This article is a companion piece to the article, “Baseball’s Best Player.” Suppose that we reversed the assumptions of that article, and rated players by the same method, but walking backward in time, rather than forward. What we would then be asking is not “Who had established himself as the best player in baseball in 1930?” but rather, “Looking forward from 1930, who would be the best player in baseball?”
I figured the same thing as before except backward. Each players “future value” for 1930 was .40 times his Win Shares for 1931, plus .30 times his Win Shares for 1932, plus .20 times his Win Shares for 1933, plus .10 times his Win Shares for 1934.
In a sense, this is closer to what the fanatic fan in interested in—who will be great? The problem, of course, is that it is unknowable for the present. We will not know who ranks as the best right now until we no longer care as much. But that’s part of what makes this issue interesting—that, by walking backward, we can ask “what are the characteristics of those who will be the best in the game, looking forward?”
Of course, this is largely redundant of the previous list. Before, we rated the four-season group 1931-1934 by weighting 1934 at .40 and 1931 at .10; now we are weighting 1931 at .40 and 1934 at .10. This gives essentially the same list most of the time, but occasionally it doesn’t--and, of course, it changes the time frame. . .looking backward, Babe Ruth isn’t established as the best player in baseball until 1919, but looking forward, his era starts in 1916. These are the players who rate as the best in baseball, looking forward, since 1900:
Cy Young 1900
Honus Wagner 1901 to 1907
Ty Cobb ; 1908-1909, 1914-1915
Walter Johnson 1910-1912
Tris Speaker 1913
Babe Ruth 1916-1927
Lou Gehrig 1928-1930, 1932-33
Jimmie Foxx 1931
Mel Ott   1934-35
Joe DiMaggio 1936-37
Ted Williams 1938-1940, 1945-46
Stan Musial 1941-42, 1947-1951
Hal Newhouser 1943-44
Duke Snider 1952
Mickey Mantle 1953-57
Henry Aaron 1958
Willie Mays 1959-1964
Frank Robinson 1965
Carl Yastrzemski 1966
Frank Howard 1967
Pete Rose 1968
Bobby Murcer 1969
Joe Morgan   1970-74
Mike Schmidt   1975, 1977-81, 1983
Dave Parker ; 1976
Cal Ripken   1982
Tim Raines   1983
Wade Boggs 1984-85
Will Clark ; 1986-88
Barry Bonds 1989-94, 1999-2000
Jeff Bagwell 1995
Craig Biggio 1996
Sammy Sosa   1997
Jason Giambi 1998
2000 (Barry Bonds) is the last year we can figure here, since we now have data through 2003. Barry Bonds will probably be replaced by A-Rod or Albert Pujols, or perhaps by someone who is not even on the radar screen yet.
Eight men make this list that didn’t make the other one:
Tris Speaker
Jimmie Foxx
Frank Robinson
Frank Howard
Pete Rose
Cal Ripken
Craig Biggio
Sammy Sosa
While Rogers Hornsby, Charlie Keller, Ron Santo and Rickey Henderson lose their turns.
The question occurs: is one list more legitimate than the other? It is an interesting philosophical question. Time moves in only one direction, which is forward, and thus our view of time looks in only one direction, which is backward. In retrospect, however, we can look backward or forward with equal ease from a point in the past; 1932 is as close to 1935 as it is to 1929. By one method, Jimmie Foxx was never the best player in baseball—but by the other method, he was. So was he or wasn’t he?
It seems to me that he was—or, more accurately, that it is difficult to argue logically that he wasn’t. Looked at in one way, Lou Gehrig was the best player of the years 1932-1935; looked at in another way, it was Foxx. One is no more accurate than the other.
The other question is, “What are the characteristics of those who will be the best players in baseball?” After the 1938 season, looking forward, the best player in baseball would be the 19-year-old Ted Williams, who had yet to play a game in the major leagues. This is the only time that has happened—but there may be a second, if Pujols is able to get past Bonds for the years 2001-2004. This is an age analysis of the players who were to be the best in baseball, 1900-1999, looking forward:
Age Number
|
19
|
1
|
|
20
|
2
|
|
21
|
7
|
|
22
|
7
|
|
23
|
7
|
|
24
|
6
|
|
25
|
9
|
|
26
|
9
|
|
27
|
13
|
|
28
|
10
|
|
29
|
9
|
|
30
|
7
|
|
31
|
4
|
|
32
|
4
|
|
33
|
4
|
|
34
|
1
|
|
Total
|
100
|
Most often, then, the man who will be the majors’ best player is a mature player, 25 years old or older. Barry Bonds was 34 years old in 1999, but was still the best player over the years 2000-2003, making him the oldest man to hold that position, and he will likely hold it as well for the years 2001. Ted Williams was the 19-year-old, and Williams and Musial were the 20-year-olds.
Looking backward from the end of 1956, Mickey Mantle had been the best player in baseball; looking forward, Mickey Mantle would continue to be the game’s best player. Looking backward from the 1980 World Series, Mike Schmidt had been the best player in baseball; looking forward, he would still be the best. I think there were 32 years in the twentieth century for which that was true. .. basically, there is a one in three chance that the player who has been the best will also be the best over the next few years. Very often as well, the player who has been second-best will become the best. Cobb, Gehrig, Musial, Mays, Schmidt and others were second-best before they were the best.
That’s the exception; the rule is that the great players step forward from the ranks of the very good players, and most people establish themselves as one before they become the other.