completely, I include them along with a ranking for teams post-1920 excluding teams from pre1920.
The Formula
Most importantly, a team must win the majority of its games. Winning is what determines the champion, so
winning should be the number one basis for how to decide a great team. Winning, though, is determined by a team's
ability to produce and defend against runs. For that reason, I view a team's scoring dominance over the opponents
as a similarly important aspect of greatness.
While it is given great importance to some historians, I don't view games ahead of second place as a key
determining factor, but it does deserve some merit, since a great team should be able to separate itself from the
competition easily. A team's dominance over the rest of the league or division defines its unique ability to win in
the year it played. Great teams don't finish second. The Florida Marlins have twice won a World Series despite
-7-
Roger Weber's Baseball Judgments
never winning their division. Had they finished with the record they had prior to 1994, the year in which the Wild
Card was created, the Marlins would have missed the postseason.
A great team should finish atop both leagues, with the trophy in the display case. While not winning a
championship doesn't necessarily take away from a team's winning ability, a team like the 1954 Indians, who
finished the regular season 111-43, but lost in the World Series 4 games to 0 should not be placed on the same level
as a team who finished with a 107-47 regular season record but won the World Series 4 games to 0, even though
both finished with the same final record of 111-47.
A large determinant of a team's greatness is how it performs in the postseason. Great teams don't choke.
They continue to play as they had all season long, or better in the postseason, dominating their opponents in the
World Series, and any Playoffs.
The Regular Season vs. the Postseason
It is greatly debated as to how much the regular season should count compared to the postseason in a
comparison. Here is how I determined this aspect:
I will give 85% of the overall score to a combination of regular season winning percentage, run scoring
dominance over opponents during the regular season, and postseason winning percentage.
Since the length of the regular season and the playoffs has changed frequently throughout history, there is
no uniformly fair way to determine how much weight to give the postseason. I will try to determine the relative
importance of the postseason, in essence, how many regular season games the postseason should count for using the
current setup of the season.
First of all, the regular season is 162 games. The playoffs are usually an average of about 15 games for any
given team that plays in the World Series. But, for the first 162 games, all 30 MLB teams are involved. In the first
round of the playoffs, just eight are involved. Therefore, I think games in the first round of the playoffs should be
considered 3.75 (30/8) times as important as regular season games, since about one fourth the number of teams
plays in them. Games in the second round of the playoffs see only 4 teams playing, so it seems those games should
be about 8 (30/4) times as important as regular season games. Games in the World Series match just two teams, so
they should be about 15 (30/2) times as important as a regular season game.
Situation
Reg. Season
LDS
LCS
W.S.
Average
Games
162
4
5.5
5.5
Teams
Involved
30
8
4
2
Importance compared to reg. season gms.
1 each
3.75 each
7.5 each
15
This means that the average 15 game playoff is worth 138.75 regular season games. Divided by this value,
this makes the regular season for a given team 117% as important as the postseason including the World Series.
This result though seems a little high for my purposes.
There is another method, which includes just assuming the entire playoffs include 8 teams. This means that
the 15 games of the playoffs should be multiplied by 3.75 (30/8) to get the number of regular season games the
playoffs are worth. This outcome is 56.25 games, meaning the regular season is 288% as important as the playoffs.
To get my value, I averaged these two outcomes to find that the regular season should count 202.4% as
much as the postseason. I left 85% open for the regular season and postseason stats, so of that, about 57% should be
made up of regular season statistics, and 28% of postseason stats. The regular season, though, I split into two
categories. I will split that 57% into Regular Season Winning Percentage and Run Scoring Dominance over
opponents.
Based on these thoughts, I tried to give a percentage value to each aspect of a great team.
Category
Importance
-8-
Roger Weber's Baseball Judgments
Regular Season Winning Percentage
Run scoring dominance over opponents
Games Above Second Place
Postseason Winning Percentage
28.427%
28.427%*
10%
28.146%
*The asterisk next to run scoring dominance over opponents: Run scoring dominance is difficult to define.
A team may either be a dominant defensive team, or a powerful offensive team. For this reason, run scoring
dominance over opponents is split into two categories, each which counts 14.214% of the overall grade.
1.
Average runs per game – team ERA
A great team wins its games by several runs on average. I determined this statistic by
dividing runs scored by the number of games played by the team Earned Run Average.
2.
Percentage of Runs scored in the season
A defensive team might not win its games by great margins, but may score a great majority
of the runs scored in a game. This percentage is determined by dividing a team's runs scored by the
sum of their runs scored plus their team ERA times the number of games played.
If these percentages are added up, the total is only 95%. The other 5% is a small measure of what rank
among all major league baseball teams for that season that this team took. This category serves not any real purpose
other than to punish teams slightly for not winning the World Series or the LCS. Some would say that a team that
doesn't win the World Series should lose almost all of its points, but logically, it isn't fair to totally eliminate the
1954 Cleveland Indians who finished 111-43 but lost the World Series if we also keep the 1987 Minnesota Twins,
who finished 85-77 but won the World Series. Keep in mind also that this is not the only place in which teams are
punished for performing poorly in the postseason. Another 28% of the grade is devoted to a team's winning
percentage in the postseason. This place in the final MLB standings is determined by their place rank among all
teams in MLB after the postseason. A World Series winner will be #1, a W.S. loser #2, an LCS loser either 3 or 4,
etc. The weight of this category shouldn't be focused on as being too small. It simply tweaks the rankings a little,
and is not meant to serve as a major component of the score. The playoff winning percentage of a team is what
really does the job that many on first glance would expect this component to do, and that is punishing teams for not
winning the World Series.
Inserting the Numbers
It would seem to make sense just to multiply a team's totals by the desired percentages, but that would
leave far too much emphasis on games above second place and postseason winning percentage. For that reason, I
tried dividing the desired percentage by the average count for a certain category. This seemed to work, but there
was a problem. With the categories like winning percentage, there is a very small span that these teams cover, yet
with games above second place, there is a large span between best and worst, which left games over second place
counting far more than regular season winning percentage, even with the applied desired percentages, and this was
not my intention.
This led me to consider standard deviations, since they are an accurate span of difference from the average.
What I finally found to be most accurate was to divide the desired percentage by the standard deviation for that
category. By doing this, I made it so the possible difference between the best and the worst teams in that certain
category is equal to the desired percentages of overall grade. This is somewhat confusing, but here is a chart to help
define how the formula was ultimately created. (All winning percentages and % of runs scored are divided by 100.
They are a fraction of 1.)
Category
Winning Percentage
Avg. Runs – ERA
% of runs scored
Standard Dev.
0.04695
x
0.5909
x
0.03869
x
Multiplied by
605.414
25.0547
367.402
-9-
=
=
=
to yield desired percentage
28.427
14.214
14.214
Roger Weber's Baseball Judgments
Games above 2nd
Postseason Win %
Won W.S.?
6.94399
0.17662
0.47848
x
x
x
1.44009
159.36
10.4498
=
=
=
10
28.1457
5
To get the resulting score for a team, I multiplied its season totals by the numbers in the column labeled
"Multiplied by". If this seems crazy to multiply winning percentage by 605, and games above second by just 1.4,
remember that the goal was to make the difference created between the best and worst teams be equal to the desired
percentage. Most of the 605 is guaranteed for every team. Only a small portion of that is different between teams.
Every team on the list has a winning percentage of at least .530, but none has a winning percentage above .741.
Yet, the span between games above second goes from -10 to 30. If you don't understand it, just trust that I spent a
great deal of time figuring this out mathematically.
Scoring the Teams
If you have figured out how the scoring works, you can figure out the team rankings.
Before I expose the team by team rankings, I should give some basic data about the overall findings. (All
winning percentages and % of runs scored are divided by 100. They are a fraction of 1.)
For all teams:
Category
Winning Percentage
Avg. Runs – ERA
% of runs scored
Games above 2nd
Postseason Win %
average standard deviation
0.63285
0.04679
1.68763
0.59228
0.60386
0.03875
8.23874
6.91568
0.6891
0.17716
Average Scores:
Teams
Pre-1920
Post-1920
All
average standard deviation
804.8443
53.89875
744.5767
60.97084
755.979
64.017
Because the average score of teams from before 1920 is so much higher than the average score of teams
from after 1920, it is probably a good idea to eliminate all teams from before 1920 to insure a more accurate rating
system. Certain lurking variables skew the results form before 1920. Mainly, these are that the competition was
poorer, and since the league was smaller, one team could attain more great players. Also, the postseason was
shorter, so it was easier for a team to win all their postseason games. Also, with a smaller league, a team had a
better chance to finish many games ahead of second place.
In my rankings, I will rank all teams in order of score, but I will also give post-1920 teams a ranking among
all teams from that era.
Here is another interesting feature comparing the decades.
Years
1902-1909
1910-1919
1920-1929
1930-1939
1940-41, 1946-49
1950-59
1960-69
average score
832.4726
784.1231
781.5494
804.41
755.2973
740.8345
735.5162
- 10 -
Roger Weber's Baseball Judgments
1970-79
740.9028
1980-89
703.8307
1990-99
726.9237
2000-05
701.387
Obviously, this is not an accurate comparison of all baseball between the decades. What I believe accounts
for the recent decline is the addition of playoffs and the Wild Card, which allows for weaker teams to win the
World Series, and since these rankings include all World Series winners, this may have an impact.
From the 1930s to the 1960s, there is a steady decline. This may be because the leagues were getting larger,
yet there was still just one division in each league, which left for smaller annual "games above second place"
counts. This idea is supported by the average increase in the 1970s, as divisions became a factor.
It is interesting to note that the 2000s have been the weakest years. This can be explained by the fact that
three Wild Card teams have won the World Series. These were weaker teams that would not have been in the
World Series in prior years.
The Teams
111 teams are included in the Rankings.
Note that disparities in the numbers of games played were taken into account in the formula. Also note that
teams from seasons in which there were no playoffs are given an arbitrary, but fair 50% winning percentage in the
playoffs, since it can be safely assumed all teams on the list would have made the playoffs.
Here are the teams listed with statistics and their score at the far right. They are listed chronologically.
1902 Pirates
1903 Boston
1904 Giants
1905 Giants
1906 White Sox
1906 Cubs
1907 Cubs
1908 Cubs
1909 Pirates
1910 Athletics
1910 Cubs
1911 Athletics
1912 Red Sox
1912 Giants
1913 Athletics
1914 Braves
1915 Red Sox
1916 Red Sox
1917 White Sox
1918 Red Sox
Win %
avg. win % runs
0.741 2.73896
0.6866
0.659 2.03091
0.642
0.693 2.66117 0.69005
0.686 2.67494 0.67941
0.616
1.5713 0.63473
0.763 2.81143 0.72202
0.704 1.97779 0.68186
0.643 1.91844 0.65475
0.724 2.48195
0.6874
0.68 2.58364 0.71027
0.675 2.10688 0.64781
0.669 2.58091 0.65004
0.691 2.43481 0.65304
0.682 2.76416 0.67441
0.627 1.94935 0.61674
0.614 1.52623 0.60892
0.669 1.94766 0.64475
0.591 1.08844 0.59028
0.649 2.10623 0.66388
0.595 0.77442 0.57178
- 11 -
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
games
up
post %
score
27.5
0.5 876.497
14.5
0.625 794.386
13
0.5 825.765
9
0.8 859.815
3 0.66667 744.553
20 0.33333 856.777
17
1 898.262
1
0.8 794.923
6.5 0.57143 841.276
14.5
0.8 873.252
13
0.2 727.877
13.5 0.66667 821.781
14 0.57143 818.335
10 0.42857 789.637
6.5
0.8 779.953
10.5
1 796.591
2.5
0.8 809.922
2
0.8 721.207
9 0.66667 796.808
2.5 0.66667 688.856
Roger Weber's Baseball Judgments
1919 Reds
1920 Indians
1921 Giants
1922 Giants
1923 Yankees
1924 Senators
1925 Pirates
1926 Cardinals
1927 Yankees
1928 Yankees
1929 Athletics
1930 Athletics
1931 Athletics
1931 Cardinals
1932 Yankees
1933 Giants
1934 Cardinals
1935 Tigers
1936 Yankees
1937 Yankees
1938 Yankees
1939 Yankees
1940 Reds
1941 Yankees
1946 Red Sox
1946 Cardinals
1947 Yankees
1948 Indians
1949 Yankees
1950 Yankees
1951 Yankees
1952 Yankees
1953 Yankees
1953 Dodgers
1954 Indians
1954 Giants
1955 Dodgers
1956 Yankees
1957 Braves
0.686
0.636
0.614
0.604
0.645
0.597
0.621
0.578
0.714
0.656
0.693
0.662
0.704
0.656
0.695
0.599
0.621
0.616
0.667
0.662
0.651
0.702
0.654
0.658
0.675
0.628
0.63
0.626
0.63
0.636
0.636
0.619
0.656
0.682
0.721
0.63
0.641
0.63
0.617
1.52325
2.15494
1.89455
2.08247
1.72416
1.5626
2.05208
1.63519
3.13117
2.06519
2.41065
1.89532
2.10143
1.84221
2.52649
1.41987
1.49831
2.14753
2.74558
2.70714
2.36273
2.96922
1.54091
1.85961
1.76286
1.61338
1.76584
2.22455
1.68312
1.78506
1.60182
1.58078
2.0013
2.1013
2.06416
1.65026
1.88494
1.93494
1.54299
0.62729
0.62005
0.60508
0.61592
0.59617
0.59479
0.60478
0.5911
0.66426
0.60818
0.62974
0.59064
0.61621
0.60536
0.62046
0.60379
0.58438
0.60971
0.62384
0.63526
0.61602
0.65482
0.60083
0.60424
0.60342
0.60568
0.60332
0.62807
0.59265
0.5885
0.59141
0.60055
0.61911
0.60199
0.63537
0.60538
0.60194
0.60522
0.59095
- 12 -
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
9
2
4
7
16
2
8.5
2
19
2.5
18
8
13.5
13
13
5
2
3
19.5
13
9.5
17
12
17
12
2
12
1
1
3
5
2
8.5
13
8
5
13.5
9
8
0.625
0.71429
0.625
1
0.66667
0.57143
0.57143
0.57143
1
1
0.8
0.66667
0.75
0.57143
1
0.8
0.57143
0.66667
0.66667
0.8
1
1
0.57143
0.8
0.42857
0.57143
0.57143
0.66667
0.8
1
0.66667
0.57143
0.66667
0.33333
0
1
0.57143
0.57143
0.57143
785.258
771.447
735.047
801.371
770.495
701.573
740.966
690.416
928.455
823.205
852.52
771.335
821.878
763.915
877.66
743.317
710.794
749.203
823.583
835.598
840.304
910.923
752.361
807.234
738.205
725.621
744.088
760.973
758.599
797.835
744.439
717.488
781.397
736.372
711.231
800.037
755.295
744.506
720.52
Roger Weber's Baseball Judgments
1958 Yankees
1959 Dodgers
1960 Pirates
1961 Yankees
1962 Yankees
1963 Dodgers
1964 Cardinals
1965 Dodgers
1966 Orioles
1967 Cardinals
1968 Tigers
1969 Orioles
1969 Mets
1970 Orioles
1971 Pirates
1972 Athletics
1973 Athletics
1974 Athletics
1975 Reds
1976 Reds
1977 Yankees
1978 Yankees
1979 Pirates
1980 Phillies
1981 Dodgers
1982 Cardinals
1983 Orioles
1984 Tigers
1985 Royals
1986 Mets
1987 Twins
1988 Dodgers
1989 Athletics
1990 Reds
1991 Twins
1992 Blue Jays
1993 Blue Jays
1994 Expos
1995 Indians
0.597
0.564
0.617
0.673
0.593
0.611
0.574
0.599
0.606
0.627
0.636
0.673
0.617
0.667
0.599
0.6
0.58
0.556
0.667
0.63
0.617
0.613
0.605
0.562
0.573
0.568
0.605
0.642
0.562
0.667
0.525
0.584
0.611
0.562
0.586
0.593
0.586
0.649
0.694
1.70857
0.78792
1.27623
1.64494
1.34321
1.10062
0.98358
0.94309
1.34049
1.24012
1.43198
2.57864
0.91123
1.73889
1.5542
1.1484
1.38901
1.30309
1.81519
1.78012
1.51963
1.35704
1.37395
1.06383
1.08091
0.8584
1.3021
1.62728
0.75074
1.72333
0.22185
0.91654
1.30506
0.88778
1.10012
0.90481
1.0184
1.57158
2.00333
0.60484
0.54708
0.57729
0.59603
0.57681
0.58092
0.5627
0.57185
0.58399
0.58448
0.60449
0.68318
0.56612
0.60815
0.59507
0.59102
0.58715
0.59045
0.60609
0.60114
0.58694
0.58792
0.58384
0.56713
0.57611
0.55649
0.57604
0.59453
0.54856
0.60848
0.5117
0.56703
0.58718
0.55789
0.56486
0.55185
0.55395
0.59041
0.60366
- 13 -
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
10
2
7
8
5
6
1
2
9
10.5
12
19
8
15
7
5.5
6
5
20
10
2.5
1
2
1
2
3
6
15
1
21.5
2
7
7
5
8
4
7
6
30
0.57143
0.66667
0.57143
0.8
0.57143
1
0.57143
0.57143
1
0.57143
0.57143
0.5
0.875
0.875
0.63636
0.58333
0.58333
0.77778
0.7
1
0.63636
0.7
0.7
0.63636
0.625
0.7
0.77778
0.875
0.57143
0.61538
0.66667
0.66667
0.88889
0.8
0.66667
0.66667
0.66667
0.5
0.6
720.33
660.563
707.663
795.169
691.623
767.777
660.487
679.506
775.959
720.569
740.153
807.293
744.48
820.264
720.235
699.026
691.952
705.965
800.763
808.83
720.853
722.824
718.316
667.062
677.091
674.876
731.872
797.398
642.42
788.162
610.305
690.35
758.772
691.23
696.621
685.631
689.21
726.211
808.871
Roger Weber's Baseball Judgments
1995 Braves
1996 Yankees
1997 Marlins
1998 Yankees
1998 Braves
1999 Yankees
2000 Yankees
2001 Mariners
2001 Diamondbacks
2002 Angels
2003 Marlins
2004 Red Sox
2005 White Sox
0.625
0.568
0.568
0.704
0.654
0.605
0.54
0.716
0.568
0.611
0.562
0.605
0.611
1.03917
0.72654
0.7379
2.13679
1.84877
1.42556
0.61654
2.18222
1.17938
1.56309
0.5958
1.92494
0.96407
0.56561
0.53623
0.54393
0.60928
0.61072
0.57359
0.53041
0.6178
0.56611
0.58739
0.53434
0.59358
0.5589
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
1
21
4
-9
22
18
4
2.5
14
2
-4
-10
-3
6
0.78571
0.73333
0.6875
0.84615
0.55556
0.91667
0.6875
0.4
0.64706
0.6875
0.6875
0.78571
0.91667
756.839
671.024
648.043
858.244
738.049
753.111
639.787
755.821
676.254
717.142
636.021
741.5
743.184
Notes
The Florida Marlins have won two World Series', but they make up two of the worst teams on this list,
because neither won the division, and both had fairly poor records, and got "lucky" many times, winning by small
margins. They never got "hot" until the playoffs.
The dynasty of the Oakland Athletics in the 1970s supposedly had some great teams, as they won three
straight World Series titles. However, none of those teams scored above 706, a very poor score eclipsed by even a
Wild Card winner like the 2002 Anaheim Angels.
The 1987 Twins are the lowest ranked team on the list. They finished the regular season 85-77.
The teams from pre-1920 have on average higher rankings than they probably deserve for a number of
reasons, previously mentioned.
Rankings
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
24
26
27
28
29
All Teams
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Team
1927 Yankees
1939 Yankees
1907 Cubs
1932 Yankees
1902 Pirates
1910 Athletics
1905 Giants
1998 Yankees
1906 Cubs
1929 Athletics
1909 Pirates
1938 Yankees
1937 Yankees
- 14 -
1904 Giants
1936 Yankees
1928 Yankees
1931 Athletics
1911 Athletics
1970 Orioles
1912 Red Sox
1915 Red Sox
1995 Indians
1976 Reds
1969 Orioles
1941 Yankees
1922 Giants
1975 Reds
1954 Giants
1950 Yankees
Roger Weber's Baseball Judgments
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
1984 Tigers
1917 White Sox
1914 Braves
1961 Yankees
1908 Cubs
1903 Boston
1912 Giants
1986 Mets
1919 Reds
1953 Yankees
1913 Athletics
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
There is no truly conclusive way to
determine the best team ever. There are so many
different criteria that can be used. Some would say
that a team must win the World Series to be
considered great. Some say that teams from before a
certain time shouldn't be included. The outcome
depends on the formula used, and the qualifications
for teams even to be included. After completing the
comparison, I feel that teams from prior to 1920
should be eliminated. There is a bias that causes them
to get higher scores. This is probably the most
accurate criteria to use.
Teams Post-1920 Only
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
14
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Team
1927 Yankees
1939 Yankees
1932 Yankees
1998 Yankees
1929 Athletics
1938 Yankees
1937 Yankees
1936 Yankees
1928 Yankees
1931 Athletics
1970 Orioles
1976 Reds
1995 Indians
1969 Orioles
1941 Yankees
1922 Giants
1975 Reds
1954 Giants
1950 Yankees
1984 Tigers
1961 Yankees
1986 Mets
15
1953 Yankees
1966 Orioles
1920 Indians
1930 Athletics
1923 Yankees
1963 Dodgers
1931 Cardinals
1948 Indians
1989 Athletics
1949 Yankees
1995 Braves
2001 Mariners
1955 Dodgers
1999 Yankees
1940 Reds
1935 Tigers
1906 White Sox
1969 Mets
1956 Yankees
1951 Yankees
1947 Yankees
1933 Giants
2004 Red Sox
1925 Pirates
1968 Tigers
1998 Braves
1946 Red Sox
1953 Dodgers
1921 Giants
1983 Orioles
1994 Expos
2005 White Sox
1946 Cardinals
1978 Yankees
1916 Red Sox
1977 Yankees
1957 Braves
1967 Cardinals
1958 Yankees
1971 Pirates
1979 Pirates
1952 Yankees
2002 Angels
1954 Indians
1934 Cardinals
1960 Pirates
1974 Athletics
1924 Senators
1972 Athletics
1991 Twins
1973 Athletics
Roger Weber's Baseball Judgments
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
1962 Yankees
1990 Reds
1926 Cardinals
1988 Dodgers
1993 Blue Jays
1992 Blue Jays
1965 Dodgers
1981 Dodgers
2001 Diamondbacks
1982 Cardinals
1996 Yankees
1980 Phillies
1959 Dodgers
1964 Cardinals
1997 Marlins
1985 Royals
2000 Yankees
2003 Marlins
1987 Twins
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Here are my rankings from 1961-2005.
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Other Criteria
Another set of criteria that may be used is the
1947 incorporation of blacks into Major League
Baseball. Truly, blacks improved the quality of play,
and the quality of the competition of the great teams.
It would be interesting to see how Babe Ruth would
perform if he were playing the premier black baseball
players of his day. For this reason, some people like
to eliminate all teams from prior to 1947. Some
people also like to note that the league expanded in
1961, spreading out the good players, reducing their
possible concentrations on great teams. This leaves
the option to consider the 1947-1960 years the best
era of baseball ever.
Here are rankings from the age of post-1947.
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
1954 Giants
1950 Yankees
1984 Tigers
1961 Yankees
1986 Mets
1953 Yankees
1966 Orioles
1963 Dodgers
1948 Indians
Team
1998 Yankees
1970 Orioles
1976 Reds
1995 Indians
1969 Orioles
1975 Reds
1984 Tigers
1961 Yankees
1986 Mets
1966 Orioles
1963 Dodgers
1995 Braves
2001 Mariners
1999 Yankees
1969 Mets
Is there a truly conclusive answer for the
question of best baseball team ever? No. It depends
on what one considers important to a great team.
Everyone's answer is different.
There are so many "What Ifs" for so many
teams. If certain players had stayed healthy, or
certain teams played in different eras, or with
different players, everything could be different. There
is no way to figure those scenarios out, though, so we
must work with what we have. Even then, there are
too many questions to define with too much accuracy
which are the best teams ever. Teams from tens of
years apart never got to play each other, and there
isn't even any comparable competition.
Team
1998 Yankees
1970 Orioles
1976 Reds
1995 Indians
1969 Orioles
1975 Reds
16
Roger Weber's Baseball Judgments
The best five tool players
Developing a formula and analyzing results
March 2006
Babe Ruth is an American icon. Some view him on the same level as Chevrolet and apple pie. He gave
baseball, America's official pastime, its popularity in the 1920s and has ever since been recognized as the greatest
baseball player ever to play the game.
Fans love to debate, especially about the merits of players. Fantasy baseball has recently taken off in
popularity because it gives fans the opportunity to build teams the way they think is best. For years members of the
Society for American Baseball Research have been criticizing the way fantasy baseball is scored and trying to
figure out better ways to determine player strength.
Most fans think they could do a good job managing a team. Every fan has his opinion about what players
are better than others and what traits make a player better than others. Some raise the issue of intangibles. Anybody
who plays strat-o-matic baseball has learned how difficult it is to manage a winning baseball team, especially when
players aren't necessarily chosen by the manager.
In this study, I set out to answer several questions, but most importantly I want to figure out the best way to
measure overall player strength and determine the best players in today's game. I want to compare with stat experts
and those who base their beliefs on observations.
The Study
Position players in baseball are often defined by five characteristics- the ability to run, hit for average, hit
for power, field and throw. This is an unscientific explanation but gives a basic understanding of the skills
necessary to be a baseball player, especially at the major league level.
For a more scientific look at what makes a player valuable, statistician Bill James is the best resource
available. No expert is more respected than James and his calculations in his "Win shares" project are rarely
challenged.
James calculated that different elements of the game should be measured in the following weights to
accurately determine how much each determines a team's ability to win:
17
Roger Weber's Baseball Judgments
Hitting
Baserunning
Pitching
Fielding
45%
3%
36%
16%
Weights for the different stats used in this study are based on these weights, each of which was determined
through extensive analysis by James through his win shares application. For position players, the computation must
be made eliminating pitching, leaving hitting and baserunning as roughly 75% of his worth and fielding as roughly
25%. These are not meant to be universal figures, but as averages. For this formula, their use will be assumed to be
relatively uniform to provide a level way of looking at players.
The formula used is complex, but simpler than it may first appear. Within each basic category defined by
James' percentages above, certain stats are chosen to define a player's strength in the category. Originally, I planned
on using one relatively conventional stat and one stat invented by an organization dedicated to baseball research
deemed by some to be more accurate if less respected by the general baseball community. For some categories,
though, the most accurate way of measuring a player did not quite fit that plan.
In preparing for this study, I was reminded by a member of the Society for American Baseball Research to
use only statistics that truly define the category, to accurately define the category but to keep the calculations
simple using only stats that are deemed vital to showing a player's strength in that category. This is what I have
attempted to do.
At this point, ballpark factor, position weight and a few other small adjustments are made to the score to
assure that the results are not too heavily biased by confounding variables. There are always undetected variables,
most of which affect a score so minimally that they are not worth calculating, but I did try to eliminate most biases.
For elements like ballpark factor, necessary adjustments are made to the factors so that ballpark factor does not
mistakenly affect road games as well as home games. The factor is divided by two to account for just the 81 home
games.
But adding or averaging raw numbers would give ridiculous skewed results so I instead use z-scores to
describe a player's strength in a category. A z-score is the number of standard deviation over the mean. This is a
fairly commonly used way of determining weight compared to others. Taking each category or stat by a desired
percentage given the Bill James weights, I am able to figure out an overall z-score, an overall percentile, a score of
a player's value given the percentage of plays offensively or defensively in which he was involved, and several
other values using this data. Many judgments can be made using the data in this study.
It is important to remember that this study measures a player's strength at what he does. It does not penalize
a designated hitter for not having a fielding position, so although it was not my initial intention, it is best for the
position players' scores, the designated hitter scores and the pitchers scores to remain separate, although there are
ways to compare them that I will explain later.
Position Players
Fielding
Within the component of fielding, different positions must be more skilled at fielding than
others. It is only fair to give a player at a difficult fielding position a higher worth than one at a
weak fielding position. James gives "intrinsic weights" to each fielding position based on the
fielding strength of the position. David Gassko, another statistician, gave his own recalculations of
James' ideas. While he says his numbers are more accurate than James', I use both because James is
so well respected.
In the following chart are James' win share values per position, followed by the
percentages each position contributes to the total defensive output as defined by Gassko and James.
18
Roger Weber's Baseball Judgments
At the far right is an average computation that is used in this study. This is not, however, a final
value. Each of the percentages on the right must be converted into a number usable given the
method that will be used.
C
1B
2B
3B
SS
LF
CF
RF
Win
Shares
5.20
1.67
4.45
3.29
5.00
2.59
David
Gassko
.158
.078
.147
.127
.161
.097
.126
.102
Bill
James
.190
.061
.163
.120
.183
.088
.113
.083
Used in study
.174
.0695
.155
.1235
.172
.0925
.1195
.0925
As said earlier, these are not finalized weights. Each of these must be converted to a value
applicable to the fielding z-score. Taking the percent of the overall fielding weight of a team of
position players given these scores, then figuring the percent of average "intrinsic value"
represented by each of these scores leaves numbers that can be worked into an equation. This
makes it so that players are comparable between positions. A first baseman has an easier fielding
position than a shortstop, so a fielder of the same strength is likely to have a stronger z-score at first
base than at shortstop. The following table is difficult to follow but the figures on the right are the
adjustments made to z-scores to make up for discrepancies between positions defensively.
Catcher
First Baseman
Second Baseman
Third Baseman
Shortstop
Left Fielder
Center Fielder
Right Fielder
Adjusted
Equal
percent
14.08%
-39.92%
9.68%
-0.61%
13.66%
-17.57%
-2.30%
-17.57%
player
0.640576
0.111233
0.594835
0.492022
0.636831
0.673645
0.476078
0.640576
Adj.
to zscore
0.36
-1.23
0.24
-0.02
0.35
-0.45
-0.06
-0.45
As I mentioned earlier, my initial goal was to use two telling statistics about each category.
For fielding, though, the obvious conventional stat is fielding percentage. But while commonly
used, errors and fielding percentage reveal far less about a fielder than his range factor. Errors are
not completely dependant on the fielder and are often a scorekeeper's subjective decision. Craig
Wright wrote an entire book discrediting the keeping of errors, ERA and fielding percentage.
While his discrediting of ERA based on the idea that a pitcher has the responsibility to reduce plays
that cause errors is a fringe idea, he makes good points about errors themselves.
So range factor is the statistic used for position players. For catchers, assists and caught
stealing % are also used but in this study should not be applied heavily to catchers, at least as far as
calculating their defensive worth. Statisticians have worked intensely to try to determine how
exactly to measure a catcher's defense, and those calculations would take up so much space and
19
Roger Weber's Baseball Judgments
time that their conents should be saved for further investigation. I used the most clear statistics but
for catchers, there is too much unexplained area to rely too closely on this study.
There are arguments against range factor, since it depends to a degree on the chances a
fielder gets to make putouts and assists. Over a 162-game season, though, those chances will be
equal enough that the difference is not very statistically significant between two players who play
similar amounts.
This study will tend to lead to mostly shortstops and catchers being near the top of the
fielders list, but this is the intention and makes sense because these are the positions where fielding
is taken to be more important than offense because they are the most difficult fielding positions.
Hitting
Offensive stats need not undergo such intense modification as I performed on fielding stats
because theoretically all players get equal at bats if they play equal numbers of games. Of course,
this study disregards specific situations in batting orders and fatigue factors, etc. except with
catchers, but these are deemed to be fairly minimal so that they will not heavily influence scores.
Again, z-scores are used, this time for three stats. The individual statistics used are Bill
James' runs created statistic and the more commonly used statistics of OBP and Slugging
percentage. The runs created counts half and the other two jointly make up the other half of the
batting score. While this split is arbitrary, it is meant to create a relative balance between
conventional and more unknown but potentially more revealing statistics. As I mentioned earlier,
each is adjusted by slight factors like ballpark adjustment.
One might argue that slugging percentage should count more than on-base percentage since
it counts the number of bases attained with each hit while on-base percentage solely counts each hit
as equal. It seems that slugging average simply lacks walks and sacrifices in its calculation. Onbase percentage, though, is also important since it measures the percentage of the time the player
gets himself in a situation where he can be driven in by another player. Slugging percentage, on the
other hand, gives no weight to the number of times a player gets on base, just to the total number of
bases he attains.
Recent evidence points to situational hitting not really having any statistical difference
from regular hitting. Any perceived difference is likely due to chance, so this is not measured.
While it can be argued that a player who hits a home run once in every four at bats is more
valuable than one who gets a single every time he comes to bat due the runs he is producing, this
argument is made up for by the "runs created" statistic used as the other half of the offensive grade.
Baserunning
Baserunning counts just 3% of the overall score. It is interesting to note, though, a set of
correlations I found doing research. The strongest correlation between a statistic and place in the
standings is with triples, a stat that normally requires good running. This is likely a correlation and
not cause-and-effect because a good team is likely to be aggressive on the base paths, but this is
interesting to note. Teams that had many stolen bases tend to finish low in the standings.
For the running component, a statistic based on logic, but not commonly employed, is
used. Because a player needs to attain four bases while not surrendering more than two outs to
score, an out as a result of an attempted stolen base is twice as costly as the benefit that appears
from one stolen base. Therefore, to measure running ability, difficult to measure in any way but
through stolen bases, the statistic (stolen bases – 2 x caught stealing) is used. Although I invented
this statistic for myself, I discovered doing research that Baseball America invented essentially the
same stat to describe runs created by a player's stolen base attempts. Their statistic is calculated
20
Roger Weber's Baseball Judgments
(0.3 x stolen bases – 0.3 x caught stealing) based on research they did to determine the amount of
runs a player creates per stolen base attempt.
Pitchers
For pitching, the statistics ERA and K/BB are used. The first is the most direct measure of a
pitcher's effectiveness. The second is used because of the conceptual idea that each time a pitcher allows a
ball in play, he allows a 28% chance it will be a hit, 72% chance it will be an out. By allowing bat contact
with the ball or by intentionally walking batters, the pitcher raises his chances of a negative outcome. I
once disagreed with this explanation because strikeouts take several pitches to complete, but so do walks,
so actually a relatively low number in both is ideal. WHIP is another tempting statistic but it is not used,
mainly because while generally informative about a pitcher's quality, it is not a vital or truly telling statistic
of his overall success. Advice I have been given for statistical studies includes keeping studies as simple as
they can be by not using statistics that are unnecessary. In this case, WHIP seems unnecessary.
Bill James' pitching runs formula is a good statistic and is essentially taken into account here since
ratings of ERA are based on a league percentile. I also made the arbitrary decision to eliminate pitcher
fielding and hitting for this study. Both can have an influence, but hitting depends on which league the
pitcher plays in, which isn't usually the pitcher's decision. But pitcher scores are not comparable directly to
hitter scores anyway, so little is lost.
Means and standard deviations to calculate z-scores
Given this information, here are the averages and standard deviations used to determine the percentiles:
Range factor figures:
1B
2B
3B
SS
OF
C
9.625714 5.063889
2.7695
4.5264
2.2454 7.052083
0.538902 0.35667 0.169937 0.358119 0.324906 0.468457
Catcher assists / caught stealing %
A / CS%
182.0547
56.32201
On-base percentage and slugging percentage:
OBP
SLG
0.34921 0.46165
0.032048 0.069088
Runs Created:
RC
94.58766
22.17215
Stolen bases – 2 X Caught stealing:
21
Roger Weber's Baseball Judgments
SB-2CS
4.06
8.821255
Pitching ERA:
ERA
4.1096
0.858241
Pitching K/BB
K/BB
2.700144
1.83479
Going back to the Bill James player weights, this is how each is weighted in this formula, although when
categories are removed because a player does not play a certain position, results may be different, although in the
same proportions.
On base percentage
Slugging percentage
Runs Created statistic
Adjusted SBR
Adjusted range factor
ERA
K/BB
11.25%
11.25%
22.5%
3%
16%
18%
18%
As mentioned earlier, only vital statistics are used. For the categories hitting and pitching, two ideas are
used. For running, there are few statistics that shed much actual light onto a player's running ability rather than his
manager's decision making that can match the all encompassing ideas of SBR. As Craig Wright wrote, fielding
percentage is not a valuable stat, so it is eliminated from the fielding score, leaving just range factor which itself
covers both putouts and assists.
Adding "most valuable" to the ratings
To make these ratings a measure of the most valuable player to his team, a batter's total should be
multiplied by the number of plate appearances he had divided by the number of plate appearances his team had.
For a pitcher, one should measure the z-score times the number of innings pitched divided by the team's
total innings pitched.
Adjusting between position players, pitchers and designated hitters
Although the scores themselves do not correlate as I had at one point hoped, using percentiles based on the
scores, it is possible to compare between these three types of positions. To compare, add the following values to the
player's percentile:
22
Roger Weber's Baseball Judgments
% adj.
PITCHERS
HITTERS
DHs
0
11.3
-8.55
Scores
Offensive players who had at least 486 plate appearances (3 per game) in 2005, catchers who had at least
388 plate appearances (3 per 4 of every 5 games) and pitchers who pitched 202 innings or acquired 38 saves were
measured to determine the means and standard deviations for each category.
144 offensive players and 76 pitchers qualified.
By position, here are the average scores and standard eviations:
1B
2B
3B
SS
OF
C
DH
SP
RP
-0.0625 -0.10346 -0.18222 -0.16906 -0.07673 -0.35525 0.276764 0.123321 0.464521
0.46763 0.311806 0.463242 0.439761 0.380319 0.229872 0.683312 0.215006 0.18003
OVERALL
-0.15827
0.403193
Use the "overall" total to figure out percentiles for calculating most valuable attributes.
The numbers are not surprising. Catchers are often described as the weakest position in baseball. The
pitching and designated hitter scores, as said before, cannot be equated on the same scale. The rank by positions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
First basemen
Outfielders
Second Basemen
Shortstops
Third Basemen
Catchers
By category, here are the leaders and their z-score in that category:
On Base Percentage
B Giles
2.94
Pujols
2.53
A Rodriguez 2.22
D Lee
1.90
Delgado
1.88
Hafner
1.84
T Helton
1.79
J Bay
1.66
V Guerrero 1.65
B Abreu
1.56
Cabrera
1.43
Ortiz
1.31
D Wright
1.22
Slugging Percentage
D Lee
3.82
Pujols
3.00
Delgado
2.75
Ortiz
2.72
Hafner
2.71
V Guerrero 2.34
Cabrera
2.31
Griffey Jr. 2.10
A Jones
2.08
Bay
1.98
Ensberg
1.89
Sexson
1.78
Teixeira
1.75
Runs Created
D Lee
3.00
Pujols
2.72
A Rodriguez 2.71
Ortiz
2.14
Cabrera
1.86
J Bay
1.81
Texeira
1.76
M Ramirez
1.41
M Young
1.41
Delgado
1.33
Tejada
1.07
V Guerrero 1.06
Hafner
1.05
23
Roger Weber's Baseball Judgments
B Roberts
Ensberg
Kent
Jeter
Edmonds
M Ramirez
1.19
1.19
1.18
1.13
1.125
1.04
SBR
Crawford
J Reyes
Rollins
Figgins
Soriano
Furcal
Pierre
Bay
Suzuki
O Cabrera
Lugo
Damon
Podsednik
Abreu
2.94
2.94
2.83
2.71
2.49
2.49
2.15
1.69
1.47
1.47
1.47
1.35
1.01
1.01
Tracy
Edmonds
A Dunn
Konerko
Kent
D Wright
Utley
Glaus
Peralta
Gibbons
Tejada
G Jenkins
B Roberts
1.64
1.45
1.38
1.31
1.29
1.25
1.22
1.20
1.18
1.15
1.13
1.09
1.09
Defense
Inge
2.87
J Reed
2.42
Furcal
2.32
Eckstein
1.95
J Wilson
1.92
Lieberthal 1.71
Pujols
1.71
Lo Duca
1.64
Counsell
1.56
Lugo
1.48
B Clark
1.41
Glaus
1.39
J Lopez
1.39
Damon
1.12
Grudzielanek1.02
Jeter
1.01
Brian Giles finished with the highest on base percentage, helped slightly by the factors that reduce bias. He
had a remarkable year in 2005 that went almost unnoticed. He is not normally quite so strong.
Derek Lee finished very high in several categories. He had an unusually outstanding year in 2005. In 2004,
he would not have even been on any of theses lists.
Ken Griffey Jr. had a great year in 2005 as well. He is not ordinarily this strong. Because these are based on
one year's stats, some players appear on here. Based on historical stats using only certain examples (these do not
include all seasons ever but only some chosen spectacular numbers), here are some additional numbers. Range
factor numbers only began being tracked by Major League Baseball in 1999 so it is difficult to compare between
eras but using average values gives:
On Base Percentage
2004 Bonds
8.32
1921 Ruth
5.42
2001 Bonds
5.35
1927 Ruth
4.59
1961 Mantle
3.38
2004 Edmonds
2.16
2004 Rolen
1.88
2004 Beltre
1.53
2004 Giles
1.33
2003 Beltran
1.31
2004 Overbay
1.125
Slugging Percentage
2001 Bonds
8.36
1921 Ruth
8.19
2004 Bonds
7.31
1927 Ruth
6.65
1961 Mantle
4.88
2004 Beltre
3.74
2004 Thome
2.03
2004 Dunn
1.96
2003 Sexson
1.76
2003 M Ordonez
1.55
2003 Beltran
1.29
24
Runs
1921
2001
1927
2004
2004
1961
2004
2004
2003
2003
2004
Created
Ruth
Bonds
Ruth
Bonds
Pujols
Mantle
Beltre
Edmonds
Sexson
M Ordonez
Dunn
6.50
5.37
5.06
4.14
3.02
3.01
2.48
1.77
1.41
1.32
1.28
Roger Weber's Baseball Judgments
2004 Thome
1.05
2004 Kent
1.14
SBR
1983
1983
1974
1982
2003
7.25
6.57
5.44
4.76
3.28
Defense
1999 A Jones
2000 N Perez
2004 T Hunter
2003 Beltran
2004 Rolen
2004 Beltre
2.59
2.32
2.19
2.01
1.69
1.16
Henderson
T Raines
L Brock
Henderson
Beltran
2004 Rolen
1.25
Following are the top totals by position for 2005:
First Base
Pujols
Lee
Teixeira
Delgado
Helton
Konerko
Tracy
1.54
1.06
.487
.476
.311
.286
.240
Outfield
Bay
V Guerrero
B Giles
A Jones
M Ramirez
Cabrera
Edmonds
Griffey
Abreu
A Dunn
Sizemore
G Jenkins
Damon
Crawford
Suzuki
Sheffield
.718
.599
.570
.495
.469
.455
.402
.373
.331
.325
.276
.258
.236
.228
.197
.188
Second Base
Kent
Utley
M Giles
Soriano
B Roberts
.553
.366
.126
.067
.024
Designated Hitter
Ortiz
.924
Hafner
.736
Third Base
Rodriguez
D Wright
Ensberg
Glaus
Inge
Mora
1.07
.527
.492
.466
.169
.046
Catchers
V Martinez
Varitek
J Lopez
.196
-.088
-.257
Shortstop
Tejada
Jeter
M Young
Furcal
Peralta
Lugo
Eckstein
.512
.439
.433
.277
.236
.157
.134
Following are the top pitcher totals by category:
ERA
Clemens
Pettitte
Halladay
Willis
Carpenter
P Martinez
Santana
Oswalt
Smoltz
Peavy
Buehrle
C Zambrano
2.72
2.08
2.00
1.65
1.49
1.49
1.46
1.45
1.29
1.28
1.21
1.06
K/BB
Halladay
Santana
R Johnson
P Martinez
Peavy
Carpenter
Vazquez
Pettitte
1.80
1.41
.98
.94
.89
.81
.81
.80
25
Closers
Rivera
T Jones
Lidge
C Cordero
Tumbrow
Nathan
Hoffman
.747
.580
.568
.560
.494
.453
.387
Roger Weber's Baseball Judgments
Following are the top overall totals for 2005:
Batters
Pujols
A Rodriguez
D Lee
Bay
V Guerrero
B Giles
Kent
D Wright
Tejada
A Jones
Ensberg
Teixeira
Delgado
M Ramirez
Glaus
Cabrera
Jeter
M Young
Edmonds
1.54
1.07
1.06
.718
.599
.570
.553
.527
.512
.495
.492
.487
.476
.469
.467
.455
.439
.433
.402
Pitchers
Halladay
Clemens
Pettitte
P Martinez
Carpenter
Peavy
Oswalt
Willis
Buehrle
Smoltz
R Johnson
Colon
Towers
.686
.518
.517
.437
.414
.389
.372
.335
.318
.280
.251
.211
.208
Following are the worst totals by position:
Worst
C
OF
SS
3B
2B
1B
players by position
Buck
-1.06
S Stewart
-.710
A Everett
-.858
A Boone
-.778
Cantu
-.489
Erstad
-.80
Applying the determination of value described above, here are some examples. For pitchers, Pettitte edged out
Clemens. The top batters are below:
Player value
1921 Ruth
.318
Pujols
.175
Rodriguez
.125
Lee
.120
Below are some examples from years other than 2005. None are meant to be lists of the greatest seasons ever. They
are just examples:
Historical Batters
1921 Ruth
2.88
2001 Bonds
2.47
2004 Bonds
2.35
1927 Ruth
2.30
1961 Mantle
1.62
2004 Pujols
1.41
Historical Pitchers
1995 Maddux
1.03
1999 P Martinez
1.00
2004 Johnson
.710
2001 Johnson
.600
2004 Halladay
-.040
26
Roger Weber's Baseball Judgments
2004
2004
2004
2003
2003
2004
2004
Beltre
Edmonds
Rolen
Beltran
M Ordonez
Dunn
Giles
1.33
1.09
1.05
.83
.50
.46
.30
Historical Closers
2004 T Jones
-.140
2003 Gagne
1.01
It is interesting to see the scores versus perception and how that affects trades in the majors. The Reds got
away with a good trade, acquiring Dave Williams with a score of -.179 for Sean Casey, a popular and publicly
recognized as very good first baseman. Casey's score was just -.418, though.
Judgments
Fans and "experts" focus mostly on a player's offensive abilities. Defense, although its weight varies from
player to players, is often discredited.
Ideally, players should be measured based on the course of their entire careers, but for my purposes,
calculating regression over every player's career to predict future success is an overwhelming task. This method
works well if one takes time to go through the data and sort out variables that do not correspond to normal
happenings. For example, players like Brian Giles, Todd Jones, Ken Griffey Jr., Roy Halladay and Jeff Kent got
scores exceptionally high for their careers while players like Magglio Ordonez, Jim Thome, Adam Dunn, Jim
Edmonds, Carlos Beltran, Randy Johnson, Adrian Beltre and Scott Rolen scored unusually low. These must be
noticed. If these differences are accounted for, stats based on one season work well enough to define the quality of
players.
Current baseball does not have any players other than Barry Bonds that rank close to Ruth, Mantle or
Bonds. Their scores rank well above any other players in today's game.
Another interesting set of data to view is the correlation between performance and age. It appears that in
today's game young players have very high scores. There are several young stars in addition to Albert Pujols and
Miguel Cabrera. Although the correlation coefficient is very small, it appears that on average, the middle aged
players in the majors are the weakest. There has been a recent increase in middle aged rookies. With steroids, older
players have performed better. There are many possible explanations but this is interesting to see. A graph of the
relationship is below:
27
Roger Weber's Baseball Judgments
Performance vs. age
2
performance
1.5
Performance vs. age
1
0.5
Poly. (Performance vs.
age)
0
-0.5 0
10
20
30
40
-1
y50= 1E-05x 4 - 0.0018x 3 + 0.0969x 2 2.3521x + 20.981
R2 = 0.0146
-1.5
age
Application III
Player performance vs. Salary
There appears to be little direct correlation between player performance and salary. Obviously to an extent
there is a relationship, but salary appears to depend more on other factors like the team's money available, need at a
position, age of the player, etc. Salary also seems to depend more on a player's offensive ability than his overall
ability. Defense is often forgotten because it is not clearly seen in home runs or hits.
The correlation coefficient for a linear model of performance as judged by my formula and salary is only
.0014, meaning the relationship is very weak.
Performance vs. salary
2
performance
1.5
1
Performance vs. salary
0.5
Linear (Performance
vs. salary)
0
-0.5 0
10
20
-1
30
y = 0.0036x - 0.1504
R2 = 0.0014
-1.5
salary
28
Roger Weber's Baseball Judgments
Following are the top 2005 player values per player salary:
Most valuable
J Bay
2.02
D Wright
1.633
Cabrera
1.23
Ensberg
1.09
Utley
1.06
Sizemore
.867
Peralta
.746
Tracy
.716
Crawford
.364
Martinez
.280
Figgins
.252
M Young
.168
Pujols
.140
Lee
.138
B Clark
.138
Teixeira
.134
Inge
.125
Delgado
.119
Here is a graph of player age vs. salary. This is not a very effective way of measuring players because it
does not compare the same player over different periods of time. It uses all different players at different ages whose
careers have gained them varying amounts of respect. Still, there does not appear to much effect at all of age on
salary. It would have been logical to guess that salary might increase with age, then either decrease or remain level
as the player ages. The correlation coefficient here is .0043, very low.
Age vs. salary
50
age
40
Performance vs. salary
30
Linear (Performance
vs. salary)
20
10
y = 0.0545x + 30.417
R2 = 0.0043
0
0
10
20
30
salary
Salary also has only a weak relationship with a team's win totals. One might guess that a good player on a
successful team would make more money because the team's ticket revenue is up and it wants to keep a successful
team together. But because this study compares only the field of players and not multiple cases of one player, any
relationship does not appear.
29
Roger Weber's Baseball Judgments
Salary vs. wins
30
salary
25
Performance vs. salary
20
15
Poly. (Performance vs.
salary)
10
5
0
0
50
100
y = 0.0025x 2 - 0.4151x + 21.691
R2 = 0.0048
150
wins
Often teams make trades of relatively equal money importance to fill holes in the team. This explains to some
extent beyond the reasons already explained why there is a lack of correlation between performance and salary.
Sometimes teams must pay more to a player than they might feel is worth because he fills a void on the team. The
2006 Reds traded away a young successful outfielder for Bronson Arroyo, a pitcher who gained an overall z-score
of -.153 and paid him far more than that value would lead to predict, but the Reds felt a need to improve pitching so
the trade and spending of money, in their minds, was justified.
No one explanation can be given for player salary.
30
Roger Weber's Baseball Judgments
Application IV
Uniform number and Performance
There should not be much relationship between uniform number and performance. Uniform number has
nothing to do with performance. But is it more likely for a good player to choose a large or small number? Most
fans assume position players that take high numbers are only temporary additions to teams. Low numbers are often
defensive stars or good fielders. In today's game, there appears to be a very slight correlation between uniform
number and performance:
Performance vs. uniform number
2
performance
1.5
1
Performance vs.
uniform number
0.5
0
-0.5 0
20
40
60
Linear (Performance
vs. uniform number)
-1
y = -0.0055x - 0.0343
R2 = 0.0211
-1.5
uniform number
31
Roger Weber's Baseball Judgments
It appears, as suspected, that the highest numbers have the lowest scores. Below is a chart of numbers and
the average performance of players in today's game. Only numbers with more than five players that qualified for
scoring qualified. Outliers were eliminated. The number 5 has by far the best score when Albert Pujols is included,
but he and a few other players were taken out so not to skew the data.
#
24
29
5
10
27
23
2
22
13
18
25
7
1
9
Average
score
.232
.029
.015
.006
-.035
-.080
-.169
-.229
-.261
-.303
-.316
-.329
-.366
-.464
With
Outliers
included
.268
.057
.029
-.350
This is not a scientific study and it has a very small sample size. But from the data used, 24 is the best
player uniform number in baseball today and the number 9 is the worst. Of course, this is simply an interesting
piece of information to note. There is no actual relation between uniform number and performance. Uniform
number is due to a player's personal preference or a team's number availability.
32
Roger Weber's Baseball Judgments
Recalculating a tainted record
March 2006
This study appeared at http://baseball-fever.com.
Current Highest single season home run totals:
Bonds
McGwire
Sosa
McGwire
Sosa
Sosa
Maris
Ruth
Ruth
Foxx
Greenberg
McGwire
73
70
66
65
64
63
61
60
59
58
58
58
2001
1998
1998
1999
2001
1999
1961
1927
1921
1932
1938
1997
33
Roger Weber's Baseball Judgments
Gonzalez
Rodriguez
Griffey Jr.
Griffey Jr.
Wilson
Kiner
Mantle
57
57
56
56
56
54
54
2001
2002
1998
1997
1930
1949
1961
Recalculating a tainted record
It has been called the most coveted record in baseball. The single season home run record stood at 60 for 34
years, then at 61 for the next 37. Since then that count has been exceeded six times. This spike in home runs has
caused many to feel the home run has become a stat totally unique today from what it once was. The single season
home run record has been devalued by many fans who feel that steroids have destroyed the home run.
Steroids, though, aren't the only variable that can add to or subtract form a player's home run total. There
has been a steady rise in total home runs in the major leagues since the beginning of the 20th century. This can be
expected. As more players join the game, the talent is sure to improve. Equipment improves, style of play improves
and more is done to make the game more exciting, which often means adding more home runs.
Four major events have drastically affected home run totals. Prior to the 1930 season, baseballs were made
lighter as an attempt to intentionally increase home run production (The Baseball Encyclopedia 2003). The total
number of home runs rose at different rates after the change, depending on the time period used to compare. These
differences average to about a 6% rise in home run production on top of the natural rise. I got this figure basically
by finding the percentage difference over and under the linear model of natural home run rise described later for the
ten years prior and ten years after the re-weighting of the ball, giving more emphasis to years closer to 1930. This
makes older home run hitters' totals more impressive. It is interesting to note, though, that in 1931 a drastic dip in
National League home runs occurred. Some suspect this may be due to secret changes to the ball. This change
should be balanced, though, through a statistic described a few paragraphs later.
In 1947, perhaps the most important change to baseball ever occurred. Blacks began playing the game. By
1957 they made up 11.5% of major league rosters. Based on comparisons between the non-war years leading up to
1947 and the years shortly after 1947 based on percentages of minorities in the game, I have determined that adding
minorities to the game has increased the quality of play by about 13%. For example, in 1954 20% more home runs
were hit than during a comparable year before integration. Of course, these calculations measure the amount of
home runs hit over the amount naturally predicted by the progression of baseball itself. And they do not include
post-1960 results that were skewed by other factors. At that point, blacks made up 7% of the majors. This means
that pre-1947 play is theoretically only about 88% as strong as baseball when minorities make up a decent
percentage of rosters.
Two big events happened in 1961. The regular season was lengthened from 154 to 162 games, giving a
slight benefit to modern players as far as accumulating records like home run totals. Also in 1961, the leagues were
increased in size, spreading out pitching talent, which caused home run production to rise. Each time the league
expands, home run production tends to rise.
The later of these two 1961 changes can be mapped and applied to other confounding variables and league
expansions by using the linear regression model for total home runs hit in per team per year. During a year like
1961, when 8% more home runs were hit than predicted, there were clearly variables that caused totals to rise. In
this study, home run totals are multiplied to make up for these variables.
Another factor that greatly influences a home run total is a player's home ballpark. Since 81 games are
played in that park, a player benefits greatly if fences are short.
34
Roger Weber's Baseball Judgments
The study
The purpose is to put each of the top home run totals on a balanced scale so they can be effectively
compared between years. The study is not exact and does not account for every variable. That must be expected.
There will never be two equal years and thus it does not make sense to account for every possible variable. It can
also be expected that the total number of home runs hit in the major leagues rises at a fairly linear rate. The r^2 for
that linear graph is very high.
On the next page is a graph of total number of MLB home runs per year. This graph does not account for
differences in the number of teams in the league, but does show the linear relationship. An exponential model has
an even higher correlation coefficient, but that appears to be just because of the recent rise in home runs, which
most attribute to increased steroid use and smaller ballparks. For totals pre-1990 a linear model works best.
But for adjustments in the study, four separate graphs are taken for time in between the most noticeable
shifts based on variables described above. Each home run total factored in this comparison is adjusted by the
percentage of home runs hit versus home runs predicted by these individual models and by the overall linear model.
This should make up for confounding variables. Adjustments are made for years during the shifts.
Total MLB home runs by year
total MLB home runs
6000
5000
y = 45.618x - 86939
4000
R = 0.8925
2
3000
Series1
2000
Linear (Series1)
1000
0
-10001850
1900
1950
2000
2050
year
Following are the four equations of the linear models for the eras of home run production:
Years
1900-1929
1930-1941
1947-1960
1961-2005
Equation
y = 31.634x – 59995
y = 17.098x – 31731
y = 53.354x – 102240
y = 64.677x – 124703
Each of the variables described earlier in the study is measured.
The park factor is measured for home games only. Predicted home runs per team divided by actual home runs per
team is used. Other adjustments are made for season length, integration of races and adjustments to the baseball.
Each total is altered, either raised or lowered, based on whether it is higher or lower than whether it gave that player
benefit or harm compared to the norm today. Theoretically, in the end totals are based on what players would have
during a neutral situation in the modern game.
35
Roger Weber's Baseball Judgments
Also, a measurement is taken using a quadratic model of each player's career excluding the year of his large home
run total and any other years in question for injuries, steroid use, etc., predicting the home run total he would have
had based on the other years of his career.
The table following includes the percentages each stat affects the player's home run total to balance between years.
At the right side of the table is each player's predicted total home runs for the year in which they made the list for
top single season home run totals and the highest total that would be reasonable expected by that player given the
variation between his own totals during other years of his career. Several players exceed that total, which is
understandable. It just means his total for that year was unusually high and can be attributed to many variables.
Table: Variables included and (total x value) to yield result
BPK / HR for
adj.
player
homers year
2
yr.
seas.
Race
adj.
Table: predicted
total for career
and 95th%
possible total
career
career
pred
max
ball
adj.
Bonds
73
2001
1.0485
0.864
1
1
1
33
46
McGwire
70
1998
1.005
0.862
1
1
1
40
59
Sosa
66
1998
0.985
0.862
1
1
1
40
48
McGwire
65
1999
1
0.83
1
1
1
38
58
Sosa
64
2001
1.02
0.864
1
1
1
39
47
Sosa
63
1999
0.966
0.83
1
1
1
40
48
Maris
61
1961
1.025
0.922
1
1
1
27
40
Ruth
60
1927
0.985
1.047
1.0519
0.88
1.06
44
57
Ruth
59
1921
1.01
0.826
1.0519
0.88
1.06
37
47
Foxx
58
1932
0.98
0.974
1.0519
0.88
1
39
52
Greenberg
58
1938
0.97
0.995
1.0519
0.88
1
27
49
McGwire
58
1997
1.005
0.897
1
1
1
40
58
Gonzalez
57
2001
0.97
0.864
1
1
1
23
36
Rodriguez
57
2002
0.94
0.867
1
1
1
49
56
Griffey Jr.
56
1998
0.971
0.862
1
1
1
40
59
Griffey Jr.
56
1997
0.971
0.897
1
1
1
40
58
Wilson
56
1930
0.995
0.81
1.0519
0.88
1
29
40
Kiner
54
1949
0.98
1.09
1.0519
0.9
1
42
59
Mantle
54
1961
1.025
0.922
1
1
1
37
56
36
Roger Weber's Baseball Judgments
On the table below in bold is the calculation of the player's total if the variables already discussed are adjusted to
create a balanced field over the years. Of course, that total does not account for variables like steroids. On the right
side is the number of home runs more in the adjusted total than in the predicted value for that player at that time in
his career. It is understandable that these are fairly significant numbers since most players' careers do not conform
exactly to a quadratic model. The large differences, though, like Bonds', Sosa's, and McGwire's, are likely
attributable to their use of steroids. Remember that the likely steroids years were eliminated from each player's
figures used to create the quadratic model.
It is also interesting to see how high Roger Maris' and Luis Gonzalez' totals are compared to what the rest of their
careers predicted. While Maris' can be attributed in part to the changes to the game that occurred in 1961 and while
there is a change Luis Gonzalez' total was affected by steroids, these appear to be simply stellar years by good
baseball players.
# over
# over
pred.
total
career
max
career
pred.
0.9125
66.613
-20.61
33.613
0.867
60.69
-1.69
20.69
0.847
55.902
-7.902
15.902
0.83
53.95
4.05
15.95
0.884
56.576
-9.576
17.576
Sosa
0.796
50.148
-2.148
10.148
Sosa
0.947
57.767
-17.77
30.767
Maris
1.0239
61.437
-4.437
17.437
Ruth
0.8279
54.051
-7.051
17.051
Ruth
0.8859
51.385
0.615
12.385
Foxx
0.8969
52.023
-3.023
25.023
Greenberg
0.902
52.316
5.684
12.316
McGwire
0.834
47.538
-11.54
24.538
Gonzalez
0.807
45.999
10.001
-3.001
Rodriguez
0.833
46.648
12.352
6.648
Griffey Jr.
0.868
48.608
9.392
8.608
Griffey Jr.
0.7369
41.269
-1.269
12.269
Wilson
1.0219
55.185
3.8148
13.185
Kiner
0.947
51.138
4.862
14.138
Mantle
avg.
var.
Bonds
McGwire
Sosa
McGwire
Results
Several of the top totals after adjustment still belong to the big three- McGwire, Sosa and Bonds. If these three were
genuinely clean home run hitters, their feats could be recognized as incredible. If the steroid allegations are truly
false, then the totals in bold are the final numbers for this study. Bonds, McGwire and Sosa would make up the top
six. Most evidence, though, points to steroid use. The fact that the big three mentioned above have totals that so
deviate from the pattern of their early-career home runs supports the claims so widely publicized.
37
Roger Weber's Baseball Judgments
Until the extent to which they used steroids, and the extent to which the steroids affected their play can be made
open and clearly calculated, it is my contention that for the purposes of a mathematical study, there needs to be a
list in addition to the bold totals above that eliminated the characters in the scandals.
If they are included in the list, the following is the adjusted list of the top single season home run totals:
Rank
Player
Actual
Year
Adjusted
1
Bonds
73
2001
66.6125
2
Ruth
60
1927
61.43688
3
McGwire
70
1998
60.69
4
Maris
61
1961
57.767
5
Sosa
64
2001
56.576
6
Sosa
66
1998
55.902
7
Kiner
54
1949
55.18519
8
Ruth
54
1920
54.05119
9
McGwire
65
1999
53.95
10
Mantle
52
1956
52.676
11
McGwire
58
1997
52.316
12
Greenberg
58
1938
52.02299
13
Foxx
58
1932
51.38499
14
Mantle
54
1961
51.138
15
Mays
52
1965
50.232
When the steroid suspects are removed, the list looks like this:
Rank
Player
Actual
Year
Adjusted
1
Ruth
60
1927
61.43688
2
Maris
61
1961
57.767
3
Kiner
54
1949
55.18519
4
Ruth
59
1921
54.05119
5
Mantle
52
1956
52.676
6
Greenberg
58
1938
52.02299
7
Foxx
58
1932
51.38499
8
Mantle
54
1961
51.138
9
Mays
52
1965
50.232
10
Ruth
54
1920
48.84894
11
Griffey Jr.
56
1997
48.608
12
Mays
51
1955
47.98835
13
Kiner
51
1947
47.78435
14
Gonzalez
57
2001
47.538
15
Killibrew
49
1964
46.844
38
Roger Weber's Baseball Judgments
So Ruth wins out. Of course, Ruth played in an era that is difficult to compare to even the era three decades after he
played. For percentage of total home runs hit by one man, Ruth is far and away at the top of the list. His 1921 total,
in my mind, should actually be considered the most impressive ever because he did eclipse so many teams in the
league and so greatly overshadowed all other players in the game at that time. Maris' one great year, though, also
stands out well above many of the other contenders. Ralph Kiner had most of his best seasons in what some call the
best era ever for baseball (1947-1961) because it included integration and was before the league expanded.
These totals may seem low. This is due much in part because more home runs are lost due to the variable
adjustment than are gained. Much of this is based on the assumption that the recent rise in home runs is just that- a
rise- caused by steroids, small ballparks and other factors. Some may fault the study for this, but the top home run
totals are likely helped more than hurt by lurking variables the same way that this formula would also lift the lowest
home run totals. It is only natural that the highest totals come from players in the smallest parks during the longest
seasons during the weakest pitching eras. These effects are negated by these rankings. On the other side, though,
players who play in pitchers' parks during shortened seasons see their totals rise when adjusted.
A few other effects aren't accounted for by the rankings. There was no easy or clear way to determine the
differences caused by night games without sifting through many box scores. It is also difficult to give a value to
lineup position or equipment quality.
Like all baseball questions, there is no clear answer and plenty of room for debate. In the coming years more light
should be shed on the importance of steroids to the recent game. Whenever there is a scandal, trust is lost, even in a
baseball record. Ultimately, though, the great players should stand out. Their performances are inspiring to
millions.
"It's a long drive…the Giants win the pennant, the Giants win the pennant…"
39
Roger Weber's Baseball Judgments
Determining the best Major League
Ballpark
A (mostly) objective comparison to answer a question
not usually answered with statistics
December-January 2006
This study will soon be appearing at http://baseballparks.com.
An orange ray slowly floats across the evening sky and gives way to a deep navy illuminated by four sets
of light towers. A plane of varying shades of green is accented by deep brown dirt. I breathe in the sight, smelling
the sweet scent of freshly shaved grass and hot dogs. Standing up, I hear my feet crunch on peanut shells as I reach
to pay the drink vendor. On either side of my seat is a cupholder. I use the one on my right. My seat is angled that
direction.
I can hear the baseball smacking into the catcher's mit. "Strike three." A chorus of cheers arises around me,
blocking the sound of the steamboat briskly passing a few hundred feet in front of me. An organ begins to chime a
hokey tune when the scoreboard lights up. "Time for the scoreboard mascot race," it blares.
Making my way quickly down the concourses, I join a mob squeezing through the exits. On my way out, I
pass eight foot statues of heroes and others I've never heard of, stars that donned uniforms years ago on the same
field I just sat three feet from this evening. Those thoughts quickly pass from my head, though, as a saxophonist
and a drummer fill my ears with the a jazzy rendition of "Take Me Out to the Ballgame," As we near the car, some
fans in front of us peel off the sidewalk into one of the local bars. I turn around one last time to see the massive, but
40
Roger Weber's Baseball Judgments
unobtrusive production of steel I just spent three hours exploring. Smiling, I think to myself, "I get to come here
again tomorrow."
The preceding is an example of a fun evening at the ballpark. I have loved baseball since a young age and
have always had a fascination with stadia. Many times I have tried to establish ten part formulas or comparative
grading systems to determine the best major league baseball stadium.
I figured that ballparks, which house baseball, a game so intertwined with the world of statistics, should be
graded through statistics. But statistics can only describe part of the story. While thinking about what statistics to
include in a scoring system for major league ballparks, I forced myself to think about why people go to baseball
games.
People go to watch the game of baseball in a comfortable setting, to spend an evening with family, friends
and fellow fans experiencing all the sights and sounds of the ballpark. Fans want to watch the game in an
interesting setting, knowing they can get to and from the park easily, but also knowing they get to see beautiful
sights. Fans want to stuff their stomachs full of hot dogs, peanuts, ice cream and a six dollar soft drink of their
choice. Die hard fans want to experience the history of the game, building on their own knowledge and discussing
the importance of on base percentage and batting average with fans around them, some while keeping a scorecard
of the game.
Choosing ways to compare stadia is difficult. Because there are certain teams I like more than others, I
want to keep my own bias out of the study. I use only objective statistics to determine the results. Giving weight to
those statistics about parks is difficult.
Criteria
I divided the criteria into seven categories: History, setting, aesthetics, fans, and amenities, scoreboard and
concessions. The final three I group into one since they all in part measure the comfort and modernity of a ballpark.
Each of these categories is divided among several subcategories.
To determine weights for each section, I use the following reasoning:
The average age of current MLB teams is 75 years. But the average age of the ballparks is just 20. Because
more modern parks strive so hard to keep older touches from previous parks in them, I am counting history 25/75 of
the total of Comfort, Concessions and scoreboard.
To many fans, this may seem too little weight on history. History is also explained through other weights.
A scoreboard receives extra weight if it has a place where historical facts can be placed.
This rating system is also based greatly on what parks are enjoyable to attend many times during a season.
A park's history is very interesting for a few visits, but after a while, sitting behind a pole may be a greater nuisance
than the knowledge that great players played in the venue is a benefit. Fans also tend to forget that the play
currently occurring in ballparks is giving them history. Just because a park is new does not mean that it will never
develop a great history.
The split between comfort, concessions and scoreboard is fairly arbitrary. I give slightly more weight to
comfort, since a fan's entire experience can be defined by his ability to get to his seat and be comfortable in his seat.
The look and aesthetics of the park is something primarily focused on during the two and a half minutes
between innings (2:30 is the time ESPN and FOX set between innings for commercials, etc.). Multiplying this time
times the 19 inning breaks during a nine inning game, counting before and after the game, is 47.5 minutes.
Therefore, I weigh aesthetics as 47.5/167 the total of comfort, concessions and scoreboard.
The average distance of MLB parks to the center of the city whose team they house is 4.17 miles. Walking
four miles will take about 45 minutes for the average person, and driving this distance at 25 MPH takes 10 minutes.
The average of those two together gives a result of about 27 to 28 minutes to commute to and from the park.
Adding a trip home gives about 55 minutes in commute time. According to the Elias Sports Bureau, the average
MLB game takes 2 hours and 47 minutes, or a total of 167 minutes. The view from the park, determined by its
location, is also a focus of fans between innings. These time totals are factored into the weight of the location,
which I measure as 32.5/175 the total of comfort, concessions and scoreboard.
A park's fans cannot be measured or compared by the same standards. Some fans enjoy lively atmospheres.
Others like the ability to spread out. Some fans spend more time with friends at the game than others. This is one
41
Roger Weber's Baseball Judgments
set of criteria that could only add bias to the results if I gave it a large weight. Therefore, I only give it 12.5/75 the
weight of the three amenity descriptors.
Compiled into percentage values, the weights are as follows:
Category
Weight
Percent
History
25
15.1
Comfort/Amenities
30
18.1
Concessions
22.5
13.6
Scoreboard
22.5
13.6
Location/View
32.5
19.6
Aesthetics
21
12.7
Fans
12.5
7.5
Inside the Criteria
Each of these seven criteria is divided into sub-criteria that I think can to a degree weigh a park's strengths
in that area.
History
The park's age is factored in the equation for two reasons. First, baseball fans tend to respect older stadia
more than glitzy new parks. Second, because so much of the grading is based on amenities, it is only fair that older
parks have an initial advantage because when they were built, today's technologies did not exist.
The age of Yankee Stadium is often confused. From 1974 to 1976, Yankee Stadium was almost completely
torn town and rebuilt. The age of Yankee Stadium is 30 years, not 83, although the Yankees do a nice job of
remembering the history that took place on the same site.
I also measure the quality of history in the park. I measure a great team as one that won the World Series or
held a winning percentage of .670 or better. Included in the rankings is the number of "great teams" that played in
the park.
Perhaps the most important statistic I measure in this section, though, is a park's historical uniqueness. I
measure this by determining the number of parks built before this particular stadium with essentially the same
design.
Baseball stadia are used for 162 games, which means that it is important for a park to be different from
others, so it doesn't get boring. I broke down the parks that exist into certain categories. There are 11 parks that
were unique in their structure. But the others were broken down into the following groups:
My name for the group #
Half cookie cutters
Square multipurpose
The basic HOK
Newer retro
5
description
2
Like the 1970s cookie cutter parks
Without the filled outfield
2
Football stadia in which one side of seats is
Removed and a corner is behind home plate
Stadia designed by HOK in which three sides of the
Field is surrounded by seats, with big scoreboards.
5
Modeled on basic HOK parks but with less outfield
Seating and seat sections called "neighborhoods"
42
Roger Weber's Baseball Judgments
Retro symmetrical
Retractable roof in right
3
2
Parks designed so that it appears there is a wall
Along the center field fence that is the stadium edge
Retractable roof parks in which the roof is in right field and the
rest of the stadium is like an HOK park
This subject can bring about debate, but my breakdowns are based almost solely on the structures of the
park, not on feeling or atmosphere.
Comfort/Amenities
Enjoying a game comfortably means essentially three things: having a comfortable seat and concourse area,
having good sightlines, and being able to easily navigate the park. To describe these aspects of parks, I use seven
statistics.
A comfortable seat most likely appears in a park whose designers took time to ensure its park's seats were
equipped with cupholders. A park with cupholders receives one point. Parks without them get zero.
Ballparks should have concourses with a view of the field. Open concourses allow fans the comfort to
spend time in the concourse without missing the game. The percent of the parks' concourses that are open to the
field is included in the grading.
Navigating a park is essential to an enjoyable visit. Confusing ramps, concourses or aisles can ruin a visit.
Parks are generally less confusing when they can be circled completely on one concourse, when they have a small
number of levels of seats and when each deck does not contain a ridiculous number of rows. A park receives points
if it can be circled internally, and loses points for a large number of tiers and for having more rows in a tier than
other parks. But, a park Citizens Bank Park, in Philadelphia, does not lose points for splitting its upper deck
because doing so lessens the number of rows in the level and opens the concourse.
Sightlines are also graded. The ability to see the action clearly without twisting one's neck or straining one's
eyes is another vital part of an enjoyable ballpark experience. Many new parks have seats angled toward home
plate, which they receive benefit for in the grading. Parks also benefit from having a small amount of foul territory
because foul territory generally pushes the seats back and worsens views. This is measured on a scale of one
through five, as defined by http://legends.stats.com.
Mentioned above, taller parks are punished by the number of rows criteria and the multiple tiers penalty.
Concessions
Baseball is intertwined with food. Baseball fans devour thousands of hot dogs, beer and other fine eats. One's
experience is enhanced, and sometimes even defined, by especially good or bad ballpark food.
Brian Merzbach, creator of ballparkreviews.com, has visited nearly all major league ballparks and graded the
concessions at each in letter grade format. Using a 4 point GPA scale, I turn those grades into numbers and use
them in the rankings.
Unfortunately, Brian does not grade concessions at Chase Field or at the new St. Louis Ballpark, so they are given
the average rating.
Many major league parks have concession items unique to the cities they are in. The cities with the most renowned
signature concessions receive points. The list I gathered is as follows:
Team
BAL
BOS
CHC
Unique food items
Crab cakes
Fenway franks
Italian beef
43
Roger Weber's Baseball Judgments
CIN
CLE
COL
FLA
KC
LAD
MIL
PHI
PIT
SD
SF
Skyline Chili
80 concessions options, brown mustard
Mountain Oysters
Arepa
Barbeque
Dodger dogs
Brats, beer
Cheesesteak (even if it isn't good as what's outside)
Primanti Brothers sandwich
Fish tacos
Polish sausage, garlic fries
A few stadia have unique concourses in which vast options for dining appear. There is a large separator between a
typical concourse and the right field walkway at Camden Yards. The six parks that have areas like this receive
points.
Scoreboard
The scoreboard is, for many fans, the pulse of the game. It informs fans about the game, the past, entertains
them and keeps track of what the fans might forget.
The scoreboard is simply given a value of one through six for how many of the following that it has: video
board, score board, player stats board, team lineups, out of town scoreboard and an extra board for displaying other
information. Scoreboards that display, for example, only one team's lineup get ½ point.
Location/view
The ability to easily get to the park and to have a good view from one's seat greatly improves a fan's
ballpark experience. A fan who goes to 50 games per year at the same park probably enjoys being able to walk to
the park from his office. Once inside the stadium, a dull game can be made interesting by watching an exciting
occurrence or a nice view or nature outside the park.
The distance from the center of downtown is counted. The closer the stadium is to bars, restaurants, parking
garages and offices, the better it is for the fans.
To get Anaheim's distance from downtown, I averaged distances from Anaheim and Los Angeles.
Because Texas is supposed to serve both Dallas and Fort Worth, and because the park was designed to be
halfway between the two cities, I used the distance away from the halfway point to represent the distance from
downtown.
I also measure whether the park has a view of water, a skyline, or a natural setting. But to see those areas,
the park must leave some outfield space open so that fans can see out, so this is graded as well. Dividing the
outfield into five sections, left field corner, left center, center, right center and right field corner, I measure whether
the park has no more than one level of seating plus a little concourse area, at that space. Parks receive a point total
out of five for how many directions have an open view.
Oriole Park at Camden Yards in Baltimore gets 3 points because it is open in center, right and right center.
Some may contend that right center and right field are closed in by the warehouse, but I count the warehouse sides
as open, since the warehouse existed before the construction of the park.
Similarly, the Ballpark in Arlington receives a 1 count for open sides. The team opted to build offices in
center field rather than leave it open because they would be a prettier sight and would add to the Yankee Stadium
feel they tried to give it.
44
Roger Weber's Baseball Judgments
Aesthetics
One cannot objectively grade beauty. One's personal taste cannot be realized through statistics. This is one
area where these rankings are a little lacking. They are based to a great extent on functionality, not on beauty.
There is one thing, though, that almost all baseball fans can agree on. The game is meant to be played on
grass. While the bright green Astroturf is becoming more and more unique, and while cutouts around the bases are
interesting, Astroturf is unsafe and fake. In this section, I give benefit to stadia that have real grass fields.
Beyond that, fans often disagree on what makes a park look good. What I grade on in this section is more
on what makes a park look different, a very important word in an age when 23 ballparks will soon have been
designed in a retro style.
Brick exteriors, while nice during their initial building, have become so commonplace that any other
exterior stone or steel is far more original. I reward parks that have an exterior of a material other than brick.
Modern ballparks, in part due to invention of club seats, seem to almost always follow a three level design,
in which the middle level is the smallest level. This has become so redundant that I feel it necessary to reward
teams who break that style, if only by splitting the upper deck into multiple sections or by combining the first and
second decks.
The third section is in some ways the most important of this section. Based on what unique elements each
MLB website claims its park has, I have put together a list of features I consider unique from each park. Parks then
get a point value based on how many of these features they contain. So as not to hide anything, the following are
the features by team:
Team
ATL
FLA
NYM
PHI
WAS
CHC
CIN
HOU
MIL
PIT
STL
ARI
COL
LAD
SD
SF
BAL
BOS
NYY
TB
TOR
CHW
CLE
DET
KC
Unique elements
Former Olympic Stadium, center field plaza
Out of town scoreboard with clock
Home run apple
Liberty bell, center field museum, flowers above outfield wall
On straight line from capital to monuments
Marquis board, Wrigleyville, ivy, lack of lights, flags, bleachers, Take Me Out to the
Ballgame, housetop seats, the El
Notch, Hall of Fame, Pepsi Powerstacks
Train, center field hill, right field porch, Union station, flag pole in play, short left field line
Sausage race, Bernie Brewer slide, tailgating
88 feet tall, left field ramps, gold bridge, skyline over river
View of arch
Swimming pool, center field wall, path to pitcher's mound, water canons, first baseballonly retractable roof
Mountain Oysters, row of purple seats, clock, fountains and rock garden
Zigzag outfield roof, huge parking lot, parking lot gas station, "Think Blue" sign
Electric company building, grass berm, towers in upper deck
Ocean view, coke bottle, 1920s glove, McCovey cove, trolley car
Warehouse, food walk
Neighborhood, green monster, Ted Williams seat, bleachers, "Citgo" sign, Pesky's pole
Sculpture garden, old Yankee Stadium roof designs
Orange roof lights, catwalks, tilted roof, "The Beach", shopping mall
Hotel, 1st retractable roof
Food concourse
Left field corner space, steel exterior w/ triple tiered suites, sellout streak, Mad Drummer,
catwalks
Ferris wheel, merry-go-round, Water and lights after HRs,
Fountains, King scoreboard, lack of outfield seats
45
Roger Weber's Baseball Judgments
MIN
LAA
OAK
SEA
TEX
Inflated roof
Ornate exterior, fountain, giant "A" in parking lot, Rally Monkey
Excessive foul territory
In-stadium art, bakery
Fortress-like exterior, center field offices, short right field porch, roof overhangs, lake
outside
Fans
Empty parks can be beautiful, but a baseball game in an empty park would be quite dull. While some fans
enjoy being able to move around at a park, a crowd of at least some size is necessary to create an exciting baseball
environment. The intelligence or enthusiasm of the fans cannot be objectively graded, so that is not included. Fans
should judge for themselves based on their own experiences.
Average 2005 MLB attendance is the simplest contributor to this section. A big crowd comes out because
the team is good and because they enjoy games at the ballpark. I also must measure the percent of seats sold.
Fenway Park, for example, seats just 35,000 people but nearly every game there was a sellout in 2005. If the Red
Sox played in a larger ballpark, their attendance may have been much higher.
Because attendance depends so much on whether the hometown team is doing well, I also factor in
attendance per win. This is only fair. If the Pittsburgh Pirates were winning perennial division championships, they
would sell more than 23,000 tickets per game.
The attendance listed for San Francisco is its 2004 total, as the 2005 numbers were skewed because fans
entered the season expecting the team would have Barry Bonds. It did not, and lost more games than expected,
partly because of it.
I also divide attendance by metropolitan city population. Miller Park is in a small city, Milwaukee, so it is
impressive that Milwaukee's attendance is over 27,000 per game. It is not surprising that a gigantic metropolis like
New York City sells far more tickets per game.
For cities with two teams, I divided the area's metropolitan area population in half.
Criteria that was not included
Most parks have plenty of parking if one knows where to go, so that isn't included. There is also no
accurate way to measure the number of local parking spaces. The few parks that appear to lack parking, namely
Fenway and Wrigley, make up for it with great neighborhoods. Few people take cars to Yankee Stadium. This also
explains why there is no benefit for being in a neighborhood.
There is no way to measure how knowledgeable the fans are, or if the stadium is over-policed or underpoliced. Friendliness and intelligence among baseball fans is not possible to accurately measure, so this category
must be left up to the visitor to decide and apply to objective scores. These are also two areas that depend a great
deal on one's own personal experiences at a particular game.
Cleanliness is also difficult to measure. Some of this is covered by the park's age. Obviously a park built 80
years ago will have more stains and discolored cement than a brand new facility. Location also in part determines
cleanliness, as does average attendance. There is again no way to measure this element.
Calculations
There are 27 statistics for each park split over seven general criteria that I defined above. Each of those
general criteria represents a certain percent of the final grade. Those percentages are also given above.
Because each individual statistic is defined on a different number scale, I found the standard deviation of
each. Taking one over that standard deviation, I determined the amount I should multiply the statistic by so that the
46
Roger Weber's Baseball Judgments
difference between the parks in that one category would not be any stronger than the difference in another category.
Basically, I measured the difference within a category and using multiplication found a way I could equally
measure each category into the larger criteria.
I then used the same technique with each of the seven criteria. I took the standard deviation of each,
multiplied it by one over itself, and then multiplied it by the percentage I wanted it to count in the final ranking.
In some of the categories, I did some equal addition to each score to eliminate negative totals.
Following are the averages and standard deviations for each broad category, followed by one over the
standard deviation. This third number is the total each team's section total is multiplied by to equal 100% of the
total score. Each, though, is adjusted to be worth just the percent desired of what it is listed as below.
If this sounds confusing, have trust that the math is fair and equals the weights described above.
History
Comfort
Food
Scorebd.
Location
Aesthetics
Fans
Average
Stdev
4.8673
2.350022
8.721607
4.273805
8.469531
1.967728
4.266667
1.040004
6.04041
2.748403
6.957667
1.780539
14.482
3.006357
1/Stdev
0.425528
0.233984
0.5082
0.961534
0.363848
0.561628
0.332629
Totals
The following are the totals for each section, followed by the overall total for each team.
History
ATL
FLA
NYM
PHI
WSH
CHC
CIN
HOU
MIL
PIT
STL
ARI
COL
LAD
SD
SF
BAL
BOS
NYY
4.378
4.906
6.934
0.844
5.848
7.864
2.506
3.442
2.59
3.4
0.76
4.921
2.032
7.603
1.654
4.252
4.588
10.873
9.355
Comfort
8.9543
8.1392
0.6369
14.5708
5.2662
3.5142
10.9178
11.6308
12.6054
13.7772
12.55105
11.55947
11.4553
1.6064
12.2138
12.99247
9.6743
0.7918
3.9668
Food
7.5375
8.5025
6.03
7.4975
4.5225
10.01
8.5025
8.5025
8.5025
9.5075
6.92646
6.92646
12.9705
8.5025
9.5075
10.01
12.468
11.9655
4.5225
Scorebd.
Location
Aesthetics
4
2.5
4.5
5
3
2
6
6
5
4
5
5
4.5
3
4.5
4
4.5
3
3.5
7.0854
0.6778
2.5616
6.5204
3.1412
8.0014
9.21
7.9256
3.6424
11.1122
7.1758
7.221
7.776
8.2094
7.1758
12.417
7.79
5.2694
1.5818
4.307
7.803
7.803
8.833
7.803
11.923
6.793
6.367
6.793
9.348
5.763
7.892
5.337
9.348
6.862
5.852
6.347
8.338
6.347
47
Fans
13.42679
10.89484
13.68182
14.58836
15.82619
18.563
13.6306
15.63402
16.01648
13.15149
20.24071
12.04494
12.67416
18.75229
17.92248
19.12296
15.41177
15.77666
18.74273
Total
2.845964
2.44038
2.54781
3.288011
2.468467
3.47581
3.466234
3.485435
3.074792
3.755675
3.130695
3.305408
3.343378
3.244239
3.306249
3.809851
3.538155
3.305906
2.565052
Roger Weber's Baseball Judgments
4.336
5.884
5.215
4.279
3.442
5.971
6.178
6.265
7.126
4.879
3.694
4.835133
3.9064
10.6368
14.00047
12.6322
3.3068
8.1322
10.9703
5.4908
11.6378
9.275133
8.488
6.5325
9.9955
9.5075
7.5375
8.5025
6.5325
8.488
8.04
8.04
9.5075
4.5
4
5
6
5
4
2.5
5
3.5
5
4.5
3.774
3.774
3.3672
7.3114
7.79
7.6258
3.8644
4.4425
2.644
6.4034
6.4034
4.615
5.041
7.803
9.863
6.793
6.862
4.526
7.377
5.832
4.307
5.852
7.69802
10.90559
12.89784
12.03726
12.28405
10.9052
11.8508
17.07936
12.30645
16.5774
13.81585
2.442307
2.412285
3.237446
3.820114
3.267259
2.930605
2.408445
3.366394
2.608054
3.187096
3.085683
Average
Stdev
4.8673
2.350022
8.721607
4.273805
8.469531
1.967728
4.266667
1.040004
6.04041
2.748403
6.957667
1.780539
14.482
3.006357
3.103818
0.438859
1/Stdev
0.425528
0.233984
0.5082
0.961534
0.363848
0.561628
0.332629
TB
TOR
CHW
CLE
DET
KC
MIN
LAA
OAK
SEA
TEX
Organized Rankings
Here are the results organized by score for each section.
History
1.
Boston
2.
N.Y. Yankees
3.
Chicago Cubs
4.
L.A. Dodgers
5.
Oakland
6.
N.Y. Mets
7.
L.A. Angels
8.
Minnesota
Worst: St. Louis
Comfort
1.
Philadelphia
2.
Cleveland
3.
Pittsburgh
4.
San Francisco
5.
Detroit
6.
St. Louis
7.
San Diego
8.
Seattle
Worst: N.Y. Mets
Concessions
1.
Colorado
2.
Boston
3.
Baltimore
4.
Chicago Cubs
4.
San Francisco
6.
Chicago W.S.
Worst: Washington
Scoreboard
1.
Cincinnati
1.
Cleveland
1.
Houston
Worst: Minnesota
Location
1.
San Francisco
2.
Pittsburgh
3.
L.A. Dodgers
4.
Cincinnati
Worst: Florida
Aesthetics
1.
Chicago Cubs
2.
Cleveland
3.
Pittsburgh
4.
L.A. Dodgers
4.
Philadelphia
Worst: Atlanta
Fans
1.
St. Louis
2.
San Francisco
3.
N.Y. Yankees
4.
L.A. Dodgers
5.
Chicago Cubs
6.
San Diego
7.
Seattle
8.
Milwaukee
9.
Boston
Worst: Tampa Bay
Some results come to mind that are surprising. Jacobs Field in Cleveland is generally noted to have an
excellent location, and it does. It is in the heart of downtown Cleveland with easy access to bars, restaurants and
hotels. But the park's view is restricted in both left and right fields by the scoreboard and by seats. In comparing it
to, for example, PNC Park in Pittsburgh, the first argument a fan would make for PNC Park as a better facility is
that its location is superior. I agree, but the difference is much closer than that fan would suggest, since PNC Park is
far more difficult to access despite having a miraculous view.
Fenway Park is noticeably low on the "Best fans" list. The Red Sox sold out nearly every game in 2005 to a
capacity crowd of nearly 35,000. The only reason this park is ranked so low is because its capacity is not large
48
Roger Weber's Baseball Judgments
enough to accommodate its fan base, which is a detriment to the park. Red Sox fans, though, are probably better
than eighth best in baseball.
Final Rankings
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
Jacobs Field
SBC Park
PNC Park
Camden Yards
Wrigley Field
Minute Maid Park
The Great American Ballpark
Angels Field
Coors Field
Petco Park
Chase Field
Fenway Park
Citizens Bank Park
Comerica Park
Dodger Stadium
U.S. Cellular Field
Safeco Field
Ameriquest Field
Miller Park
New Busch Stadium
Kauffman Stadium
Turner Field
Network Associates Coliseum
Yankee Stadium
Shea Stadium
RFK Stadium
Dolphins Stadium
Tropicana Field
Rogers Centre
H.H.H. Metrodome
Comments on the best
Read a detailed explanation of my top 5 at http://baseballpilgrimages.com/weber5.html
Jacobs Field
For a purist baseball fan who accepts the fact that old ballparks need to be replaced, Jacobs Field is as good
as it gets. The scoreboard is good and the setting is great for attending games night after night after night. The
architecture blends so well with itself and with the surrounding area that "the Jake" feels like one large block of
steel.
SBC Park
49
Roger Weber's Baseball Judgments
Some may claim PNC Park has a better setting, but I disagree. A compact park loaded with attractions,
SBC matches Jacobs. While Jacobs Field is a great park for true baseball fans, SBC may be the best park for people
looking for fun at the ballpark.
PNC Park
Built after most of the retro wave, the architects of PNC learned from past mistakes and built a compact,
small park that is terrific for its city on an impeccable piece of land.
Camden Yards
I dispute that it started the whole boom. New Comiskey was the first new park. But Camden was the first
retro park. And it survives as a beauty. The right field concourse alone would be a fun place to spend an evening.
Wrigley Field
Some call it the most beautiful sight in the world. While it's old, the scoreboard lacks information, the seats
are small, the concourses are dark and the El can be crowded, Wrigley has character that no other park has yet
matched.
Summary
Jacobs Field is the technical victor. But its rating, of about 3.82, is just slightly more than one hundredth of
a point higher than that of SBC Park, which finished second. This is essentially a toss up, so that is what I will call
it.
An even smaller margin separates Petco Park and Chase Field. Again, this margin could easily be
eliminated by changing any one statistic even slightly, so not much weight should be put into differences between
parks one or two places apart.
Certain parks' rankings can be disputed. Yankee Stadium is counted as 30 years old, which it is. But the
ground on which the stadium sits was once the grounds in which Babe Ruth, Joe DiMaggio and Mickey Mantle
played. The fact that the park sit on such a site counts tremendously for many fans.
The Great American Ballpark is often cited as one of the poorer new parks, but many people who criticize
it might not grasp the historical touches. It takes a while to warm up to the choppy seating bowl. For a purist,
though, this park has the best scoreboard in the game, and one of the best locations.
The Ballpark in Arlington landed surprisingly low on the list. It isn't that it's a bad park. It's that there are
too many really nice parks now. Because Texas' stadium has a relatively shut off view and a less than stellar
scoreboard, its rating dropped. It is still a wonderful park.
Some might also argue that certain pieces of the rankings should be eliminated. Some may argue that a park
is not defined by its fans. Wrigley Field, for example, is greatly defined by the character of the people in the stands.
Others may argue that location should be eliminated because a physical piece of architecture should not be defined
by where it sits. But part of architecture is integrating buildings with their surroundings. PNC Park would not be so
unique if it did not have a view of a skyline and river.
There is no perfect way to rank ballparks. So much of what makes a good park depends on what one
personally feels makes a ballpark great. These rankings do not take into account many aspects of beauty, one of the
most elemental pieces that make a park pleasing.
The rankings here also are based on my calculations of what fans feel to be important in a stadium.
Individual fans have other opinions.
There isn't a bad ballpark in the major leagues. There are only a couple that I would define as less than
enjoyable places to spend an evening. All are houses of baseball, so I can't claim I don't like any single park.
This report is a basic numerical counting of elements that baseball fans look for on a trip to the ballpark.
Baseball is our national pastime. Its cathedrals should be the epitome of America's finest construction.
50
Roger Weber's Baseball Judgments
"The one constant through all the years has been baseball America has rolled by like an army of steamrollers. It
has been erased like a blackboard, rebuilt, and erased again, but baseball has marked the time. This field, this
game, it's a part of our past and reminds us of all that once was good, and that could be again."
-fictional character Terrence Mann in "Field of Dreams"
Articles and essays
Articles
Ballpark identity loss
Small ball
Essays
The 18 best baseball movies
The 21 worst seats in baseball
An early history of baseball
165 major moments in baseball history
The cost of success in baseball
51
52
55
57
59
61
63
66
Roger Weber's Baseball Judgments
Ballpark identity loss
Will baseball's wave of retro ballparks prove to be
another batch of "cookie cutters"?
August 2005
This article is available at http://baseballparks.com under "Park Essays"
Eighty-one times per year,
Kyle Macomber, 17, can see an 80
foot long replica Coca Cola bottle
and the world's largest sculpted
baseball glove. He can hear young
employees shouting the names of
various food products and colas. He
can also see flashing lights and hear
artificial sounds blasted from a
speaker behind his green seat, just a
few feet above an expanse of
shaved grass.
But if he turns his head to
the right he can see a brick wall
where out of town scores are posted
by hand.
Kyle's family has held
season tickets in the first row above
52
the visitors' bullpen at SBC Park in
San Francisco since the stadium
opened in 2000. He attends most
Giants' home games and has since
the park opened. By now the park
feels normal to him.
SBC is just one of the new
retro facilities to be constructed
during the building boom that
Roger Weber's Baseball Judgments
started in 1991 and 1992 with the
opening of the new Comiskey Park,
now renamed U.S. Cellular Field, in
Chicago and Oriole Park at Camden
Yards in Baltimore.
These retro stadiums were
designed to increase revenues for
baseball owners while reminding
fans of baseball's past. Most were
praised at their openings as unique
new ballparks, but now they are
becoming the norm. Sixteen of
these pseudo-historic major league
ballparks have opened since 1990
and seven more are planned to
house teams by 2012.
Eight opened between 2000
and 2004 including the two newest
venues in Philadelphia and San
Diego. Since so many ballparks are
being built at the same time, owners
must keep their parks unique while
matching the once revolutionary
amenities of other teams' homes.
But because so many have been
built during the same time period,
the retro parks have started to look
similar.
In the 1970s, round
multipurpose stadiums were in
vogue. But that trend lost popularity
quickly. Many of those parks were
left demolished or vacant after just
20 or 30 years. The Kingdome in
Seattle closed for baseball after less
than 23 years of housing the
Mariners.
As those parks were torn
down, the current era of retro parks
replaced them. Paul Munsey of
ballparks.com said in an e-mail that
he thinks the retro era of stadium
construction may just be a common
architectural revival that will go out
of style. He said he would not be
surprised if it is criticized as the
"cookie cutter" era was in the
1970s.
The structures of many of
the retro parks are almost alike. All
but three currently in existence have
three decks of seating and the
majority has brick exteriors.
The similarities affect how
the game is played. Since the retro
style began being used in design,
players have tallied the top five
single season home run totals in
major league history. The one
ballpark designed for defense,
Comerica Park in Detroit, was
unappealing to critics. The fences
there were shortened to allow for
more offense just a couple years
after the stadium opened.
Average attendance has
also risen. It was 15% higher in
2004 than in 1990, according to
ballparksofbaseball.com. "Fans get
excited by home runs," said Eric
Pastore of digitalballparks.com in
an e-mail.
Who's to Blame for the
Similarity?
Ballpark enthusiasts Eric
Pastore, Joe Mock, Paul Munsey,
Brian Merzbach and even some
architects recognize that new retro
parks conform to one design style,
but why so many of the same style
have been architected is less clear.
The reason the parks so
resemble each other "comes down
to the fact that only a handful of
architects design the parks in the big
leagues," said Joe Mock, author of
"Joe Mock's Ballpark Guide". HOK
Sport Architects in Kansas City,
Missouri has designed 12 of the 16
new retro major league parks.
HNTB Architects has designed
many retro minor league parks.
These firms have been both
praised and criticized for their
designs.
"They've done good work,"
Mock, creator of baseballparks.com,
said about HOK Sport. He said that
53
"you can tell it's an HOK park" by
looking at its features.
Pastore thinks this is a bad
thing. He said via e-mail that "HOK
and HNTB now just seem to keep
sticking with what they know."
Many retro venues lack imagination
and fail to make him excited, he
said.
Michael H. Westerheid, a
principal architect at HNTB
Architects, agreed with Munsey that
this era is just a "phase" in
architecture. "In twenty years there
will be a new phase that will likely
make the buildings we do today
obsolete."
But he said the architects
are not to blame for the sameness.
"The owner makes decisions
relative to the 'style' and, at this
point, most owners want a 'retro
look'."
A Houston Astros' customer
service representative said in an email that when Houston built Enron
Field, opened in 2000 and renamed
Minute Maid Park in 2002, the
organization wanted to "combine
state of the art features and elements
of traditional ballparks."
Minute Maid Park contains
luxury suites, club seats and wide
concourses. These are all common
in new ballparks.
To be unique, Houston's
stadium contains features like a
replica locomotive that weighs 24
tons. The train is built to reflect the
location of the park, across the
street from Union Station.
Architects of retro parks
have done a "wonderful" job at
doing "something that reflects the
area" in new parks, said Mock. This
is one of the most important jobs of
an architect, he said.
Westerheid, of HNTB
Architects, agreed that location is a
major focus of people in his field.
He said his firm designs parks with
Roger Weber's Baseball Judgments
the goal of creating "a ballpark that
speaks to its community."
An Evolving Sameness
To take advantage of
locations like waterfronts or
warehouse districts, architects have
tweaked their designs to keep the
parks individual. The "designs have
evolved," even since the retro era
began, e-mailed Jeff LeCrone of
small-parks.com.
Comerica Park in Detroit
and U.S. Cellular Field, formerly
Comiskey Park, in Chicago were
both built as part of the retro wave.
But Comerica Park has sculptures
of tigers around the exterior and an
open outfield with a view of the
city. U.S. Cellular Field, which
opened 10 years before Comerica,
has an enclosed outfield and no
such view.
The attitudes of fans toward
the two parks are very different.
Mike Novinson, a Farmington Hills,
Mich. teen, likes Comerica Park
while Jordan Rice of Evanston, Ill.
Despises U.S. Cellular Field.
Novinson said he likes the
decorations and view of the city
from Comerica Park. "You can see
the entire skyline," he said. Rice
said he dislikes U.S. Cellular Field
because of the views and features it
lacks. He said he wouldn't mind if it
gets torn down.
Rice's comments in 2005
contradict
those
of
Sparky
Anderson when the park opened.
"This place feels like real ballpark,"
Anderson said during the first game
played at U.S. Cellular Field,
according to The Sporting News.
Rice, though, thinks the park has
"no personality."
This
evolution
in
architecture has led to criticism of
once praised stadiums like U.S.
Cellular Field, just ten or fifteen
years after they were built. Only
time can reveal whether a continued
evolution in ballpark design will
mean the style employed by
architects today will fall into disuse.
as much as $3.50 to $4.00 and local
specialties are sometimes even
more.
Keeping an Identity
"It will be interesting to see
what everyone thinks in 15/20 years
from now and see how many teams
are seeking new ballparks then,"
said
Matt
Angle
of
ballparksofbaseball.com.
The ways owners have tried
to keep the parks discernible from
one another have convinced some
ballpark enthusiasts that the retro
era will not be remembered as the
"cookie cutter" era of the 1970s
was. "Most of the parks have
enough unique aspects that you
certainly wouldn't confuse where
you are," said Brian Merzbach of
ballparkreviews.com via e-mail.
Fans like Macomber and
Novinson think the retro stadiums
are comfortable. But some wish the
parks were less uniform.
"Many of these retro
ballparks are indeed cookie cutters,"
said
Pastore,
creator
of
digitalballparks.com. He called the
parks "plastic and hollow," two
words that often describe the round,
multipurpose stadiums that opened
in the 1960s and 1970s as the first
venues ever to lack poles supporting
the upper decks and have electronic
scoreboards. He said he doesn't
expect to see imaginative ballparks
soon
because
the architects
designing the parks "keep sticking
to what they know" without daring
to "do something different."
Novinson, though, said he
thinks the retro parks will be looked
at as excellent venues even in the
future. They have a "timeless feel,"
he said.
To try to prevent negative
feelings toward their stadiums in the
future, owners and architects must
try to keep their parks different
from already existing parks.
The massive Coke bottle in
San Francisco is a feature that Coca
Cola uses for advertising, but it also
serves as part of the architecture of
the park.
Retro stadiums like SBC
were designed with specific features
meant to be reminiscent of older
parks. These "throwback" features
have increased in prevalence during
the retro era as architects and
owners look for new ways to make
their stadiums unique.
Minute Maid Park has an
incline 90 feet wide along the center
field wall. The incline is meant to
be reminiscent of a similar slope
that existed at Crosley Field in
Cincinnati. But the incline in
Houston is for aesthetic purposes
only and serves no local historical
purpose.
Pastore,
creator
of
digitalballparks.com,
dislikes
features like this. The architects
"don't seem to have anything in
mind that isn't a throwback," he
said. Houston's incline has a
"contrived look." But "it's a step in
the right direction."
Other attempts to please the
fans like selling local cuisine have
also been employed. "It's pretty
expensive, but it's nice food,"
Novinson said of Comerica Park's
menu. Hot dogs at some parks are
54
Twenty Years from now…
Roger Weber's Baseball Judgments
Paul Munsey isn't sure how
the retro parks will be thought of in
15 or 20 years. He thinks this could
be a trend that will go out of style.
"That's why I'd like to see at least
one of the 1960s or 1970s 'cookie
cutter' stadiums preserved," he said.
Busch Stadium in St. Louis, the last
standing "cookie
cutter,"
is
scheduled to be demolished after
the 2005 season.
The predictions about how
retro stadiums will be remembered
are mixed.
It's nearly "impossible" to
predict, said LeCrone of smallparks.com. "I could give you a
much better answer… in 20 years,"
he joked.
Kyle Macomber, the San
Francisco fan, said he hopes to
attend games for many years. He
said he thinks he will still like
"unique parks like SBC." He added,
though, that it is boring seeing some
of the other retro parks on T.V. He
said he thinks they may someday be
viewed as bland and dissimilar as
the 1970s stadiums. They "will
probably be forgotten and rebuilt
like the parks before them," he said.
Small ball
Baseball's minor leagues have personality
the majors lack
March 2006
In baseball, one day's
failures can be erased the next
sunny afternoon. Domonique Lewis
learned the opposite is also true. In
2004, when he played center field
for the Reds' single-A franchise in
Dayton, he was one of the few
offensive bright spots for a last
place team.
One afternoon in May he
went 5-for-5, an impressive
accomplishment on a team that
rarely scored more than three or
four runs a game. In celebration he
took advantage of the promotional
5-for-5 deal at Arby's- five roast
beef sandwiches for five dollars.
But his decision backfired. He got
55
violently ill and was forced to sit
out the next day's game. But that
wasn't the end of his troubles.
Dayton's manager shamed him the
next day by successfully eating the
five roast beef sandwiches and not
getting sick.
Despite the shortcomings of
that Dayton team, they sold out
Roger Weber's Baseball Judgments
every home game for the fifth
straight year. Though it has just
over 7,000 seats and houses a team
of players closer to college kids
than major league ballplayers, Fifth
Third Field in downtown Dayton
has a live-action video board, an
upper deck and 30 luxury suites.
The
Dayton
Dragons'
franchise is one of the prime
examples of successful minor
league organizations. Since the
early 1990s, the minors have taken
on a whole new meaning to many
fans. 41 million fans crammed into
small fan-friendly ballparks in 2005
and as prices rise and intimacy
disappears in the major leagues,
popularity of minor league baseball
continues to skyrocket.
"MiLB", the abbreviation
an advertising campaign has
recently given minor league
baseball, is meant to try to put the
farm system in closer connection
with the major league teams. But
what has made minor league
baseball so enjoyable over the last
few years has been its ability to stay
small while upgrading its quality in
almost every way.
Four basic levels span the
ranks of amateur kids to impending
major league call-ups and declining
former stars. The talent is about as
good as much of the majors', but
minor league players aren't typically
ruled by multi-million dollar
contracts. They play for peanuts in
cash and a chance to someday make
it out of town to the big leagues.
Player turnover is rampant.
Some players get stuck in double-A
and the fans learn to expect their
names on the lineup cards, but
others are just stopping by on their
quick assent to the pinnacle of their
goals. Sometimes major league stars
get injured and demoted for a
"rehab assignment," giving minor
league fans chances to watch Derek
Jeter or Manny Ramirez from third
row seats for $8.
Most MLB fans don't pay
attention to the little pieces of big
trades, but most major league trades
mean some prospect changes teams.
Major league teams build their
teams differently. Some trade their
prospects for proven aging talent.
Some make enough money on
tickets and $7 beers that they can
buy whatever talent they need. But
a few teams use the classic systempumping young stars through their
minor league system to build a
cheap long lasting dynasty at the
major league level. These teams
along the way create minor league
powerhouses that don't correspond
with the major league team's
success. In the minors success
depends on the big league club, but
getting to see prospects turn into
major league superstars makes it
worth the ups and downs.
What many like best
about the minors, though, isn't only
the talent on the field.
They're a "time machine
to a much simpler and different
time," said Eric Pastore, webmaster
of digitalabllparks.com.
New minor league stadia
are glitzy and full of special effects
and luxury suites, but they still hold
the personality that makes the
minors unique. Seats are good,
prices are cheap and players are
happy to sign autographs. Between
inning promotions like fan eating
competition and dizzy bat races
give the farm system a simple
lighthearted feel.
In Columbus zoo animals
are brought in to perform and in
Louisville a merry-go-round is the
backdrop for the right field foul
pole. In Altoona, PA, there's a roller
coaster over the right field fence. In
Reading there's a hot tub. In
Jacksonville it's a church and in
56
Toledo it's a set of seats wedged
between two buildings called "the
roost". In Lansing it's a huge short
right field fence. In Billings,
Montana several stories of rimrock
are the center field backdrop and in
Columbus there's a sculpture
garden. In Memphis the scoreboard
is shaped like a guitar. In Akron, it's
the Ohio and Erie Canal behind left
field and the "birthplace of the
hamburger" in right- the Menches
Brothers restaurant. In Davenport,
Iowa it's the Mississippi River in
right and in almost all the new parks
there's a grass berm surrounding the
outfield, making baseball really a
day at the park. In the minors
almost every park is unique.
Baseball isn't big business and
winning isn't everything.
Few jobs are harder than
being a minor league beat reporter
or radio broadcaster. Usually these
people must fill up columns and
airtime with information about
players about whom all they know
is a uniform number and a batting
average. There's less focus on the
steroids issue and more on the
ability of the inexperienced pitcher
to hold the majors' next speed
demon on second base.
Not many baseball fans
can
match
the
Kernels,
Lumberkings and Lugnuts with
their respective cities- Cedar
Rapids, Clinton, IA and Lansing if
you're wondering- and even fewer
could tell you the story of Bill Faul,
the pitcher who packed nothing but
a gun in his suitcase for a two-week
road trip, then bit the head off a
parakeet in an Indianapolis locker
room and smashed a mouse in his
pants with a baseball bat.
Most baseball fans would
rather sit 100 feet in the air and eat
$5 hot dogs. And most teams would
rather spend $8 million on an overthe-hill shortstop than take a chance
Roger Weber's Baseball Judgments
on a young speedster with a wild
arm. Major league baseball is great.
There is nothing like seeing the best
players in the world play America's
pastime before big crowds on
national television, but as they say
in Dayton, the Reds didn't create
Dragons' fans, the Dragons created
Reds' fans.
The 18 Best Baseball Movies
January 2006
1.
2.
3.
61*
An unusual and maybe unpopular choice for number one, "61*" is truly a great movie for baseball
fans. The chase for one of the most focused-on records is recounted to a degree of accuracy far beyond
what most baseball films portray. The issue looms even larger in the wake of the steroids scandals and new
potential asterisks. This movie contains enough drama, enough baseball and enough fact along with great
music to be the perfect baseball movie. It's also a nice insight into the world of baseball journalism.
Bull Durham
Probably the most popular baseball movie ever made, "Bull Durham" is almost the sole reason the
Durham Bulls are now a triple-A team and not a single-A team. Stories of the minor leagues like this are
inspiring and leave fans with a warm feeling about the sport. It also hits some interesting points about
superstitions and women's influence on ballplayers.
Field of Dreams
Kinsella's book "Shoeless Joe" was a truly excellent book and this movie, had it followed the book
word for word would have been e clear #1. Instead, the makers of the movie for some reason added loads
of 60s hippie themes and diluted the baseball. The baseball facts are ridiculously inaccurate and even the
trivia about players like Archibald Graham that made the book are changed to be factually wrong in the
57
Roger Weber's Baseball Judgments
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
film. Joe Jackson's character is portrayed fully incorrectly. Still, the father/son themes and look at baseball
as it has affected America is truly inspiring. And the music is phenomenal.
The Natural
Unlike "Field of Dreams", the makers of this movie created an even better scene by not following
the book it was based on. The end scene of this movie has to rank near the top of the list for great sports
scenes. Powerful music, lots of humor and a look at women and health in baseball. Unfortunately most of
the themes are story and not reality.
Major League
It doesn't have the great movie scenes and follows the typical stupid sports movie plot, but the
movie has several great actors in great baseball personalities. But the humor makes this movie so good- it
really is one of the funniest movies dealing with sports.
Baseball: A Film by Ken Burns
Any baseball fan has to love 20+ hours of baseball stats and stories. The movie goes in depth and is
incredibly informative. But watching it, a fan might think the Red Sox won the 1975 World Series. The
movie focuses a lot on big events and less on the pattern of baseball through the years and great teams, but
it is still fun to view. It was filmed in Milwaukee, not Cleveland.
Eight Men Out
"Say it ain't so Joe." "Eight Men Out" is a very good movie and portrays a more accurate depiction
of the players than does "Field of Dreams". The storyline is pretty strict to the story without too many side
stories.
The Sandlot (original)
Almost any kid plays backyard baseball at some point in his life. "The Sandlot" is a famous film
and deservedly so. It's a strong film and full of humor similar to that of "The Little Rascals".
Angels in the Outfield
Corny, full of bad acting and follows a typical sports plot. But for heart warming movies, this one
is great. Seeing an entire stadium, even if it's Oakland's stadium and not Anaheim's, flapping its arms is
humorous and in this movie makes any fan smile.
A League of their Own
Visiting a few minor league parks is much more exciting because of this movie. The Racine team
played in Evansville, Indiana and the signs are still all over that stadium. A surprisingly good movie, "A
League of their Own" sometimes is forgotten because it's about women, but it's still really good.
The Rookie
Whether it specifically follows accurate themes or not this is one of the better baseball movies that
exist. It gives a faint glimmer of hope to any middle aged man who has dreamed of playing in the majors.
Rookie of the Year
The plot is a little improbable but the storyline is original and it's a nice movie to watch if one
doesn't care about the acting.
The Pride of St. Louis
It's old but still quite an impressive movie and very accurate.
Bad News Bears (original)
The remake wasn't nearly as good. It's a good movie that centers on poor kids just wanting to play
baseball and win.
For Love of the Game
Not totally about baseball, it's still an interesting movie to see how baseball can affect a man's life.
Bang the Drum Slowly
Only a few movies involve injuries and sports, but this is one of the better ones.
Major League II
Filmed at Baltimore's Camden Yards, this isn't nearly as good as the first but has the same old
characters, just in less believable roles.
Little Big League
Improbable but fun, this movie reminds a fan of "Rookie of the Year".
58
Roger Weber's Baseball Judgments
The 21 Worst Seats in Baseball
January 2006
1
2
3
4
Under the scoreboard at RFK Stadium, Washington D.C.: Looking at a large plastic box is about all
fans in these seats can do. They may get to watch the one or two plays that occur right against the outfield
wall. After climbing so high to get to the seats, one wouldn't expect to have a view obstructed from above.
Section 191, Safeco Field, Seattle: Upper deck center field bleacher seats right in front of the
scoreboard are bad enough. But when they are quite a ways back from the field and point the wrong
direction, these are certainly among the worst seats in baseball.
Sections 111-112, McAfee Coliseum, Oakland: The seats are very far from the field due to a huge
amount of foul territory. The grade is very gentle, and the seats face directly away from where fans want to
be looking- home plate.
Sitting behind a post, Fenway Park, Boston: Sitting behind a post is worse at Fenway than at
Wrigley because the whole park is more cramped and more obstructed view seats are sold. Plus, only
having one deck, Fenway has many seats quite a ways from the field, sometimes as many as 70 rows from
the nearest grass.
59
Roger Weber's Baseball Judgments
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Section 92, Fenway Park, Boston: The triangle is a unique area in Fenway Park. But most fans
probably don't want to watch two green walls converge for the whole game. Fans in section 92 face directly
outward toward center field. Stiff necks are in store for all who try to actually see the infield.
Section 257, Angels Field, Anaheim: Not only are these outfield seats, but they have to look over
both a concrete surface and the bullpens to see the action. Plus, they aren't sloped very much.
Section 140, Dolphins Stadium, Miami: There are many things to hate about these seats other than
having no protection from brutal summer sun in southern Florida. While first row seats sound nice, and
thus cost a fortune, these seats are angled straight outward so that sitting straight, all a fan sees is deep right
field. The seats also are beautifully low to the ground 300 feet from home plate. But most irritatingly, they
are blocked by a bullpen, a fence and temporary seats. Section 140's first row is a good 50 feet from fair
territory.
Bleacher Section 57, Yankee Stadium, New York: The Yankees did a nice job with the monument
garden, but forcing fans to sit in the first row behind it is a little rough. Good luck seeing the strike zone.
Behind a post down the left field line, Wrigley Field, Chicago: Not only is the view obstructed, but
access to these seats is slow and difficult, especially if one takes the El to the park. Seated far from the
field, a fan's view of the batter might be totally obstructed.
Section 144 of the Moon Deck, Great American Ballpark, Cincinnati: These are fine outfield seats
but for having an obstructed view. The Pepsi Power Smokestacks block the view for some seats for about
40% of the field.
Section 129, Tropicana Field, St. Petersburg: Like many other parks despised by fans, seats here
are not angled. Fans in 129 face the batter's eye restaurant and must see the field above a sort of makeshift
picnic area in the left field corner.
Down the lines, Metrodome, Minneapolis: The Dome is a football stadium, so the seats are not
angled at all for baseball.
Section 520, Jacobs Field, Cleveland: The "V" is a signature feature of "The Jake". Fans in this
section face straight to center field, not toward the infield.
The Upper Deck, Shea Stadium, Queens: This is a stadium that really didn't need an upper deck.
It's ugly, dirty, loud and although much more expensive, about the equivalent of a ride to the top of the
Empire State Building.
Section 300, Bank One Ballpark, Phoenix: There's a reason these seats cost just $1. They face the
wrong way, are about a bazillion feet above the field, and seats can be as many as 80 steps from the tunnel
to the concourse.
Section 98, Right field stands, Camden Yards, Baltimore: For outfield seats, they are pretty near a
concourse and are pretty close to the action. But because of the giant out of town scoreboard and wall, these
seats lack a view of much of right field.
Section 101, Bank One Ballpark, Phoenix: While watching the pool may be amusing, actually
seeing the game is a more difficult task. Fans may sit at about the height of the outfield wall, but the first
row is about 30 feet back from the wall.
Left center upper tier of the lower level, Turner Field, Atlanta: Fans in these seats are just low
enough to have virtually no aerial perception of the game, and they are so far away from home plate that
binoculars do them no good.
Top of section 133 in left field, PNC Park, Pittsburgh: PNC Park is so often praised for its
sightlines it is amazing to see seats like these. Most of fair territory is visible, unless one sits against the
edge of the section closest to the main seating bowl. Then home plate is partially obstructed. 350 feet from
home, the seats in this section are so gently angled and so low to the ground that heads in front of a fan can
obstruct an already terrible view.
Section 147-150, Comerica Park, Detroit: Since the Tigers put in a new outfield wall 20 feet closer
to the infield, fans in the left field bleachers must look over 20 feet of dead space beyond the wall.
Section 49, Ameriquest Field, Arlington: Seats that don't have a view of the scoreboard and are
back from the field due to the bullpens.
60
Roger Weber's Baseball Judgments
The early history of baseball
April 2005
An exhibit at the Cincinnati Museum Center in 2003 was called "Baseball as America." Baseball is often
associated with patriotism. It is a game that matches the spirit of America. A game with such a special history that
is so closely tied with America might be expected to have been founded in the heart of the United States. In reality,
the first written record of the game is from the Duchy of Goltha. In 1797, a game called “das englische Base-ball”
was first described in a rule book. It was not the game that exists today, but was quite similar. The original rule
book was written in German. In this original game, the pitcher stood just a few feet from the batter, and the bases
were very close together. In 1828, the rules were for the first time, printed in English.
In 1834, the first rules of modern baseball were published in The Book of Sports. In 1845, Alexander
Cartwright published a set of official rules that set official field dimensions. Cartwright also managed the first
officially recorded baseball team, the New York Knickerbocker Baseball Club. On June 19, 1846, the first officially
recorded modern baseball game was played. In 1849, the Knickerbockers became the first team to wear an official
uniform.
61
Roger Weber's Baseball Judgments
In 1857, the first league of baseball teams, the National Association of Baseball Clubs, was formed. In the
1860s, pitcher Candy Cummings supposedly threw the first curve ball.
In 1869, the Cincinnati Red Stockings became the first baseball team to be paid for their play, and so are
considered the first professional baseball team. This team evolved into the Redlegs, and then into the Reds, and are
currently one of 30 major league baseball teams. Their first season, they won 57 games and lost 0.
The game continued to evolve, and its popularity grew, and then in 1871, the National Association was
formed. In the first game between two professional teams, Forest City beat Fort Wayne 2-0. 1871 also marked the
first year that batting averages were ever recorded.
In 1876, the National League was formed, similar to the National Association, but with one difference. It
was the first major league. It consisted of eight teams, from Hartford, St. Louis, Chicago, Boston, Louisville, New
York, Philadelphia, and Cincinnati. On April 22, the first game of the league was played as Cincinnati beat
Philadelphia 6-5. On July 15, George Bradley threw the first major league no hitter. Chicago finished first in the
standings that season, with a 52-14 record. Through the late 1800s, several leagues came and went, but none lasted
as the National League has.
Uniforms and equipment began to evolve into what we know today, but rather slowly. Amazingly, 1876
was the first season players ever wore gloves in the field. In 1878, the first official catcher's mask was patented.
In 1892, Benjamin Harrison became the first American president to attend a major league game. Since then,
every president has attended at least one while in office.
In 1893, the pitchers mound was set at 60 feet, 6 inches from home plate.
1895 saw a remarkable change in how the game is watched and truly in how America enjoys food. Harry
M. Stevens was a bookseller in Columbus, Ohio. A few local businessmen approached him about selling scorecards
and ice cream for a local baseball team. He agreed, but one cold day, the ice cream wasn't selling well. Stevens sent
one of his employees around the corner to buy some rolls and sausages. He then put them together and told the guys
to go up into the stands yelling "Get your red hots!" Later, a newspaper cartoonist couldn't spell the name of the
sausage, so he shortened the name to "hot dog." The sausage and roll has since become perhaps the most
recognizable food of America.
At the turn of the century, in 1900, the first pentagonal home plate was used. Baseball had greatly evolved
from its origins over a hundred years before, but it was still just a figment of the game we know today. In 1900,
though, it was quickly becoming America's game, and was definitely ready for the twentieth century.
The first years that both major leagues existed were uncertain years. There was no world series in 1904
because the leagues didn't seem to get along with each other. The leagues worked their differences out, though, and
each slowly grew in power. Early players with names like Cobb, Wagner, Lajoie, and Matthewson helped to spur
the popularity of the game.
The early years were dominated by no particular team, though each league had its power teams. In the
National League, the Pittsburgh Pirates, New York Giants, and Chicago Cubs jockeyed back and forth in the
standings seemingly every year. In the American League, the Chicago White Sox and Philadelphia Athletics
seemed to be dominant.
In 1901, the National League met its closest rival, as the American League was formed. It was the
brainchild of Ben Johnson and Charlie Comiskey. Like the National League, the American League originally had
eight teams. In the first year of the league, Philadelphia shortstop Nap Lajoie captured the Triple Crown, hitting
.422, with 125 RBI and 14 home runs. In 1901, the Chicago Cubs won the National League, and the Philadelphia
Athletics won the American.
1902 saw many player scandals between the two leagues that reached as far as the Supreme Court. The
disputed revolved around Baltimore and the two teams in Philadelphia. They were settled though, and the two
leagues were able to co-exist, separately. In the American League, the Philadelphia Athletics won their first
pennant. This was also the first pennant of Connie Mack, who would go on to manage 50 years. Star pitcher Rube
Waddell won 24 games, and had an ERA of 2.05. Third place Boston, though, had an equally, if not more
impressive young pitcher in Cy Young, who finished 32-11 with a 2.15 ERA.
In the National League, The Pittsburgh Pirates set an all time wins record, finishing with 103, to capture the
pennant.
62
Roger Weber's Baseball Judgments
In 1903, baseball was remarkably changed forever. The American and National Leagues agreed to a nine
game series after the conclusion of the season matching the best team from each league against the other. This
would become known as the World Series, and it would become one of the most special events in sports.
165 big moments in baseball history
1797
1834
1845
1869
1871
1876
1878
1892
1895
1900
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
Origins of Baseball in Duchy of Golgatha as decided by SABR
The Book of Sports includes a description of baseball
Alexander Cartwright published official rules
Cincinnati Red Stockings first team to pay players, finished 57-0
National Association is formed
National League Born, teams in 8 cities
Gloves first used in major league games
Catchers masks first used in the majors
Benjamin Harrison first president to attend MLB game
Hot dog invented in Columbus, Ohio
first pentagonal home plate
Boston and Pittsburgh play first World Series
Giants owner John McGraw refuses to let his team play in the World Series
Jack Chesbro has 41 wins, just two pitchers ever to do so, and threw 48 complete gms.
Chirsty Matthewson gets 3 W.S. shoutouts
Vic Willis loses 29 games
Cubs 116-36, but lose W.S.
Cubs won World Series
Giants' Fred Merkle forgot to touch second base, so Giants lost the Pennant to the Cubs
63
Roger Weber's Baseball Judgments
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
1940
1941
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
Ty Cobb holds career batting average record
Comiskey Park opened
Tris Speaker at peak of career, finished with record 792 doubles
W.H. Taft invents 7th inning stretch
Philadelphia Athletics won World Series
Fenway Park and Tiger Stadium open on the same day
Owen Wilson gets 36 triples in year
Game 2 of W.S. was a tie
Philadelphia Athletics won World Series
Wrigley Field opens
Great Braves comeback
Dutch Leonard finishes with 1.00 ERA
last year for Federal League
Pete Alexander throws 16 shutouts
Oakland's Hundred Dollar Infield
Last Chicago World Series win, White Sox
Red Sox fin final World Series for 86 years
The Black Sox scandal
Jan. 6, Babe Ruth sold to the Yankees
Bill Wambsganss gets only W.S. unassisted triple play
George Sisler gets 257 hits in 154 games
Two teams from same city in W.S. New York
Two teams from same city in W.S. New York
first Yankees World Series win
only Washington Senators World Series win
Hornsby sets single season batting average record .424
World Series won by Pittsburgh
Grover Cleveland Alexander pitched well in 2 straight games, Cards beat Yanks in 7.
Babe Ruth hits 60 Home Runs
Yankees won World Series in 4 games
Philadelphia Athletics won World Series
Hack Wilson's 191 RBI
Baseball would change the way balls were made to cause for more home runs
Earl Webb record 67 doubles in the season
Babe Ruth supposedly calls his shot in the World Series
Mel Ott hit 4 homers in World Series
Carl Hubbell struck out 5 straight hitters in All Star Game
first night game in Major League history, Crosley Field
Yankees win W.S.
Yankees win W.S.
Johnny Vander Meer's consecutive no hitters
Gehrig retires – dying
Baseball first aired on TV
Reds won 2nd World Series
DiMaggio's 56 game hitting streak
Ted Williams is last man to bat .400, at .406
Enos Slaughter comes home from second to break 3-3 tie in game 7 of W.S., Cards win
How Many W.S. have the Cardinals won? 9
Jackie Robinson breaks the color barrier
Bob Feller was the star pitcher of the 1948 Indians
Yankees vs. Red Sox pennant Race, Yankees won
respective stars of Yankees and Red Sox Joe DiMaggio and Ted Williams
Bobby Thompson's shot heard round the world
Eddie Gaedel, 3 ft. 8 plays in majors for 1 at bat
Subway Series between Dodgers and Yankees
The Dodgers vs. the Yankees, Yankees won
64
Roger Weber's Baseball Judgments
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
World Series Game 1, Willie Mays' great catch
Indians 111-43
Subway Series Yankees vs. Dodgers
Don Larsen's perfect game in World Series
Milwaukee was Braves home in 1957
Baseball opens on the West Coast
Harvey Haddux's 12 inning perfect game, loss
Maseroski's shot in Game 7 of World Series
Pirates outscored by greatest margin in W.S. history, but won
Roger Maris' 61 home runs, with asterisk
Two Yankees hit 50+ home runs, if their uniform numbers are added, the total is 16.
Major Leagues expanded, reducing great player concentrations
Willie McCovey's famous lineout at end of 1962 W.S.
The New York Mets lost 120 games in their first year of play.
In Game 1 of the World Series, Sandy Koufax struck out 15 batters.
Willie Mays hit 47 home runs on the way to hitting 660 in his career.
Astrodome opens and Majors see indoor baseball
The Minnesota Twins won their first American League Pennant
Frank Robinson took two of the three "triple crown" categories, home runs and BA
1967 was the last year for the Athletics in Kansas City
Denny McLain is last pitcher to win 30 games
Bob Gibson strikes out 17 in W.S. game 1
Seattle Pilots begin playing as newest MLB franchise
Divisions, LCS formed
Miracle Mets win World Series
Rose overruns, injures Ray Fosse to win the All Star Game in the 12 th for the N.L.
The Pirates are the first team to start nine blacks.
Reggie Jackson homer off Tiger Stadium light tower in all star game
Roberto Clemente gets 3,000th hit before dying
D.H. introduced to the American League
Nolan Ryan strikes out 383
Aaron becomes all time Home Run King
Mike Marshall pitches in 106 games
Fisk's Game 6 Home Run
Frank Robinson becomes first black player-manager
Joe Morgan had the game winning hit in Game 7 of the World Series
Chambliss' home run in top of 9th wins Game 5 of ALCS over Royals 7-6
Cubs outfielder Rick Monday snatched American flag from protesters trying to burn it
Renovated Yankee Stadium opens
Reggie Jackson's 3 homer World Series game
Bucky Dent's home run in Bos.-N.Y. playoff puts Yanks up 3-2
Pete Rose sets N.L. record with 44 game hitting streak
The Pirates won their second W.S. of the decade, one of four teams to do so in the 70s.
George Brett's home run wins ALCS for the Royals
The rage that virtually took over Dodger Stadium in 1981 was Fernandomania.
Rickey Henderson steals 130 bases
The Milwaukee Brewers nearly won the N.L behind starting shortstop Robin Yount.
George Brett caught for putting too much pine tar on his bat, controversy
Tigers start 35-5
Kirk Gibson homers in Game 5 of W.S., gives Tigers win
Rose gets 4,192, actually got record at 4,190 at Wrigley Field
Rose ended up with 4,256 hits
Ozzie Smith hit 9th inning home run in NLCS to lift Cards over the Dodgers
Buckner's error costs Red Sox the World Series, 4 th consecutive 7 game W.S. loss
The 1987 Twins won the fewest games of any World Series champion (85).
Gibson's Game 1 W.S. walk off home run
65
Roger Weber's Baseball Judgments
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Earthquake interrupts World Series
Nolan Ryan recorded 5,000th strikeout
Bobby Thigpen has 57 saves
Rickey Henderson gets 939th stolen base, new record
Nolan Ryan's 7th no hitter
Kirby Puckett's walk off home run in game 6 of W.S.
Jack Morris' 10 inning shutout in Game 7 of W.S.
1992 was the second year of the Braves' consecutive division championships streak.
Camden Yards opened.
Joe Carter's Walk off Blast in Game 6 makes Jays' reign last
3 divisions formed, divisional series
Expos hold baseball's best record
Ripken becomes baseball's ironman, 2,131 games
Braves won 1 world series in three cities, Boston, Milwaukee, Atlanta
12 year old Jeff Maier pulls ball into stands, helps Yanks win ALCS
Roger Clemens struck out 20 in a game for second time in career
Barry Larkin became the first 30-30 shortstop
Interleague Play Begins
Edgar Renteria gets game winning hit in Game 7 of W.S.
McGwire gets 70 homers, Sosa 66
1998 and one other year have 4 of top 5 single season home run totals
Fernando Tatis hit 2 grand slams in one inning in L.A.
Prior to the season, a monumental trade was made between Cle. And Bos. For ManRam
Bonds gets 73
Ichiro Suzuki wins MVP as a rookie
Bonds slugged .863, Ruth holds career record of .690
The Jacobs Field sellout streak ends at 455 games.
Bonds shatters single season walks record, gets 198
Rickey Henderson holds all time walks record
Bartman costs Cubs NLCS
David Ardsma becomes the #1 on the alphabetical listing of all time baseball players
Ichiro Suzuki sets all time hits record, although in 8 more games than old record
White Sox win 1st World Series since 1917
Sosa pulls into first on the all time strikeout list
The cost of success in baseball
The
cost of
success
in
baseball
NYY
BOS
NYM
LAA
PHI
dollars
cost
in
millions wins
per win
208
95 2.189474
123
95 1.294737
101
83 1.216867
98
95 1.031579
95
88 1.079545
66
Roger Weber's Baseball Judgments
STL
SF
SEA
CHC
ATL
LAD
HOU
CWS
BAL
DET
SD
ARI
CIN
FLA
MIN
TEX
OAK
WSH
COL
TOR
CLE
MIL
PIT
KC
TB
92
90
88
87
86
83
77
75
73
69
63
62
61
60
56
56
55
49
48
46
42
40
38
37
30
100
75
69
79
90
71
89
99
74
71
82
77
73
83
83
79
88
81
67
80
93
81
67
56
67
0.92
1.2
1.275362
1.101266
0.955556
1.169014
0.865169
0.757576
0.986486
0.971831
0.768293
0.805195
0.835616
0.722892
0.674699
0.708861
0.625
0.604938
0.716418
0.575
0.451613
0.493827
0.567164
0.660714
0.447761
References
Thanks to the following people who directly helped me with my work:
Bret Begun, Newsweek Magazine
Joe Mock, author of "Joe Mock's Ballpark Guide"
Eric Pastore, digitalballparks.com
Matt Angle, ballparksofbaseball.com
Jeff LeCrone, small-parks.com
Paul Munsey, ballparks.com
Brian Merzbach, ballparkreviews.com
Kevin Reichard, ballparkwatch.com
Tom Karayusuf, Pittsburgh Pirates Offices
Ira Rosen, author of "Blue Skies, Green Fields"
HOK Sport Architects
Mike Westerheid, President of HNTB Architects
Sara L. Williams, Jimmy Carter Center
Gabe Laster, Emory University
Emory University
Chris Dahl, Communications manager, MLB Players Association
Office of the Commissioner of Baseball
The Carter Center
67
Roger Weber's Baseball Judgments
MLB Players' Association
Mike Novinson, fan from Detroit, MI
Jordan Rice, fan from Evanston, IL
Kyle Macomber, fan from San Francisco, CA
Houston Astros Customer Service Department
Pittsburgh Pirates Public Relations
Dan Hart, Pittsburgh Pirates Public Relations Director
Graham Knight, baseballpilgrimages.com
Brandon Heipp, OSU fanatic
Sean Holtz, webmaster of baseball-almanac.com
SABR members at baseball-fever.com, especially SABR Matt
Thanks also to the following resources:
Ira Rosen, Blue Skies, Green Fields, 2001
The Sporting News' Ron Smith, The Ballpark Book, 2000
Joe Mock (baseballparks.com), Joe Mock's Ballpark Guide
The USA Today, The Four Sport Stadium Guide, 1996
The Baseball Research Journal
Baseball Digest
The Baseball Encyclopedia 2006
The Baseball Encyclopedia 2003
Total Baseball
http://ondeckbaseball.com
http://baseball-almanac.com
http://baseball-reference.com
http://mlb.com
http://sports-wired.com
http://fieldsofdreams.com
http://ballparksofbaseball.com
http://ballparks.com
http://google.com Maps
http://digitalballparks.com
http://ballparkreviews.com
http://legends.stats.com
http://baseballparks.com
68